good post steve, thanks for putting this is perspective.
"...and Democrats will exploit this into taking back at least one house of Congress."
let's hope so. these recent polls are good news.
Posted by michael72 at March 2, 2006 11:03 PMFOR GOD'S SAKE STEVE START WRITING ABOUT THE REAL BIG CRIME.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!
THE GOVERNMENTS CONSPIRACY THEORY IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES LAWS OF PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING!!!!
READ ABOUT IT HERE: http://www.st911.org
THIS PORT SCANDLE IS SMALL BEER IN COMPARISON!
Somebody needs to put together multiple national advertising campaigns showing the countless times Republican members of Congress have ostensibly come out swinging only to wilt before Rove's inevitable onslaught. I'm a big fan of neat juxtapositions of "before-and-after" quotes to point out hypocrisy (or, in this case, willingness to renounce your own opinions within scant days) in a way Joe Public will automatically get.
Such a campaign would show many things simultaneously: that these guys always put GOP before country, that their constituents don't count for squat, that they're a bunch of limp weenies with even less backbone than their Democratic counterparts, that the WH slaps them around whenever it feels like it, that no matter how much they pretend to distance themselves from the Bush/Cheney millstone in the months ahead they're joined to the Admin at the hip and have been the Admin's enablers all along, that they're not doing their job (what the heck are we electing them for?), that the basic constitutional structure of the country and the legislative "check/balance" has been completely subverted (why do we even need Congress now?), etc. etc.
There's a clear pattern here, and the patterns need to be pointed out and put on display, vividly and repeatedly.
Posted by KM at March 2, 2006 11:21 PMHere's an idea for the 2nd commenter. Start your own blog.
Posted by merlallen at March 3, 2006 03:47 AMI heard recently on some show (can't remember which one) that summed up the recent polling results beautifully. It went something to the effect, "the only people left supporting the president are people working in his administration".
But being the eternal pessimist here, kkKarl Rove has a discriminatory stealth card up his sleeve...Recently read that they are working to place the "banning of adoption by gay couples/people" issue (similar tactic of the recent gay marriage ban) on the fall ballots in many key states.....obviously in an attempt to rally the republicon taliban voters, who have been rewarded heavily by Bushco with scAlito. Will it be enough to counteract the very strong discontent the large majority of voters feel? Who knows, but I will just keep that in the back of my mind. (And I didn't even get into my fears about the Diebold-vote republicon machines)!
Lastly, KM...you're spot on with that suggestion!
Posted by emal at March 3, 2006 04:43 AMthe question is will the nationalist wing of the R be disgruntled enoough to stay home or vote 3rd party ?
Posted by polimorf at March 3, 2006 05:06 AMand Democrats will exploit this into taking back at least one house of Congress.
That'll be a first. I'd be pleasantly surprised to see a number of Democrats extending beyond a mere handful actually grow a spine and play harball politics.
This port issue is something, but to me it seems that the drop in poll numbers is primarily from Iraq. This is the central issue that continually pulls Bush's numbers down to the cellar. This port issue will come and go, leaving perhaps a small mark on the record, but the Iraq mess is the giant gorilla on Bush and the GOP's back that will not go away. If there's any issue for our hapless Dems. to exploit, it should start with the intelligence failures, the manipulation of intelligence, and the supreme diversion from the actual war on al Qaeda (and bin Laden), and should end with their utter failure to secure Iraq in all aspects as well as rightfully protect our troops to the best of their abilities.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at March 3, 2006 05:29 AMGood post, Steve. For almost 6 years the Republican controlled House and Senate have been in bed with the Bush Administration---and even some Democrats scared to question junior's policies.
Lets hope that for once, the voters not suffer memory loss come November and succumb to fear-mongering, homophobia, and phony patriotism issues.
Posted by Hank at March 3, 2006 05:30 AMIf this happened in September, I think it would cost the Republicans control of the House and Senate, but, having come out now, the Republicans have lots of time to separate from Bush and to redeem themselves. And, I don't think the Dems will be smart enough to take full advantage of this and launch the kind of PR campaign KR has suggested.
Posted by KathyP at March 3, 2006 05:30 AMMisterOpus1, I totally agree with your statement. It's the war stupid!
Posted by Judith at March 3, 2006 05:57 AMDon't bother suggesting alternative theories for 9/11. The government only lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, but its 9/11 story? That's sacrosanct.
