Powerful,true,unforgettable.

That's a superb presentation... lest we forget!

(FWIW, here's one more. A Kerrymoment this ain't.)

Bill, many thanks for the link. I hold INDC in very high regard and am grateful you'd link this.

All the best,
Gerard.

I look at these photographs and see fifty reasons to vote for Senator Kerry.

Bush ignored the warnings about 9/11,
and reacted initially by freezing and running away. He then used this national horror for cheap political gain.

Kerry would have kept his eye on our attacker, Bin Laden, instead of invading Iraq, which posed no threat to us. Bush has delivered the Iraqis out of brutal dictatorship into brutal anarchy, at the price of the lives of over 1100 brave American soldiers and many more Iraqis.

He pursued this bad policy with incompetence, with far fewer troops than needed, and with those troops inadequately equipped. With those few troops, vital facilities like that at Al Qa Qaa went unguarded. With those few troops, Abu Graib could not be properly administered, and became a byword for torture and chaos by Americans.

Bush has shamed us, made us less safe, and made us hated around the world. His administration is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent. With any luck, he will soon be voted out of office. Good riddance.

Ken -

I'll spare no honesty - your talking points are shallow and ridiculous. Do you think and analyze for yourself, or just parrot what your ideological masters tell you?

That was a rhetorical question, so don't bother to respond. We all know the answer.

It's interesting that Osama Bin Laden made some of the same points.

"Bush... reacted initially by freezing and running away."

Ken, I see your theme agrees with Osama Bin Laden. Coincidence?

It's unfortunate you two were unable to come up with a substantive response to my simple posting of the sad facts, and were able to make only an obscene comparison. Do the lives of American soldiers matter so little to you?

It seems rational discussion is unlikely here. Pity.

Ken, why should anyone have to respond to your wildly tendentious and unargued claims? Look at the list of extremely controversial and dubious claims you made. YOU bear the burden of proving those things. Let's hear it, Ken. Give us your proof of these Moorean howlers.

Ken -

Bush ignored the warnings about 9/11, and reacted initially by freezing and running away.

Are you kidding me? You're a joke, buddy. I have lefties that argue with my on this site that I respect, but you're not even close.

Hey look, over there - it's Michael Moore!

Now fetch.

Ahem, Ken? It is now time for you to prove that:

1.) Bush let bin Laden get away because of Iraq.

2.) Bush could have stopped 9/11.

3.) America was beloved by the world before Bush came along.

4.) When it comes to whether to liberate 25 million people from fascism, we should take into account whether many people in the world will hate us for it.

5.) Bush has gained politically by liberating Iraq.

6.) Abu Graib and the number of troops used in Iraq demonstrate that Bush is incompetent.

Don't expect us to refute your nonsense until you stand up for your convictions with facts, evidence and argument. This is a forum, Ken. We argue and learn. We do NOT whine when no one merely accepts what we say without argument. This isn't a pseudo-documentary, Ken. This is a genuine forum of inquiry.

Ken C., after careful review I've discovered something obscene: you spitting on the unmarked mass graves of half a million or more innocent Iraqi men, women and children for the purpose of advancing your political cause. How many more are you willing to sacrifice to your delicate disinclinatons? When did the forest fire of your lust for political power begin to consume your humanity?

Ah, Jim? Thanks for actually saying something in particular beyond cheap nasty insults, but unfortunately, with the possible exception of (6), you've succeeded in stating claims that I didn't make. Is reading comprehension not a part of this "genuine forum of inquiry"?

At least you don't disagree that 1100 American soldiers are dead, so that's a start. Since Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and wasn't a threat to America, I think the burden of proving that those soldiers died for something more than cheap lies is on you.

Bush ignored the warnings about 9/11,
and reacted initially by freezing and running away. He then used this national horror for cheap political gain.

1. What warning?
2. Sorry, he didn't freeze, and staying away from Washington DC and NYC until things got sorted out is the correct thing to do. Or perhaps you should tell us what the POTUS was supposed to do.
3. Perhaps you shouldn't make the "cheap political gain" claim while clog-dancing on 1100 corpses. You might fall and sprain something.

