Redstate

The president is free to say what he pleases, but this is politics and the other size is free to offer their opinion on it.

Personally, politicizing 9/11 is as bad as politicizing the Holocaust.  Even if there's a reason to use it as a comparison, don't you dare try to gain "political capital" from it...it's sacred ground.

IMHO, Bush has been squeezing every drop of blood he can from the 9/11 tragedy, for his own political gain, since the event occurred.  And I think it's offensive and wrong.

Treat it with respect.  A tragedy.  If you want to refer to terrorism, just call it terrorism, ala:

"Terrorism is a greater threat in these times."

Your opinion has been noted, logged, and placed in The Pile.

the President of the United States cannot mention 9/11 at all?  

Tell me, what ways would the President of the United States be able to talk about 9/11 without it being called political by someone.

I won't even begin to describe the typo in the title of this post that almost got past me. :-)

As for the President, sure he is free to say 9/11 al he wants.  The judgement of whether he's using it to incite fear or for politicization (is that a word?) is up to each individual voter.

Most Democrats I know see it as an abuse of power.  Me, I'm sure of it.  It's even seen as a tool in the PNAC, where it states:

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

In the end, it's my opinion, but you know it's shared by millions of Americans.  Agree with it or not, it belong in this conversation obviously.

OK, I read the New York Times editorial. Oh, what a horrible mistake the voters have made, re-electing this blunderer who simply does not know the future in advance.

Better they should have elected the brilliant and nuanced Whatisname, who did know the future in advance and so was able to plan and execute his campaign so perfectly that he, erm, lost.

Anyway, now that we're in this thing, it's up to the press in the United States to hound, badger, and criticize the President and everything he does, every day, until the whole country is so demoralized that they're ready to give up.

If you wanna hear conservative radio host Michael Medved make fools of liberal callers who try to debate him about Iraq, terror links and Bush's speech, then this is a must hear:

MP3 Stream:

http://www.franchisepundit.com/downloads/index.php?l=8&p=medved/medved-
bush-speech.6.29.05.mp3&m=1

MP3 File:

http://www.franchisepundit.com/downloads/music/medved/medved-bush-speech.6.
29.05.mp3  (17 MB)

Medved might be the best conservative debator on the radio.

in UFOs and probably tens of millions believe Oliver Stone was closer to the truth than the Warren Commission.  There's no accounting for gullibility.

PNAC is so 2002.

I'd recommend everyone read it since it's rather informative.  You might, if you're curious and persistent enough, eventually get to page 50 where the chapter titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" begins.  Within that chapter about transforming the armed services(mainly the Marines but also the Navy) you'll find this:

Any serious effort at transformation

must occur within the larger framework of

U.S. national security strategy, military

missions and defense budgets. The United

States cannot

simply declare a

"strategic pause"

while

experimenting

with new

technologies and

operational

concepts. Nor

can it choose to

pursue a

transformation

strategy that

would decouple

American and

allied interests.

A transformation strategy that solely

pursued capabilities for projecting force

from the United States, for example, and

sacrificed forward basing and presence,

would be at odds with larger American

Further, the process of transformation,

even if it brings revolutionary change, is

likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a

new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and

industrial policy will shape the pace and

content of transformation as much as the

requirements of current missions.

Apologies for the formatting.  

Such a nefarious plot indeed.

Append:

policy goals and would trouble American

allies.

to the end of the first paragraph.

Remember that according to the two retired military experts that were interviewed on PBS (retired USMC general and retired USA colonel) many (not all) of the people we are fighting in Iraq are Iraqi's who simply want us out; these are NOT the Al-Queda types we should be fighting.

These are the folks we are attempting to talk to; fighting these folks has nothing to do with 9-11.

Also remember that some are trying to perpetuate the falsehood that Iraq was directly involved with 9-11 (e. g., congressman Robin Hayes, R-NC) contrary to the conclusions of the 9-11 commission report.

the left is attempting to hijack "9-11" to mean involvement in "9-11". This is ridiculous as to state that when you're referring to Pearl Harbor that you are in fear of a Japanese attack.

The 9-11 Commission was an immensely flawed commission that will be discredited, moreso than today, in the fullness of time. I haven't read Rep. Hayes' claims but just because they run counter to the 9-11 Commission doesn't mean they aren't right.

According to your logic, FDR should have never used Pearl Harbor to support the US entering WWII. Hey, Germany never attacked us -- why did we go to war with them and not just Japan?

Go ahead and ignore Saddam's links to terrorists, but the war in Iraq has an obvious ideological link to 9-11. Iraq under its former tyrannical leader harbored terrorists. After 9-11, President Bush said we would take action against countries that harbor terrorists. If the attacks on America had not happened, this policy would never have been adopted. In that light, what is so strange about President Bush's allusions to the event that sparked the current war on terror?

Arguing points like Saddam had links to Al Qaeda is reactionary and unhelpful. And besides, continuing this type of argument is what the terrorists want.

know reactionary when we see it, being that we are both proud reactionaries. Arguing that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda ain't it. That's called being truthful.

We are also equally adept at spotting trolls. Please remember that this is a Republican site, and make significant contributions to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, your time here will be short.

And I might add that your username walks right up to the line, if not crossing over it.

You've walked onto thin ice with your first comment. Retreat to thicker flooring.

but name calling(which is a troll characteristic btw) is never the grounds for a good debate. Let's get back to the subject at hand. I posted yesterday because I think the Saddam 9/11 debate is pointless at the end of the day. US soldiers and Iraqis are dying daily over there and all we can do at home is waste time arguing over the war rational? It kind of reminds of the IBM commercial where those MBA stereotypes are eating at a restaurant and their colleague starts choking. They argue about what to do about the choking but never get around to doing anything.

But do you really think it that wrong for me to reply on an Iraq War post a summarized version the above opinion? Anyways I have to get ready for this weekend. Everyone drive safe and don't get too drunk =)

that those millions are outnumbered by the rest of us.

make a speech so soon, at the site of a terrible attack on American soil, and in the process actually mention the incident and the those who died that day.

Oh, not President Bush, President Lincoln, speaking at Gettysburg, November 19, 1863.

What a travesty. How political could he get?