Posted by Sharon at March 3, 2006 06:06 AMLittle Boots doesn't care about his legacy or losing his political capital; what he carea bout is repaying his family friends for getting him where he is today.
Posted by Christopher at March 3, 2006 06:11 AMSharon,
Those scientists for 9/11 truth people are, and I hate to be so blunt, crackpots.
If you honestly believe that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition I'm not quite sure what to say to you.
I'll say no more on the subject.
I'm a bit surprised none of the authors here have opined on the "historic" India nuke deal. Or as I like to call it the "Nuclear Proliferation Ain't So Bad Afterall Deal".
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 06:17 AMThe gay bashing 16th century intolerant "Godites" are NOT going to suddenly have an Epiphany and finally see Bush in his true earthly Chimpanzee form, and decide to avoid the poles like leper colonies. This trumped up gay adoption crap will bring them out in droves, for their homophobic "fix".
Single females and poor people comprise the two major demographics who don't vote. They need some motivation, and simple talking points to bring them on board.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 3, 2006 06:27 AMsnark, the more I hear about the nuke deal, the more suspicious it sounds.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 3, 2006 06:35 AMCan anyone blame North Korea and Iran for wanting to join India in gaining admission to the "reward naughty nukers club"?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 3, 2006 06:53 AMThe broader issue is with China. While this deal with India certainly doesn't give Iran and North Korea any incentive to abandon any designs they have on acquiring nuclear weapons it has a bigger impact on China. This deal in effect says that the U.S. undoubtably puts its strategic and economic interest ahead of the drive for non-proliferation. How can we expect China, and Russia for that matter, to do differently. The Chinese are already talking about selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan.
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 07:09 AMI don't believe that he is doing this "for" or "against" any politcal party or with concern of political consequeces-I feel he is doing it because he believes it is the right thing to do.
Posted by at March 3, 2006 07:10 AMI didn't say I believe in the demolition theory, but I DO think the conjobs we have in office made it happen, or let it happen. But you don't want my opinion.
Interesting site about Neo-cons. They believe the ends justify the means.
I got that link from a comment on this Republican woman's blog:
How the neocons stole freedom.
I'm not up to speed on this issue, but perhaps someone can comment on the reason Bush is apparently going to the mat for this public perception loser (and likely security risk).
I assume that there are some extraordinary, irreplaceable military advantages we get from UAE (huge miltary bases, deep water port access) that are essential for continued control of Mid-East oil (aka the "Worre on Terra") that is driving the bizarre need to consummate this port deal at tremendous political cost. And apparently this quid pro quo can't be spoken of openly.
Or perhaps there's some enormous personal monetary benefit for some close Bushco insider.
But there has to be some reason to persist in such political folly.
Posted by euzoius at March 3, 2006 07:25 AMI don't believe that he is doing this "for" or "against" any politcal party or with concern of political consequeces-I feel he is doing it because he believes it is the right thing to do.
"The right thing to do." Maybe it is for the plutocrats that his family is connected to. America somehow survived for over 200 years without foreigners controlling our ports. I seriously doubt that suddenly selling any and all national assets to foreigners is the right thing to do.
I didn't say I believe in the demolition theory, but I DO think the conjobs we have in office made it happen, or let it happen. But you don't want my opinion.
The anonymous poster posted a link to Scholars for 9/11 truth. They very clearly espouse the theory that the World Trade Center buildings could only have come down as they did as a result of controlled demolition. If you have some other evidence, other than your opinion, that the Bush administration "made it happen" I'd be glad to read it. And brush that chip off your shoulder while you're at it.
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 07:26 AMIf this happened in September, I think it would cost the Republicans control of the House and Senate, but, having come out now, the Republicans have lots of time to separate from Bush and to redeem themselves. And, I don't think the Dems will be smart enough to take full advantage of this and launch the kind of PR campaign KR has suggested.
If I had a pony, I'd give it to you, Kathy.
I'd love to think that the Dems could pull off an 8 month media war against the GOP incumbents and win at least one house of Congress in November. It's not like there's any shortage of ammunition.
Problem is, we've been here before, and what happened? The Democrats failed to capitalize on administration follies - the internet bubble bursting and the complete unengagment of the administration, wholesale capitulation to moneyed intrests, the administration's complete bumble in handling the Chinese captur of our Aries spy plane - and they turned into complete chickens on 9-11, questioning the War on Terror, or even making solid case of support on these endevours with reservations. Worse yet, it was obvious to many of us that an Iraq engagment was being sold to us under false or misleading pretenses, and Dems rolled over for the President again because they feared looking weak. What a fucking lot of oxymorons.