"1. What warning?"

You know the answer, of course: among others, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

"3. Perhaps you shouldn't make the "cheap political gain" claim while clog-dancing on 1100 corpses."

"clog-dancing", nice touch.

Can I assume, then, that you disapprove of the link to the "falling people + severed heads = vote for bush" photo series? Or do you regard such things as appropriate for this "genuine forum of inquiry"?

The economic failures of the Bush administration have been blamed on 9/11, and a wish list of civil liberties reductions were claimed to be justified by 9/11, and so on. When I do anything about the fact of 1100+ (and counting) American deaths except decry the dishonesty and incompetence of those responsible, get back to me.

Okay, I'll add #7, Ken:

7. Bush lied, people died.

Ken, if you repeatedly and tenaciously refuse to argue for you implausible views, yet you keep returning to this forum, I'm pressed towards concluding that you are just a troll. Yet, something tells me you're not. You are, however, a rare case.

Have you any interest in establishing whether your views are correct? Or are you intent only upon propagating them to others? This question is unexcelled in its importance to personal character development. You need to keep this question in mind at any time that you are thinking of anything that matters.

Ken, what is this?:

The economic failures of the Bush administration have been blamed on 9/11, and a wish list of civil liberties reductions were claimed to be justified by 9/11, and so on.

Are you attempting to raise two issues? Are you taking issue with Bush's economic policy? Are you holding that the Bush administration admits a bad economy and blames it on 9/11. Are you claiming that important civil liberties have been eliminated? What are you thinking, Ken? It's half-baked gobbledygook.

What is unusual about you is that you are obviously very bright but very poor at scrutinizing your own views. You have some capacity to sling mud at others' points of view, but this is not a capacity that a genuine inquirer values.

The first step to take is simply to try much harder. Try very hard to scrutinize what you say and to consider what evidence you have for it, what it implies, and whether what it implies is surely false. Make an effort not to hold your views dear and to avoid any self-righteous tenacity in holding them. Frequently remind yourself that taking the attitude of doing whatever you can to avoid confronting evidence against your views will reliably lead you astray many times over the course of your life.

Ultimately the question is whether you devote energy to preserving and propagating your views, or whether you devote energy to discovering whether your views are correct and, if they are incorrect, accepting more accurate views in their stead. It is impossible to do devote your energy to both causes, as they miliate against one another. Remember this, Ken. There is very little that is more important.

Now you have the choice of reacting with indignation at my condescending attitude, or to begin doing precisely as I've advised by reading this post carefully.

Well, Jim, I can't say that your response was *cheap* insults, now you've moved on to more elaborate insults.

It's all very well to speculate on my motives, mental state, "personal character development", dental hygiene, etc. But why don't you make a factual claim in response to my rather pedestrian description of the basic facts about Bush? I stated some facts, and when challenged, provided some further backup and argument. You and your allies here, on the other hand, are full of cant about "ideological masters", obnoxious comparisons to bin Laden, references to movies I haven't seen, and now, armchair psychoanalysis.

Meanwhile, heroic American soldiers are dying. What are they dying for, Jim? How has their deaths made America safer? Enlighten me. As a first step, how about making a factual claim of some kind?

You know the answer, of course: among others, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

Ah yes. Just chock full of detailed information. Like, oh, I dunno... where.

Guess what: the US military anticipated an attack by the Japanese in 1941. Gosh, that really helped them, didn't it?

Patrick, let's review:

I said "Bush ignored warnings about 9/11";

You asked "What warning?";

I answered "among others, 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' ", alluding of course to the PDB read to Bush in August 2001.

Seems plain enough, but somehow you're not satisfied.

It seems to me that you can disagree in two ways: that the PDB wasn't a warning, or that Bush didn't ignore it. Which part do you disagree with?

If I had claimed that Bush could have prevented 9/11, then your reply might be cogent. But I didn't, and it isn't.