Fox News: 9-11 Kerry's fault.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Yup, here's why. Kerry was informed of security lapses at Logan International Airport. Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.
I kid you not, they actually said this. They were discussing this article in the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Monique]

The pre-election games are starting.. aren't they?
Is it really a grown up way to exercise politics? I have seen the commercials at the Bush/Gore face off a few years ago.. I couldn't believe it..

 

[Zero]

The Repugnicans are grasping at straws again. The sorriest part is that everything they've accused Kerry of, Bush is more guilty of. Bush was warned time and again about terrorism, and instead spent more of his first few months on vacation than any other president.

You know who else we should blame for this? Anybody who supports deregulating businesses, because it is deregulation which weakened oversight agencies to the point that they couldn't simply demand that the airports increase security.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
The pre-election games are starting.. aren't they?
Is it really a grown up way to exercise politics? I have seen the commercials at the Bush/Gore face off a few years ago.. I couldn't believe it..

No, it isn't...it is the way the media wants to run it though, in soundbytes, rumor, and innuendo, which is all much better for ratings that serious discussion of issues. You'll get a better discussion of issues from me and phatmonkey yelling at each other than you ever will from the mainstream media.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.

You should get your facts straight. Mr. Mead (DOT's inspector general)was a CLINTON nominee. Give me a break.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
You should get your facts straight. Mr. Mead (DOT's inspector general)was a CLINTON nominee. Give me a break.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
What does that have to do with anything?

Jeez, I don't know, Zero! I guess nothing if your only interested in hyperbole, I guess everything if you're interested in keeping your facts straight.


*edit: On second thought, maybe you didn't bother to read the link he offered and actually believe that Kerry handed this vital information to the Bush administration. If that's the case, read the article...He did not, he handed it over to Mr. Mead, a Clinton nominee. There's plenty enough blame to go around for the failures that led to 9-11 without creating more fiction.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Zero
What does that have to do with anything?

Don't you know? Everything is the fault of Clinton's penis.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Jeez, I don't know, Zero! I guess nothing if your only interested in hyperbole, I guess everything if you're interested in keeping your facts straight.


*edit: On second thought, maybe you didn't bother to read the link he offered and actually believe that Kerry handed this vital information to the Bush administration. If that's the case, read the article...He did not, he handed it over to Mr. Mead, a Clinton nominee. There's plenty enough blame to go around for the failures that led to 9-11 without creating more fiction.

See, I read the article more closely than I read the first post of the thread. Nevertheless, someone being a Clinton nominee still has nothing to do with the main point, especially since Clinton's people were doing so much work that Bush and Co. chose to ignore.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
See, I read the article more closely than I read the first post of the thread. Nevertheless, someone being a Clinton nominee still has nothing to do with the main point, especially since Clinton's people were doing so much work that Bush and Co. chose to ignore.

LOl, sorry..I forgot you're the propaganda king and pointing out the little minor details such as the entire last half of the originator of this threads post was nothing but an outright lie is a trifle..unless of course it fits in with your agenda, then it suddenly becomes a drastic error. Spare me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
LOl, sorry..I forgot you're the propaganda king and pointing out the little minor details such as the entire last half of the originator of this threads post was nothing but an outright lie is a trifle..unless of course it fits in with your agenda, then it suddenly becomes a drastic error. Spare me.

Ranting again? Why don't you try focusing on the actual issue at stake. You made your "point", move on.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it isn't...it is the way the media wants to run it though, in soundbytes, rumor, and innuendo, which is all much better for ratings that serious discussion of issues. You'll get a better discussion of issues from me and phatmonkey yelling at each other than you ever will from the mainstream media.

We finally agree on something!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
We finally agree on something!

Well, at least there is a slight chance that we'll at least bring up an actual issue every now and again. The media, on the other hand, isn't interested in facts or issues. Look at the numerous lies told about Gore, or the over-focus on Bush's 3 decades old military record. The media bias is about scandal, ratings, and money. Reporters seem to be generally lazy, and inclinded to accepting whatever nonsence is sold to them. Republicans are better at manipulating the media, but we can't blame them too much...we can blame the media itself for allowing themselves to be manipulated.