And above all, what's happened on electronic voting? Fuck all. We're going to be in the polls in November, and we're not going to have clue as wether or not results match our votes and we have Democrats to blame for this.
So I won't be one bit surprised if the GOP continues its stranglehold on power in the 2006 election.[/caffinated rant]
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 3, 2006 07:26 AMWell here in NY we're apparently going to have some sort of half-assed solution to revamping the voting system come November because the State Legislature couldn't get its collective thumb out of its ass for the past 6 years and specify what types of new voting machines the districts should buy.
I wouldn't doubt the state goes red in November!
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 07:32 AMI'll address the "let it happen" part:
It's incomrehensible to me that NORAD failed to monitor all 4 planes that day, when they had a pretty good track record up to that point.
And my chip is here to stay.
Posted by Sharon at March 3, 2006 07:41 AMI don't think Bush had had a chance to fuck up NORAD yet, but maybe it's true, come to think of it. Just like he later did with FEMA. Hmmm, food for thought.
Posted by Sharon at March 3, 2006 07:45 AMAs long as "Abortion" and "Gay issue" is effectively used by Republicans, Democrats cannot win. Period. The Republican strategy has already begun. Some states are going for anti-abortion laws while some for anti adoption by Gays laws. Sounds familiar to 2004 election period when some states went against Gay marriage laws? Republicans know how to "emotionalize" an election.
Posted by suresh at March 3, 2006 07:52 AMIt's incomrehensible to me that NORAD failed to monitor all 4 planes that day, when they had a pretty good track record up to that point.
Some facts;
Flight #11
NORAD notified that it had been hijacked at 8:38am. It flew into the WTC at 8:46am. That's 8 minutes after NORAD was notified of the hijacking.
Flight #175
Norad notified of hijacking at 8:43am. Fighters were scrambled from Mass. at 8:44 am. The plane didn't deviate from its flight path until 8:50am. It flew into the WTC at 9:02am. That's 12 minutes after it deviated from its flight path and 20 minutes after NORAD was notified. The fighter jets were still 70 miles away.
Flight #77
NORAD was notified of hijacking at 9:25am. Fighters were scrambled and actually took off at 9:35am. The plane struck the Pentagon at 9:38am. 13 minutes after NORAD was notified. The fighters, flying at supersonic speeds reached DC in 14 minutes at 9:49am.
I'm not quite sure what kind of monitoring you are figuring NORAD could have done? Could you explain a bit better what your thinking?
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 08:09 AMOh and I forgot one more reason why the Dems will lose the 2006 election.
89-10. Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Biden, Bayh, Boxer, Kennedy, Obama . . these fuckers are all "leaders" in the Senate, and they all voted for piece of shit.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 3, 2006 08:10 AMIf the Dems didn't vote in favor of the Patriot Act and a terrorist attack occurs, it's the Dems fault.
If the Dems vote in favor of the Patriot Act and a terrorist attack occurs, it's still the Dems fault.
Posted by bbtb at March 3, 2006 08:33 AMsnark, if NORAD wasn't notified in time, then it was the FAA who fell down on the job. From what I've read in the past (no time to look up now, gotta catch the bus for class), there was plenty of time from the time the planes went off course to when they smashed into the towers or pentagon, but the military planes eventually scrambled were from distant bases. I'll look it up later and see if I can find some old info.
Posted by Sharon at March 3, 2006 08:34 AMsnark, if NORAD wasn't notified in time, then it was the FAA who fell down on the job.
Well which is it? NORAD or the FAA?
From what I've read in the past (no time to look up now, gotta catch the bus for class), there was plenty of time from the time the planes went off course to when they smashed into the towers or pentagon, but the military planes eventually scrambled were from distant bases.
It's the Payne Stewart defense. NORAD scrambled jets in 20 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts ill-fated jet but they couldn't do it in the 112 minutes btween the first reporting of hijacking on 9/11 and when the last of the four planes crashed on 9/11. This is a ficticious comparison. As I noted in my comment above there was no significant delay on the part of NORAD in scrambling jets once they were notified by the FAA of hijackings. All of the notifications happened within 20 minutes of the planes ultimately crashing into their targets. Prior to 9/11 NORAD had 11 bases that had fighter jets on ready alert. Planes were scrambled from both bases anywhere near New York and Washington DC. Armed planes were in the air within 5 minutes of the calls to scramble. Getting planes armed and in the air from other bases would not have been possible before the planes struck their targets.
