Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush 7 - Kerry 40
GoodNewsAmerica.us ^ | August 7, 2004 | NA

Posted on 08/08/2004 9:22:05 AM PDT by dvan

ATLANTA - Thursday Senator John Kerry criticized President Bush for his immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks on America soon after Michael Moore's use of the footage in Fahrenheit 911. Addressing minority journalists in DC, Mr. Kerry said he would have moved into action much faster than the President on that morning.

Kerry said, "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it."

In the same interview with Larry King on July 8th where Kerry claimed "I haven't had time" to be briefed on new security threats, he told King what he did that horrible morning.

"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

The second plane hit the WTC at 9:03 AM and the plane crashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 AM. For a period of 40 minutes Mr. Kerry did nothing because "nobody could think".

Conversely, the President did think. It took the President seven minutes to vault into action while his staff was preparing his departure. Those were seven minutes the Secret Service had to secure an alternate route for the Presidential motorcade and Air Force One, seven minutes to make the executive decision to ground all aircraft, and seven minutes to make the decision to issue orders to shoot down any aircraft that failed to comply.

Kerry's immediate response was not to check on his family, not to check on any of his Boston constituency where some attack planes originated, not to inquire if the attack was continuing, and for at least 40 minutes he didn't call any federal agency to see where he could be of help. In fact, he waited for 40 minutes to be told what to do.

Since he is not the President, Kerry would no nothing of what emergency protocols were in place for that day. The President did indeed "attend to it" after the proper protocols had been initiated. He simply did not alarm the children and teachers at that the moment he was informed.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; bush911; kerry; kerry911
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: boris

Face it, you don't know everything. None of us do.

Tell me Boris, what part of "I can't say" bothers you so much?


41 posted on 08/09/2004 1:37:56 PM PDT by texasflower (in the event of the Rapture, the Bush White House will be unmanned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: boris
CAUTION:

Did he attack Saudi Arabia (the number-one supporter of terrorists)?

And, IIRC, our biggest importer of oil. How does $25.00/gallon for fuel sound?

Did he get a formal declaration of war?

Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken.

Did he revoke the visas of all citizens of terror-supporting states?

I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?

Did he direct the CIA and FBI to work together and begin a massive wave of targeted assassinations of known terrorists and their leaders?

No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks, helicopter gunships, .50 caliber machine guns, and Tomahawk missiles. Last time I checked, the FBI didn't have a Tomahawk missile.

All that being said, we're on the same team, you and I. We both want these terrorists to take the permanent dirt nap, but we need to criticize the President after the election on these issues. Doing so pre-election only divides us and gives a morale boost to the dims.

Kerry is the most unqualified, inept, joke of a candidate that we have seen in a Presidential election. He is a know nothing, do nothing, flash in the pan, who wants to be in charge. We must stick together and defeat him first, then we can get our own house in better order.

42 posted on 08/10/2004 5:18:01 AM PDT by ConservativeBamaFan (We know too much, and are convinced of too little. --T.S. Elliot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeBamaFan

let me see we are now critizing the president for 7 minutes...

gee what could he have done with that i wonder....

yes like all things lets not talk about the PREVIOUS 8 YEARS

lets talk about the months of his presidency and the 7 minutes

GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA THE DEMOCRATS WILL WORRY FOR YOU>...GO BACK TO SLEEPPPP...MICHAEL MORRE WILL TELL U WHAT HAPPENED...


43 posted on 08/10/2004 5:21:34 AM PDT by Irishguy (League of Nations (version 1.1 BETA) currently in user testing...problems reported)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
that people like Kerry and Moore can even say this [self-deleted] without being literally howled off the stage by a horrified public and hounded out of public life, is a genuine cringing embarrassment to me as an American

I'm getting the impression from some Dems that they didn't think that was too cool a statement by Kerry -- especially after Giuliani's response (calling it "monday morning quarterbacking") got a lot of publicity.

True, Dems didn't literally howl him off the stage -- they've got too much at stake with their anybody-but-Bush mania.

But I think a lot of Dems are embarrassed. They're also concerned that smug pronouncements like that from Kerry will turn off those cherished "undecided" voters.

44 posted on 08/10/2004 5:56:32 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

I hope you're right.

Dan


45 posted on 08/10/2004 6:01:09 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeBamaFan
"Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken."

It was not a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

" I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?"

Firstly they have no standing to sue. A visa is an "invitation" to visit the U.S.--for a limited time. It can be revoked at the pleasure of the President anytime. The logic of revoking visas for citizens of known terror-supporting states on 9/12/2001 was--and is--that we don't have time to check them individually. Individual deep background checks should be reserved for "naturalized citizens" originating in terror-supporting states.

"No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks"

Which are notoriously ineffective in targeting individual guys with rags on their heads. We should have sub-contracted the job to the Mossad; they know what they are doing.

Interestingly, your post was silent on the fact that we are still issuing visas to citizens of terror-supporting states and still training pilots from those nations. All I can say is may God have mercy on us--because we refuse to take necessary and prudent steps to protect ourselves.

--Boris

46 posted on 08/10/2004 6:23:57 AM PDT by boris (The deadliest weapon of mass destruction in history is a Leftist with a word processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: boris
"Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken."

It was not a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Now that is true sarcasm!

We haven't had a formal declaration since WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War One, Bosnia, Gulf War 2 . . . at this rate, I don't think we will ever get another one.

" I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?"

Firstly they have no standing to sue. A visa is an "invitation" to visit the U.S.--for a limited time. It can be revoked at the pleasure of the President anytime. The logic of revoking visas for citizens of known terror-supporting states on 9/12/2001 was--and is--that we don't have time to check them individually. Individual deep background checks should be reserved for "naturalized citizens" originating in terror-supporting states.

How many visas are we talking here? What would the impact be of sending thousands of people packing? It sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What would keep terrorists from simply going to another non-terror state, and immigrating from there? What about tourist visas? Work visas? It would require a whole other branch of government to do a decent background check.

Just because they can't sue, doesn't mean John Edwards won't be filing the suits, either. For Pete's sake, they're trying to give illegal aliens the right to vote!

"No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks"

Which are notoriously ineffective in targeting individual guys with rags on their heads. We should have sub-contracted the job to the Mossad; they know what they are doing.

Can you contract out the Moussad? Interestingly, those "ineffective" guys with the tanks have liberated two countries, destroyed the Taliban, put bin Laden on the run, destroyed a brutal regime, liberated 25,000,000 people, and captured an estimated 75% of al Qaeda's leaders.

Interestingly, your post was silent on the fact that we are still issuing visas to citizens of terror-supporting states and still training pilots from those nations. All I can say is may God have mercy on us--because we refuse to take necessary and prudent steps to protect ourselves.

I agree with you that we need to be more diligent in issuing visas. I'll go a step further -- I think we need to seal our borders and use the military to do it. Only legal entry should be allowed.

There are risks in life, and you cannot eliminate or even reduce all of them.

47 posted on 08/10/2004 3:28:09 PM PDT by ConservativeBamaFan (We know too much, and are convinced of too little. --T.S. Elliot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson