Moulitsas, Olbermann Agree: 9/11 A 'Political Opportunity' For GOP

Moulitsas, Olbermann Agree: 9/11 A ‘Political Opportunity’ For GOP

Moonbats • August 2011 • Views: 1,329

“9/11 was a “political opportunity” not a disaster for Republicans … “because they were able to take that and use it to stifle their domestic critics, push through a radical agenda, try to silence anybody who opposed him. It essentially won him another term in 2004 based on 9/11 because he wasn’t popular on any other matter. So, for Republicans, even today, 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving. The fact that 3,000 people died is incidental to them. They don’t care about that. What was there was a political opportunity and he took it.”

~ Markos ‘Screw Them’ Moulitsas

The GOP doesn’t care about 3000 people who died on 9-11? Really?

That’s disgusting.

-2

Recent Pages by NJDhockeyfan:
Incredible Fish Tank Design Competition Photos and Letters from Heinrich Himmler published in German newspaper Today Marks The 69th Anniversary Of The DDay Invasion of France Beautiful! Rare color film of NYC from 1939 in HD The World Wide Web is 20 years old today

Jump to bottom

13 comments

celticdragon Tue, Aug 30, 2011 8:07:58pm

The GOP doesn't care about 3000 people who died on 9-11? Really?
That's disgusting.

Uh huh.

Then they went straight out and used 9/11 to attack every dem they could. They accused Senator Max Cleland...a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam...of being an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

Yep.

They accused an American war hero of being an Goddamned Al Qaeda sympathizer after 9/11, and they used 9/11 to question the patriotism and allegiance of every non-Republican in the country. They were not subtle about it.

I'm gonna go with Olbermann on this one. It was a national security wet dream for the neo-cons, and they made the most of it.

I am ashamed that I believed them at the time. I will not make that mistake again.

Lidane Tue, Aug 30, 2011 8:20:29pm

re: #1 celticdragon

They accused an American war hero of being an Goddamned Al Qaeda sympathizer after 9/11, and they used 9/11 to question the patriotism and allegiance of every non-Republican in the country. They were not subtle about it.

I'm gonna go with Olbermann on this one. It was a national security wet dream for the neo-cons, and they made the most of it.

Considering I spent most of Dubya's presidency having my patriotism questioned because I wasn't a Republican, then yeah. I'm going to agree with this.

The GOP spent the remainder of Bush's time in office exploiting 9/11 and using it as a bludgeon against anyone who disagreed with them. They'd still use it today if it was to their advantage.

blueraven Tue, Aug 30, 2011 8:32:34pm

I agree that Bush, Cheney and the GOP in general used 9/11 for political advantage. A lot of despicable things were done to any group or person who questioned the war in Iraq or polices put in place after 9/11.

But to say that they didn't care about 3000 lost lives is a bridge too far.

Lidane Tue, Aug 30, 2011 8:53:51pm

re: #3 blueraven

I don't think they were completely heartless. Those deaths on 9/11 affected most people, I think.

However, I absolutely agree with the assertion that the GOP used 9/11 as a means to stifle dissent and to polarize this country. They spent years demonizing anyone who didn't follow the party line and who questioned anything as a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor.

sagehen Tue, Aug 30, 2011 9:43:38pm

re: #3 blueraven

But to say that they didn't care about 3000 lost lives is a bridge too far.

um... depends on who precisely you identify as "they."

Ordinary rank and file, people in the hinterlands who show up at the polls every couple of years and hardly care about politics otherwise, that kind of "they" felt something for the dead and their families.

But I'm pretty sure there's a fair number of high-ranking campaign strategists and media consultants who could look at a few thousand American civilian corpses and see only political opportunity to exploit the ashes for an otherwise hard-to-sell agenda.

Ukobserver Wed, Aug 31, 2011 12:14:32am

You are also forgetting that the republicans held the 2004 convention in New York. I remember the video they ran before Bush came on to speak. It had still pictures from 9/11, and a VoiceOver by a little girl who expressed her view that "the president only wants to keep me safe" ending with a photo of Bush hugging her. I was at work at the time and got into trouble for raging at the tv screen at what had to be one of the most cynically exploitative images I had ever seen until then for a political campaign.

