september 11 2001

It isn’t no secret that Republicans care not about the thousands that perished on that September morning in 2001, but it does deserve a little reminder from time to time:

A Republican candidate for Governor of New York this morning reached new heights of rhetorical condemnation of health care legislation, comparing its passage to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"The day that that bill was passed will be remembered just as 9/11 was remembered in history," Carl Paladino, a Buffalo businessman seeking the Republican and Conservative Party lines, told host Curtis Sliwa on AM 970 The Apple this morning. "It was an attempt by these people in Washington to defy the Constitution. It is clearly in conflict with all of the basic precepts of the Constitution."

So a bill meant to help ensure the well being of millions of our citizens is the equivalent to a violent attack that claimed the lives of thousands of innocents?

Perhaps Carl needs to learn the definition of terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Read number 1 over and over again Carl and think about what you are doing. You are using a terrorist attack for political purpose. In other words, you are acting as a terrorist by proxy. So excuse me for telling you to go “Cheney yourself” since you are siding with our enemies.

Who says there isn't war profiteering going on?

The estimated costs for the development of major weapons systems for the US military have doubled since September 11, 2001, with a trillion-dollar price tag for new planes, ships, and missiles that would have little direct role in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The soaring cost estimates -- disclosed in a report for the Republican-led Senate Budget Committee -- have led to concerns that supporters of multibillion-dollar weapons programs in Congress, the Pentagon , and the defense industry are using the conflicts and the war on terrorism to fulfill a wish-list of defense expenditures, whether they are needed or not for the war on terrorism.

The report, based on Defense Department data, concluded that the best way to keep defense spending in check in the coming years lies in ``controlling the cost of weaponry," especially those programs that the Pentagon might not necessarily need.

The projections of what it will cost to acquire ``major weapons programs" currently in production or on the drawing board soared from $790 billion in September 2001 to $1.61 trillion in June 2006, according to the congressional analysis of Pentagon data.

Costs for some of the most expensive new weapon systems -- such as satellite-linked combat vehicles for ground troops; a next-generation fighter plane ; and a cutting-edge, stealth-technology destroyer for the Navy -- are predicted to cost even more by the time they are delivered, because many of them are still in their early phases. In a quarterly report to Congress on weapons costs earlier this month, the Pentagon reported that of the $1.61 trillion it thinks it will need for big-ticket weapons, it has spent more than half so far -- about $909 billion.

From the

National Journal:

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly
classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence
linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was
scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties
with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former
officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the
"President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national
security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from
electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence
services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public
statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing
was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda
involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam
viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations
as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts
believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi
nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its
inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the
president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to
learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda.

For those that still don't believe the Republicans are perfect examples of
hypocrites then perhaps this article from

Reuters will change your thinking.

Congress may probe leaks in CIA prisons
story

Top Republicans in Congress are considering a investigation into leaks of
information used by The Washington Post in an article on a covert global CIA
prison system, congressional sources said on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House of
Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois were "contemplating"
requesting the investigation and had drafted a letter proposing such a
probe, a congressional source said. The source said letters to the
intelligence committees had not yet been sent.

The Washington Post reported last week that the CIA has been holding and
interrogating al Qaeda captives at a secret facility in Eastern Europe, part
of a covert prison system established after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The administration has not confirmed or denied the report.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration had just
learned of the congressional leaders' move for an investigation.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious matter. It ought to
be taken seriously," McClellan said. "But this is a congressional
prerogative and it was a decision that was made by those leaders and that's
the way I would describe

President Bush’s speech last night appears to be nothing
more than that, just a speech. He talked about a plan to rebuild the Gulf Coast
and restore normalcy to the lives of those affected. He gave a speech that some
have compared to a “FDR speech”.

A real question lies now in the sincerity of the President.
Why should we trust what he says? After 9-11 he promised this new cabinet level
department of Homeland Security that would be ready at a moments notice to
respond and save lives. Well we saw how much that promised paid off with
Katrina.

The President’s honesty track record is highly tarnished.
Just consider the subject of Iraq alone and the number of lies we have been
told. Saddam has WMD. Saddam was involved in 9-11. Iraq won’t cost us that much.
The list goes on, not to mention other lies and promises he has not kept such as
restoring accountability to the Oval Office and healing the great political
divide that is plaguing our nation.

If Katrina happened on September 11, 2001 instead of the
deadly attacks, then the President might have come out looking good after this
speech. Unfortunately he has a precedence of not following through and that
weakens the impact of his speech ten-fold.