Bush 9/11 ads: WHO ARE THESE ANGRY 9/11 VICTIMS???

3/5/04 | Timeout

[Timeout]

The media has bombarded us with these stories about the 9/11 families' dismay at the Bush ads. But who are these people?

After watching them on Today, Hardball, Fox, etc. etc. etc., I decided to do a little snooping. I didn't have the names of those on TV, so I went with news articles on the web.

This is probably not news to you, but they're bleeding heart, anti war, peace protesters. If the press weren't so biased they would be calling them the "Bush Haters".

What I found is below:

[Jackson Brown]

I have spent a good while looking up those quoted in the articles as family of those killed and protesting Bush's ad.

NOT ONE was not conected to some anti-bush/anti-republican issue before these ads came out.

Here are two, just for an example:

From Reuters story "Sept. 11 Families Disgusted by Bush Campaign Ads"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040304/pl_nm/campaign_bush_reaction_dc


the only 2 9/11 famly protesters quoted --

Bill Doyle -- member of group suing the white house about 9/11
http://www.septembereleventh.org

Ron Willett -- a democrat, in battle with republicans in his county in Missouri
http://www.news-star.com/stories/100902/New_11.shtml

[AmishDude]

I actually am a musician myself

Indeed? How intriguing...

I really don't see what this has to do with anything I've said. Sorry if I'm being dense.

Just wanting to see if you pay attention to current events. That's all.

[TruBluKentuckian]

LMAO... intentionally dense...

That response gave you away with your very awkward feigning of ignorance.

[lavrenti]

I actually think the guy (user) is sincere.

Sorry, my bs detector rings zero in his case--a number of newbies are coming in from different directions, and are not necessarily Mobyclones.

[txhurl]

Yes, autoresponder has 'user' correctly characterized.

[Antoninus]

Well done bump.

[SpinyNorman]

I want to know why NORAD didn't respond, and why no one has gotten fired for this egregious failure.

Well, I will take a stab at this:

1) the offending aircraft were commercial US airplanes. NORAD was geared up for externally sourced threats

2)the use of the planes as missiles was a new, unprecedented appoach to terrorism

3) The hijackings were presumed to be of the same nature as all previous hijackings, transport to politically safe places and/or free advertising for the hijacker's complaints

4) All attacks were simulutaneous and again, unprecedented

5) It won't happen again, as evidenced by the fighter scrambles and escorts of any aircraft of dubious status.

[lavrenti]

Being a physical witness (almost was too close that day), and having read up on it, the NORAD angle is easily explained.

There was too little time. There were no indications that the Atta-piloted plane (the first one) would do anything more than fly south, possibly either land at an airport or otherwise. There was no reason to believe (and this is an assumption based on what I read) that the plane would be used as a weapon. You're dealing with people using logic, here, focusing on a sudden crisis that unfolded in mere minutes.

Air NG planes were scrambled to chase the second plane. They didn't have enough time to prevent the attack on the south tower. Video footage proves this was done (you can see the fighter pass seconds after the explosion) as well as eyewitness accounts (including me!).

Even if the two Air NG fighters were able to lock on and fire, one can imagine the risks of taking down a plane in a densely populated area such as the NY Metro. Little one could do in that regard.

The Pentagon? Happened too fast. They had seconds to respond. The fourth plane was very well tracked. If the passengers (or the hijackers) did not take down the plane, the USAF or Air NG would have.

NORAD did the best they could, under a particular set of unforseen circumstances, thrown together in a time-frame where actionable options were painfully limited.

As for the 20 billion/9 billion difference. Thank Pataki, Bloomberg and a number of others for that debacle. I live in NYC, the extra 11 billion would have just gone down a rat hole.

The financial crisis the city faces has more to do with the dot.com bust, overspending by previous administrations, and a recession caused partially by 9|11. All the 11 billion would have done was attempt to fill a budget gap. The FDNY people complaining may want to blame Bush, but their main complaint should be with Bloomberg and the City Council.

There, one man's opinion, offering you the opportunity to check out what I said and hopefully come to similar conclusions. Didn't call you Monica, either.

We're circling the wagons all too often these days and get awfully cranky. Sorry about that, but we've experience with people coming on this forum to disrupt. Nothing against you, hopefully that clears things up a bit.

[Jackson Brown]

Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that Bush promised $20B and gave NY only $9B.

You really need to check your facts before jumping in, then you might not be seen as a troll.

Doing a google search shows he asked congress for it, fought his own party in congress to get it, and delivered.

But don't believe me...here is what your own democratic senator -- Schumer -- says on his web site:

""SCHUMER: WHITE HOUSE MAKES GOOD ON $20 BILLION PLEDGE TO AID NY RECOVERY""

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00877.html

[caspera]

Bush should remake the ads with a scene that's from the Pentagon. The point would be the same. The emotional impact would be the same. Then let these New Yorkers come out and call the Pentagon "sacred ground." Hah! That would get these old goats' goat.

[caspera]

And let the Press try to troll for peacenik husbands and wives of dead Pentagon employees. Double hah!

[kaboom]

Bush should remake (or might already have) the ads, first highlighting Kerry's voting record on defense and CIA funding, Then following with 9/11 footage. A simple demonstration of how inaction is neither a display of peace nor leadership.

[Spotsy]

I saw a Dem strategist lose it on FOX today and scream at the Republican strategist, "Come on, George Bush wouldn't have a chance at being re-elected if it weren't for 9/11."

Hmmm. How long before more Dems openly whine about President Bush being "lucky" to have had 9/11 on his watch.

The Dems are demented.

[txhurl]

Would you rather play soft-shoe with those who'd plow 747s into high-rises? Tell us how you'd have handled it. You seem to care.... what else/extra would you have done?

[lavrenti]

You didn't counter my argument.

[Timeout]

Excellent points about the Pentagon! I hope they're reading this.

Someone above mentioned how the press was taken in by all these shills. That's what really has me steamed. I found my data in about 70 minutes...using Google. With the resources they have at hand, those reporters could've checked these peaceniks out in 5 minutes.

[Pharmer]

Robert McIlvaine

Sorry 'bout that Freepers! My family aren't all a bunch of loonies. McIlvains are an old Philly Quaker family both with and without the "e" on the end of their name. All related some how through marriage. I don't know this guy.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Hmmm. How long before more Dems openly whine about President Bush being "lucky" to have had 9/11 on his watch.

The Dems are demented.

Yes...the Dems ARE demented.....Let's flush 'em out!