I also remember lots of right wing americans calling me a terrorist sympathiser for questioning their march to illegal war.

BTW it may be an idea to read up on Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas.

He's a veteran of the US Armed services who was born and grew up in El Salvador. His comment was aimed not at the brave service people who joined the military out of a sense of patriotism but at the highly paid mercenaries who earn at least twice the amount as the actual military do and who caused the battle of Fallujah to happen. He has no regard or respect for mercenaries (even with the name change to "contractors") especially having seen the results of their actions while growing up in Central America. If you had his experiences it would cloud or at least change your view of mercenaries too (it's part if that pesky "empathy" thing that a lot of right wingers sneer at).

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Wed, Aug 31, 2011 12:27:11am

The GOP doesn't care about 3000 people who died on 9-11? Really?

GOP top brass? Yes, I can see them being that sociopathic and that callous. The minions who follow and vote for them, well, they're a varied lot - who knows what they think about anything.

The GOP does have an eggs/omelettes mentality not just about the people we bomb, but the ones we send to war, though. For prolife people, they sure do have a callous attitude about those who have actually been born.

FreedomMoon Wed, Aug 31, 2011 1:22:43am

It's a stretch to say none of them cared for the loss of life, that's a bold claim to lay on somebody, but I think it would be accurate to say they prostituted the victims to sell an agenda, that clearly was in dire need of opposition.
That, along with the whole anti-science theme, is one of the biggest things I hate about the GOP. It's been in their playbook since the McCarthy era (or even before?); if you're not with us then you are obviously a pinko-commie-traitor-terrorist sympathizer. The only way I could ever vote for a repub is if they distanced themselves from BOTH of those elements.

SpaceJesus Wed, Aug 31, 2011 2:28:51am

re: #1 celticdragon

I want to up ding this so many times

RogueOne Wed, Aug 31, 2011 4:45:52am

re: #1 celticdragon

Uh huh.

Then they went straight out and used 9/11 to attack every dem they could. They accused Senator Max Cleland...a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam...of being an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

I'm not sure why this is the most "mis-remembered" ad of all time. The worst thing Cleland was ever accused of was being a union sympathizer. Here's the original ad to refresh peoples memory:

Youtube Video

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Aug 31, 2011 4:48:59am

But 9/11 *was* a political opportunity for GOP. While Kos shouldn't have said that no one cared, that's hardly something to highlight in his argument, which is correct. GOP wrapped itself in the flag, used 9/11 as a political cudgel at every opportunity, etc.

RogueOne Wed, Aug 31, 2011 4:49:07am

re: #6 Ukobserver

Do you seriously believe that the biggest attack on US soil in 60 years should not have been part of an incumbents campaign 3 years later? The biggest issues during that election were all wrapped around national security and war. Of course his response to 9-11 was fair game, both pro and con. Not to be rude but it's just dumb to believe that the attacks on 9-11 should have been taken off the table during the election of the commander-in-chief.

celticdragon Wed, Aug 31, 2011 9:19:20am

re: #10 RogueOne

I'm not sure why this is the most "mis-remembered" ad of all time. The worst thing Cleland was ever accused of was being a union sympathizer. Here's the original ad to refresh peoples memory:

[Video]

I lived in Georgia at the time and he was attacked constantly as being "soft on terror" by GOP operatives.

Miniter claimed that Cleland lost his Senate seat in 2002 because he was "too soft on the war on terror." No mention was made of the attack ads put out by Cleland's opponent, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), linking the Vietnam veteran to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. As The New Republic's "Notebook" reported (subscription required) on December 2, 2002, "attacks on Cleland's patriotism formed the subtext of virtually the entire Chambliss campaign, as noted by innumerable press accounts leading up to and following the election." Chambliss attacked Cleland, claiming Cleland opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, even though Cleland was a co-sponsor of legislation introduced on May 2, 2002, calling for the creation of a cabinet-level DHS. As Media Matters for America has noted, it was the Bush White House that opposed the creation of DHS, until Bush reversed position in June 2002 and promoted a different bill that included provisions opposed by Democrats, including Cleland.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!