In this specific instance, what did we really expect Kerry to do, besides report the information to the relevant agency? And why would this be worth equal space with the Bush Administrations repeated ignoring of much more specific warnings about terrorism?

 

[member 5645]

Am I the only one that read the article??

Where did Fox news say this??

station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints

Get it through your head! Some local affiliate did an invesitgation on with some retired FAA agents and sent the information to Kerry. The retired FAA agent is unhappy with Kerry's actions, especially now with his rhetoric and condemnation of Bush.

Now let's see the truth about Kerry:

The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures.

Sullivan followed up by having the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.

More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG

Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere

But he never heard from Kerry again.

He offered to fly to Washington at his own expense to give Kerry a document-backed presentation about the "facade of security" at Logan and other major airports.

So what was the result of this prodding?

Yet the warnings apparently did stick in Kerry's mind: In the days after 9/11, Kerry told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001.

Oh yes! Kerry taking credit for doing something about it! Luckily he took those guys advice and evidence, and made good on it!

But he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter,

uh oh!

And GAO, though it is the investigative arm of Congress, didn't seem to know what the senator was talking about.

uh oh AGAIN!

The agency had tested security at two airports before 9/11, but neither one was Logan. And Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he triggered.

uh oh even more! He didn't even know what it was that he supposedly triggered.

 

[Zero]

Where's the "truth"? All I see is unsubstantiated claims made by a Bush supporter, and reported as fact by an incompetent right-wing media source.

 

[ShawnD]

More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.

Yet Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere. "The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," he told Kerry. Sullivan suggested he show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

But he never heard from Kerry again.

Sounds like Kerry really dropped the ball here.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Where's the "truth"? All I see is unsubstantiated claims made by a Bush supporter, and reported as fact by an incompetent right-wing media source.

Well, I guess you're right. The new york post is the right's equicalent of your www.whatreallyhappened.com [zz)]

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
The media bias is about scandal, ratings, and money. Reporters seem to be generally lazy, and inclinded to accepting whatever nonsence is sold to them.

How about the fact the US is now looking into propaganda supposedly made by Bush by selling video's with 'newsitems', which were actually actors pretending to be reporters? Should that even have a place in a newsbroadcast, or would it be in the power of the president? I guess this would be an entire discussion on its own :P

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...am I the only one questioning why this was published as an opinion piece, instead of straight news? It might have somthing to do with the fact that Paul Sperry hasn't bothered to do any but the most perfunctory research, and is only publishing unsustantiated claims, with no attempt to confirm them.

Seems to me that the evidence points to GAO dropping the ball. Here's an interesting quote from Brian Sullivan, back in September 2001, that repudiates the opinion article which quotes him:

Sullivan says Sen. Kerry responded to his letter and asked the

Department of Transportation's Inspector General look into the matter.

"I think Sen. Kerry did get it to the right people and they were

about to take action."

Here's a link...take it with a grain of salt, I am still hunting down the original article. http://www.freedomtocare.org/page213.htm

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Well, I guess you're right. The new york post is the right's equicalent of your www.whatreallyhappened.com [zz)]

I have no idea what you are talking about...but that is general for a right-wing media source to be compared with an obscure left-wing blog.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
How about the fact the US is now looking into propaganda supposedly made by Bush by selling video's with 'newsitems', which were actually actors pretending to be reporters? Should that even have a place in a newsbroadcast, or would it be in the power of the president? I guess this would be an entire discussion on its own :P

Yeah, it sure would, but it is part of the larger pattern of Bush lies and media manipulation.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Yup, here's why. Kerry was informed of security lapses at Logan International Airport. Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.
I kid you not, they actually said this. They were discussing this article in the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe you could quote for me the relevant part, because I don't see where it says anything at all about the information being forwarded to the Bush administration. It says:

"He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck" on back through the federal bureaucracy, said Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent from the Boston area who in May 2001 personally warned Kerry that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."

----ehh, nevermind, I should have kept reading this thread: phat has already covered most of this. No, phat, you're not the only one: I also read the article.

edit: and Zero, you crack me up: at first, you were all for the interpretation that this was another Bush failure, now you're blasting the article as biased. What happened, did you read the article after you posted the first time and only realize then that the thread opener was a massive misrepresentation? Jeez, talk about taking the bait - and showing your true colors: if something says what you want it to, no need to even read it, just assume its truthful and valid. But if it says something you don't want it to, you must assume its biased (at the very least). It boggles my mind how you even take the principles of science into the philosophy forums, but leave them at the door of the politics forum.

