this is preaching to the choir but friend Byron writes so well I can't help but forward it to you

[Wayne Johnson]

Do recall that the Washington Times is owned by the Ultra Right Wing
Reverand Moon.  These people would do credit to Dr. Goebbels hisself.

wj
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele@ando.pair.com>
To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: this is preaching to the choir but friend Byron writes so well I
can't help but forward it to you


> ===================================================
>                 A  RISKY  STRATEGY
> ===================================================
>
> Employing nine eleven is a risky strategy for an
> Administration which was negligent in 2001.
>
> ===================================================
>
>
> --- Aram wrote:
>
> > Somehow Bush is
> > being represented as a thoughtful, decent person.
>
> [LOL]
>
> > After all that's in his
> > record over the last 3 years, they run a TV ad
> > showing him waving a flag and
> > the crowd goes nuts.
> > Peggy Noonan, a typist at the
> > Washington Times, says,
> > "Powerful, very powerful."
>
>
> Peggy Noonan is a Republican speechwriter.
>
> --Byron
>
>
>
>
> ===================================================
> ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ :
> ===================================================
>
>                A  RISKY  STRATEGY
>
> ===================================================
>
> The nine eleven ad is very interesting.
>
> But is it wise?
>
> The ludicrous image of portraying Bush as the "man who
> defended us against terrorist attack" is perhaps not a
> wise idea on their part.
>
> The Bush team (Bush is just a guy who eats pretzels
> and does warmups in his rumpus room) did not defend
> us.
>
> Bush was as AWOL on the security of this country as he
> was AWOL in the National Guard.
>
> His understanding of national security in 2001 was as
> phony as his flight jacket video op on the aircraft
> carrier.
>
> His incompetence of the same order as the lack of
> planning for the consequences of invading Iraq.
>
>
>                   ~ : ~ : ~ :
>
>
> The simple fact is that Bush did *not* defend us
> against terrorist attack.
>
> Of course, this is prima facie obvious.
>
> Nine-eleven happened and it happened on his watch.
>
>
>                   ~ : ~ : ~ :
>
>
> The refusal to face up to this is avoidance of the
> most unjustified sort.
>
> This avoidance was encouraged because immediately
> after nine eleven, few of the general public knew of
> the level of warnings. As a result, few even thought
> to ask why there wasn't an enhanced air defense.
> (There was a feeble air defense of a very confused
> kind; this has been downplayed, perhaps to avoid
> raising questions.)
>
> Perhaps it was thought that without warnings an
> enhanced air defense wasn't called for.
>
> To the public, the attack seemed to come out of
> nowhere -- although we had been heavily involved in
> the Middle East for many years. Bombardment abroad was
> good entertainment, but we were innocents abroad. The
> implication of earlier terrorist attacks was also
> ignored.
>
> And then of course the white powder showed up, and we
> were under further international attack for a month or
> more.
>
> Thus the media and the public was distracted.
>
> But as has since then turned out to be very clear,
> there were warnings, and plenty of them, lots of them.
>
> Why did the Bush crowd ignore the warnings? History
> will eventually explain why. Incompetence, their plans
> to invade Afghanistan, the usual pop-off nuttiness
> that we have seen again and again since then. The
> point is, they simply let the warnings stand, and did
> nothing.
>
> A bunch of doofusses like this is not what you want in
> charge of your country in perilous times.
>
>
>                   ~ : ~ : ~ :
>
>
> In the absence of full knowledge, the nine-eleven
> issue was shaped in terms of Bush planning "endless
> war" abroad.
>
> Aggression abroad appealed to the far right, a bloc
> which had played an important role in the campaign (it
> was one of Rush Limbaugh's roles to herd this bloc)
> and of course, so did Bush's own lameness and jerk-off
> remarks.
>
> Furthermore (as I mentioned recently) the "politics of
> umbrage" utilized by Rowe right through to the stolen
> election in Florida was also well-suited to shape
> "nine eleven" in terms of bluster and military
> aggression.
>
> In short, the pre-existing Bush style and political
> strategy was ideal for turning attention away from
> their dereliction in 2001.
>
>                   ~ : ~ : ~ :
>
>
> As a result it has taken a while for it to become
> clear just how incompetent they were, how unconcerned
> with elementary issues of American security.
>
> And in fact their reckless agression in the Middle
> East, their cavalier lying to promote it, their
> attacks on civil liberties, are all one of the same
> with their irresponsibility in 2001.
>
> Tragically, it is in their political interest for them
> to continue to carry out aggression (something the
> neocons intend to do in any case) and decrease civil
> liberties.
>
>                     ~ : ~
>
>
> Therefore, there are three very substantial reasons to
> reject the Bush team and vote them out of office.
>
> The first is that it is not in the interests of any
> country to have incompetent jerk-offs running it,
> plunging it into military quagmires abroad.
>
> The second is that it is not in the interests of any
> country to have in office a group of doofusses with a
> sad record of *not* having defended the country.
>
> The third is that their political fortunes benefit
> from expanding war and decreasing liberties -- posing
> an extremely serious risk.
>
>
>                   ~ : ~ : ~ :
>
>
> Poltics as usual allowed the war party to make its
> first major move since Vietnam. Politics as usual has
> to be laid aside to get them out.
>
> Bush and his team of incompetents need to be thrown
> out on their ear.
>
> Their use of "nine eleven" in their first campaign ads
> is an affront to the victims of nine eleven and to the
> families of the victims -- families repeatedly dissed
> by this administration.
>
> But their use of "nine eleven" in their ads is a risky
> strategy on their part.
>
> The more they mis-use "nine eleven", the more they are
> setting up their negligence to be an issue.
>
>
>                    ~  ::  ~
>
> Bush did *not* defend us against terrorist attack in
> nine-eleven. Through incompetence and negligence,
> Bush's crowd and Junior himself did exactly the
> opposite.
>
>
> =====================================================
> --Byron
> =====================================================
>
>