Testifying on 9/11

General Petraeus can not testify before Congress on 9/11. Forget about why 9/11 was chosen, it simply is unacceptable. We will not be able to even discuss Petraeus' testimony with any sense of rationality if he testifies on 9/11. Bush will be accused of politicizing the date. Petraeus' actual testimony will not even be the central focus. Adele Stan is right:

The administration has exploited the pain of that memory one too many times. Even if that's not the intention here of some White House political genius, more than half of the population will never be convinced of that. So let us remember a horrible day when we all came together without linking it to the war that is tearing us apart.

< Megan McCardle: "Rudy's Craaaaaaazy" | Former IL. Gov. George Ryan's Conviction Upheld >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm confused (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by pontificator on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:26:06 PM EST
    Doesn't Congress schedule Congressional testimony?  Can't they schedule Patreaus whenever they damn well please?  Isn't this Carl Levin's call, not George Bush's?

    What am I missing?

    Re: Isn't this Carl Levin's call? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:27:17 PM EST
    Why does it surprise you?

    Read it twice, I had to. But Carl Levin has endorsed my longstanding proposal to go after terrorist training camps and weapons assembly facilities in Syria and Iran.

    Carl Levin, you say?

    Yeah, Carl Levin, the newly minted neocon from Michigan. My kinda guy. Just read it and cheer.

    --Michael Ledeen, The Corner, NRO

    Or here's the C&L video of Carl nearly slipping the tongue to Loserman.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    is yours.

    Well then. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by pontificator on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    I would think some phone calls, faxes and emails to Carl Levin's office are in order!



    Big Orange is the place for that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:40:15 PM EST
    Go get em.

    Done (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by pontificator on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    c'mon. Carl Levin wants those darn (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Compound F on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    PSA's signed into Iraqi law.  He's gotta keep the country juiced for more war until that happens.  Oil, oil, oil.  That's why he sided with Lieberman on Iran, that's why he threatens maliki.

    Oil is also why the Democrats can't (none / 0) (#8)
    by Compound F on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:35:02 PM EST
    seem to get a handle on the "politics of contrast."  It simply makes no sense to them.  Now I get it.

    Contrast? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    Contrast?? Oh, right... contrast! ;-)

    funny. not what I was talking about, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Compound F on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    or is it?  Two-faced bastards.

    Hah! Well, that too, I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    I was thinking more of two party system = two headed monster, now ;-)

    Exploiting 9/11 - Bush's UN speech 9/12/02 (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    If Petraeus gives his presentation on or around 9/11, it won't be the first time that Bush has tried to tie 9/11 with Iraq.  On September 12, 2002, one day after the anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, Bush gave his UN speech in which he laid out his case for taking action against Iraq.    

    Exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to help sell an unjustified invasion and occupation of a country that had no connection with the attack is to add insult to injury.

    Curious coincidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:36:13 PM EST
    Of course, the Bush Administration has never claimed that the attacks of 9/11 and the regime of Saddam were linked. Not ever, not once. Never implied it, never inferred it, nope. I can't see how a report on Iraq on the anniversary of 9/11 could at all be construed as propagandistic; it is simply and purely a coincidence. To think otherwise is, well, to think.

    Even O'Hanlon, National security expert, (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:53:53 AM EST

    Why can't he? (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    What is the big deal....can the government never get work done on 9/11 ever again?

    Much ado about nothing...It will be a normal work day for me on 9/11, why not in DC?  

    If some shady characters wanna try and link the occupation of Iraq to the terror attacks 6 years ago, I say let them make fools of themselves.

    I know where you are coming from (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:38:24 AM EST
    I wish I was that big of a person or that evolved on this specific topic and the events surrounding it but I'm not.  If some jacka$$ links 9/11 to Iraq one more time while a small teary eyed throng dabs at their lashes and nods I'm going run through the town square naked tearing my hair out.  There are some things you just don't want to see.

    I hear ya.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    I just don't think anybody is buying that load of crap anymore....exceptt for those who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me for twenty dollars down, and they're hopeless.

    If they go there I'll try to keep my (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    clothes on but you might want to keep an eye out for lunatic nudes running across the Fox News screen if you get bored ;)

    Now thats entertainment! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    Don't be surprised if Murdoch offers you your own reality show:)

    Lunatic Nudes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    It does sound both entertaining and appropriate.  

    Still we must be careful not to give in to such temptations.  I can see it now: the nude streaker becomes pivotal a pivotal figure in all GOP advertisements in '08.  

    In 2002 Janet Jackson's nipple was a bigger election issue than Iraq, Health Care, Energy Policy combined.  In 2004 Gay Marriage was same.  What will the red herring be in 2008?  Immigration doesn't quite work because it splits the GOP apart, bigot against robber baron, while the rest of us watch, amused.  Flag burning is a good complimentary player, but on its own cannot really carry the weight.

    Nude streakers on television, however......