New talking point to trump all others

Oh. My. God. The Republicans and fox "news" are starting the talking point that 9/11 did not occur during Bush's presidency.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzpy1GdIeCY

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during George Bush's presidency"

Do they honestly believe that saying things like that will make us forget that horrible day?

This is not from some random wingnut like Coulter who you'd expect to say something like that. This was Bush's press secretary.

Not only did Bush ignore all the warnings about al Qaeda from the Clinton Administration, and ignore the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US", and ignore the FBI reports of potential terrorists taking flying lessons with no desire to learn how to take off or land, and ignore intelligence reports saying terrorists want to use planes as missiles, but during his watch we did have 9/11, the anthrax attacks, the shoe bomber and the dirty bomber.

Now they're trying to gloss over all of that?

Do they really believe that the American public can be made to forget all of that?

Unbelievable.

======================
(added 1/6/10)
Flashback to a month before 9/11. Bush, while on vacation of course, received a presidential briefing entitled: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Bush responded: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." And went fishing.

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/4/821835/-The-President-WAS-Warned-Of-Impending-Terror-Attack

That's how little the Republicans cared about national security until it became a fear tool to pass draconian legislation and transfer America's wealth to their cronies.

Party differences

Another benefit from switching administrations from ultra-conservative to (oh, let's face it) moderately conservative:

Obama kicks off massive science education effort
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/23/obama-kicks-off-massive-science-education-effort

Far cry from the previous approach of standardized tests in a race to the bottom and placing religious doctrine and political rhetoric over science education.

========================
If a government bailout is necessary, as both parties agreed, here are the differences in the approach:

Dems - try to create jobs, unfreeze the credit markets and stimulate the economy

GOP - give the money to the largest banks and insurers that knew they were screwing up. they'll then give that taxpayer money to their creditors, and not unfreeze the credit markets for Americans. then hide the evidence, exempt GOPpers from prosecution for crimes, and declare the money gone.
www.truthout.org/1119099

========================
There's a debate going on as to whether or not the US Federal Reserve Bank should be audited. Some people think the US taxpayers deserve to know what is happening with their money, and where it went. Some people think it should remain secret. It is not purely partisan, either. There are corrupt Democrats who fear the release of such information, and what it would do to their gravy train. Almost all Republicans oppose the audit, too. So, what happens when Republican Paul and Democrat Grayson propose that the Fed be audited? Who's going to blink first, and who's willing to stick their neck out to protect secrecy?

www.dailypaul.com/node/115238

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/20/806256/-Alan-Grayson:-Today-Was-Waterloo-for-FED-Secrecy,-

========================
Why does the main stream media keep calling Lieberman a Democrat? First of all, he isn't. Second of all, he supported the Republican candidate for President. Third, he switches reasons for his actions as often as a Republican:
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/021119.php

========================
Ah, those whacky Republicans - now calling for open, armed revolt against the US Government. Good thing it's not treason or anything...
thinkprogress.org/2009/11/20/missouri-gop-billboard

Afghanistan

I'm with Moyers, and firmly against what I believe President Obama will do.
www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/23-3

The war in Afghanistan was initially against the people and organization who attacked us on 9/11. When the US Army was ordered to pull back at Tora Bora, it should have been recognized by everyone that the war planners were not actually interested in al Qaeda as their main target. For the next 7 years, the war in Afghanistan was allowed to plod on without leadership, and was fought contrary to the recommendations of real military experts in the field. The focus was on the war against Iraq, a target with far richer resources.

Mr. President, you have inherited a disaster that was allowed to fester for years, starved of leadership from the very office that you now hold. Quite frankly, it was knowingly and willingly designed to become a quagmire. There are only four reasons that I can see to remain.

1) Prevent a resurgence of al Qaeda - a true reason to remain. However, the problem was given free passage to Pakistan. If you really want to prevent a potential resurgence, then you'd have to also occupy Sudan, Somalia and other countries. Foolhardy.

2) To give the Afghan people a better life - a fine goal, but impractical. They're fighting a civil war, and they know full well that Karzi is a US puppet - they have no loyalty to him. If we want our military to provide better lives around the world, how many countries would we need to wage war on? North Korea? Belarus? Turkmenistan?

3) Momentum - we're there now, so we should stay the course. I certainly hope your foreign policy is better than Bush's.

4) Corruption - continue to "bleed the beast". One of the reasons the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were so costly is because they were designed to cost a lot, even where completely unnecessary. Vast fortunes were made by insiders, and the US government was weakened fiscally for a long time to come - both central goals of the political party that you're not in.

So, leave. Now.