Your initial comment blamed NORAD for not "monitoring the planes" but now you seem more interested in a supposed "delay in intercepting" or launching from distant bases. Needless to say we are a long way from "the administration letting the attacks happen".
Posted by snark at March 3, 2006 08:49 AMSnark writes:
Sharon,
Those scientists for 9/11 truth people are, and I hate to be so blunt, crackpots.
If you honestly believe that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition I'm not quite sure what to say to you.
I'll say no more on the subject.
I'm a bit surprised none of the authors here have opined on the "historic" India nuke deal. Or as I like to call it the "Nuclear Proliferation Ain't So Bad Afterall Deal".
Snark, it's not about expressing your emotional bias or what ideas you can and can't accept. It's about comparing two conspiracy theories. The governments, which isn't physically possible, against the controlled demolition theory which doesn't violate the laws of physics, beautifully explains the phenomena and is therefore the winner.
It's about comparing two conspiracy theories. The governments, which isn't physically possible, against the controlled demolition theory which doesn't violate the laws of physics, beautifully explains the phenomena and is therefore the winner.
Posted by twintowers at March 3, 2006 09:48 AM
Huh?
The controlled demolition theory may not violate the laws of physics, but neither does the reality that both buildings experienced a catastrophic failure after a consistent weakening of their interior support structure due to fire and impact damage.
What part of the government's assumptions do you suppose are incorrect? And why do these errors rise above a level over reasonable doubt which then causes you to belive complete idiocy?
Good god, people. It's only Newtonian physics - something we all learned about starting in elementary school. If I need to, I'll personally answer every damn question you don't understand.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 3, 2006 10:15 AMThanks, Steve! :-)
Posted by Christopher at March 3, 2006 10:30 AMSnark, it's not about expressing your emotional bias or what ideas you can and can't accept. It's about comparing two conspiracy theories.
Fine.
The governments, which isn't physically possible,...
Is that the scientific consensus? Or are you basing that strictly on st911.org? Please explain to me the physical impossibility.
... against the controlled demolition theory which doesn't violate the laws of physics, beautifully explains the phenomena and is therefore the winner.
So with no other evidence that a controlled demolition took place you simply accept that that's what happened? This was not a physical experiment carried out in a lab. This was an event that caused an unknown extent of damage to these buildings. Yet you know it was a controlled demolition? Not at all odd to you that the government could pull off such a massive operation as to mine the WTC towers for a controlled demolition and have absolutely no physical evidence left behind to show that it was done. Not a single witness who saw charges being placed in the towers. Not one of the thousands of people who went to work there that morning and successfully escaped the buildings. Or were all those people in on it too? And everyone in our government who would have had to know about this? They are all fine with it you suppose? And do you believe that NORAD flew the planes into the buildings by remote control and that the supposed hijackers are alive and well and living in Middle Eastern countries? Or maybe there were no planes at all?
If the GOP thinks it can win in 2006 with its War on Fags and War on Women, the GOP is in for a big surprise in all but the redneckest of states.
Posted by God Of War at March 3, 2006 11:42 AMYour initial comment blamed NORAD for not "monitoring the planes" but now you seem more interested in a supposed "delay in intercepting" or launching from distant bases. Needless to say we are a long way from "the administration letting the attacks happen".
You choose to believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. We sure spend alot of tax dollars on some useless national air monitoring system if they depend on the FAA so much.
I read about FAA delays and it doesn't make sense that they would do that when they were competent enough to land 400 unscheduled landings safely on 9/11. I think NORAD is lying about the timeline. The way Bush et all jumped on the excuse to go after S. Hussein, (and mealy mouth that it was OBL even as they spirited OBL's fam out of the country) shows me they were happy to have their own "Pearl Harbor".
Posted by Sharon at March 3, 2006 12:59 PMOr maybe there were no planes at all?
Didn't you see the videos?
That's Chip talking.
Snark, try doing your own homework. Start by reading the three peer reviewed papers on the site and then listen to Dr. Jone's lecture on the physics.
Posted by at March 3, 2006 11:17 PM