 

[Zero]

Long time no see, Russ...still reading things the way you want, still msirepresenting what I'm saying...

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said. It's no big surprise that Fox would misinform its viewers, given that of all the major television news outlets, it's the Fox News viewers who are most misinformed.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said. It's no big surprise that Fox would misinform its viewers, given that of all the major television news outlets, it's the Fox News viewers who are most misinformed.

REally? and you did this survey? based on the criteria that if they disagree with you, they are misinformed?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by phatmonky
REally? and you did this survey? based on the criteria that if they disagree with you, they are misinformed?

Me? No. The University of Maryland. But I doubt you heard about it watching Fox News.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Me? No. The University of Maryland. But I doubt you heard about it watching Fox News.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Hrrrmmm, so Fox viewers being misinformed on Iraq, is them being "the most misinformed"?? I see. So the criteria is solely based on one event (one that is about as divisive as any that has happened since vietnam)??

Then one must look at the agenda on which each network setforth from the beginning.People were obviously more tuned in when we initially went to war than later on.

FOX came from a mostly supportive stance. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that a larger number of FOX viewers continued to lean in the direction of the assertions put forth before the war even began. Things like the missiles found by teh dutch got a front page story on even the BBC when they thought they were blister agent. I had to actually SEARCH to find out that they were tested negative.


NPR on the other hand has leaned against the war from the beginning, and thus the viewers also fall in the same direction.

It wouldn't be shocking to find out that if you had asked all these people the same questions before the war, they would have answered predictions roughly the same.
There's plenty of ways to explain the results of this test, but the simplest thing that can be gathered from it is that...outside of the realm of 3 criteria dealing with the Iraq war, this test proves nothing about your assertion that "fox viewers are the most misinformed". It'll take a broader set of data than this to make that point

 

[Zero]

Let's try to get this slightly back on track, ok?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Let's try to get this slightly back on track, ok?

Sorry, I'm fighting off a ***** of a cold, and am easily distracted while I look for ways to entertain myself

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said.

?? The article you linked is a POST article commenting on a FOX expose, not the other way around.

If you're saying that you saw a report on Fox TV commenting on the Post article, commenting on the Fox expose, fine: but, uh - the Post article doesn't appear to be challenging the Fox expose.

Either way, the article doesn't say what you say it says. If you wish to substantiate your claim, by all means go ahead. Otherwise we're left with an article that says one thing and your claim which says another.

Long time no see, Russ...still reading things the way you want, still msirepresenting what I'm saying...

 

[Pergatory]

OMG Kerry was told that our airport security sucked and he didn't do anything about it?! The terrorist attack must be his fault! Thousands of deaths are on his shoulders now! Burn him!

Hind sight is 20-20. If you put yourself in his place, you'll see that he did the right thing. He forwarded the issue to the department that handles those issues.

He doesn't have the right to claim that he was a whistle blower because he didn't take any extra effort in making sure that it was taken care of, but that's beside the point. To blame him for weak airport security is like blaming the Post Office for your phone bill being incorrect.

I think the motive behind this was not to make Kerry look dirty, but to draw attention away from the Bush administration. I think it's obvious that nobody would hold this against Kerry, but they might be less inclined to hold the blame to the Bush administration because it was obviously "everybody's fault" that this happened.

 

[Shadow]

Of course, 9-11 is automatically President Bush's fault! It had NOTHING to do with the administration before him, that's for sure...

 

[skywise]

This thing with Kerry seems to be a distractionary tactic to keep from asking the tough questions like this one-

"Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed." If the FAA is required by law to notify the US government of a reported hijacking, as they did before the first hit at the WTC, why then, with well over half and hour before the attack on the pentagon, were no preventive military actions taken by Andrews Air Force Base?

http://unansweredquestions.org/topic.php?tid=45

 

[schwarzchildradius]

More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.

He did a hell of a lot more than Bush did about it. If anything in the article is true, it shows that there was a reaction to the possibility of a terrorist strike. But "oh what could Bush have done?" Kill Bin Laden.