Why can't we attack Bush on real issues?

[Drake Tungsten]

The report pointedly notes that 15 of the 19 hijackers "were Saudi nationals who received visas in Saudi Arabia," and says that some U.S. government personnel described Saudi officials as "uncooperative" in terror probes prior to September 11, 2001.

The Saudi references -- many details of which were redacted from the report -- drew an angry response from Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, who said the report was being used to "malign our country and our people."

One organization representing families who lost loved ones in the attacks called on the Bush administration to release the redacted information, particularly details on Saudi Arabia.

"We seek to uncover facts some powerful people may want hidden, but we are serious about stopping the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to al Qaeda," said the statement from 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/24/9.11.report/index.html

This whitewashing of the role played by Saudi Arabia in 9/11 is apalling, a real issue upon which the Bush Administration should be taken to task. So where is the condemnation?

So far, the Administration is sneaking by on this, as the media and the Bush-haters are all too busy beating the irrelevant, dead-horse that is Bush's "lie" on the African uranium. How can this be happening? Are the usual Bush critics really too stupid to tell the difference between real issues (covering for Saudia Arabia) and trumped-up attacks (the African uranium claim)? How do you all expect to beat Bush in 2004 if you don't even have the common sense to recognize the difference between legitimate criticism and annoying tirades?

I don't get people sometimes. A real issue falls into the laps of the opposition and they do nothing with it. What the hell is going on?

[Victor Galis]

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

[GePap]

The media loves beating a dead horse. I agree that the uranium story is not that important (the absencesn of WMD's makes the whole section of the speech devoted to that questionavle), but that "scandal" at least fits like a scandal. The Saudi thing does not: everyone and their uncle knows oil men will be chummy with the guys sitting on the biggest part of it.

As for most Bush haters: they are too mad to see straight. The other issue is this: if a popular admin. won;t out the Saud's, it should give a simple cue to their influence in Washington.

BUt don;t worry, it will be an issue later on, after the media looses interest in Uranium.

[Drake Tungsten]

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

You don't think the fact that Bush helped cover for a government that assisted the 9/11 hijackers might be an important issue to raise during the next campaign?

[Drake Tungsten]

BUt don;t worry, it will be an issue later on, after the media looses interest in Uranium.

I honestly don't think so. This story is too complex for the media to latch onto. They only cover simple ideas anymore, like "Bush lied!". Complex ideas bore the audience and god forbid we do that.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

How are the real issues in any way relevant to the upcomming election?

You don't think the fact that Bush helped cover for a government that assisted the 9/11 hijackers might be an important issue to raise during the next campaign?

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

Why are wasting time in my thread if you aren't going to be serious? Issues matter in American elections just as much as they do anywhere else.

[Spiffor]

When reading the title of this thread, I thought Bush has finally cheated on his wife

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I honestly don't think so. This story is too complex for the media to latch onto. They only cover simple ideas anymore, like "Bush lied!". Complex ideas bore the audience and god forbid we do that.

So the issue will be "simplfied": Bush is lying "lies of ommision" for the Sauds! People like Graham and Schumer are already trying to make this an issue. The thing is too many people have too many saudi investors around.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

neither would Gore... oh ****!? whos gonna run our country? A person from criminal group A (dems), or a person from criminal group B (repubs).... hmm, i wonder which poison i will take this election

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You're talking about an election in America. If the real issues mattered, Bush wouldn't be in the White House right now.

Why are wasting time in my thread if you aren't going to be serious? Issues matter in American elections just as much as they do anywhere else.

I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

[Kramerman]

luckily the average american is more apt to vote for American Idle, than for the President of the United States.

call me an elitist, but people outa earn the right to vote... to many dumb asses in this country to screw it up

[Victor Galis]

call me an elitist, but people outa earn the right to vote... to many dumb asses in this country to screw it up

Sadly, that doesn't seem to be constitutional. Though I'd be in favor of some sort of IQ test being required to vote, or a at least a test that forces you to demonstrate at least a superficial understanding of the issues and politics in general.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

And I guess Blair is PM and Chirac is President because the British and French people are masters of the issues?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And I guess Blair is PM and Chirac is President because the British and French people are masters of the issues?

I fail to see how that is relevant.