posted on September 27, 2001 06:41:26 AM new
Sept. 27, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- On the same day last week that "NBC Nightly News"
anchor Tom Brokaw sat down to interview former President Clinton, executives for the
program received unexpected phone calls from senior communications staffers at the White
House, expressing disappointment about the decision to spotlight Bush's predecessor.
While not asking the network to refrain from running the interview, they expressed the
feeling that the Sept. 18 interview with Clinton would not be helpful to the current war on
terrorism. Neither NBC nor the White House would comment on the phone calls, but
sources familiar with the calls confirmed that they happened.
This news comes on the heels of revelations that President Bush and Air Force One were
not, contrary to earlier White House claims, targets of the terrorists who attacked the
Pentagon and the World Trade Center Sept. 11. The White House is now saying that those
claims, which it used to explain why the president didn't return to Washington immediately
that day, were a result of staffers "misunderstanding" security information.
posted on September 27, 2001 07:52:44 AM new
I figured from the start that Bush was hiding after the attacks on Sep 11. The part of this article that scares me, though, is this:
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer took a slap at
"Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher, who called U.S. military strikes on faraway targets
"cowardly." Fleischer blasted Maher, claiming it was "a terrible thing to say," and didn't stop
there, noting "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say,
watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
No free speech anymore. What's next?
[ edited by monkeysuit on Sep 27, 2001 07:53 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 08:10:59 AM new"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
I believe this is the "you must give up your rights so that we may save them" school of thought.
edited for ubb...
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Sep 27, 2001 08:11 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 08:11:08 AM new
I, obviously, hold a different opinion about how our President's safety was handled immediately following the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. I would have expected no less. He was being protected, as any President would be in this same situation.
We had no idea where the next 'plane' would be used to take out another building. So...taking him to different safe places seems to me to be the right thing to have done. At least until the government could find out what in the world was happening....and by whom. We didn't have immediate knowledge of who was attacking us.
On Bill Maher and free speech. He wasn't acting just as an individual with his own opinion. He was a TV host who was making a statement on TV, which to some, was against the military policy that the US had (under Clinton). To some, he was called the US cowards. That didn't set well with many. Then when his advertizers started pulling out (Sears and Fed ex) he apologized. Sure he has a right to say how he feels. And the advertizers have a right to withdraw their ads from his show because of his actions. That's kind of their 'free speech' rights to do so.
I agree it was a terrible thing to call our military actions cowardly especially when our country had just been attacked. Talk about siding with the enemy.
posted on September 27, 2001 08:22:18 AM new
Since Washington was obviously under attack, I think it made perfect sense to get the President somewhere safe as soon as possible. I don't have a problem with that. But I did think it was rather loopy of them to say that Air Force One had specifically been targeted, and then use that as a justification for something that really needed no justification in the first place.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 27, 2001 08:23:31 AM new
Linda,
Rush Limbaugh strongly supported Maher. So wouldn't he also be siding with the enemy?
If any criticism of U. S. past foreign policy is now unpatriotic, then we may as well remove all government and political science courses from our educational system.
And of course there can only be one political party in the nation anyway since criticism of the other political party is unpatriotic.
In fact anyone that someone doesn't agree with or anyone that someone dislikes could be considered unpatriotic.
edited to address poster
[ edited by antiquary on Sep 27, 2001 08:24 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 08:30:48 AM new
"Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind."
William C. Westmoreland
1982
General and U.S. military commander
posted on September 27, 2001 08:32:17 AM new
Linda_K - So am I reading this right?
If you speak as an individual - like at a cocktail party it is OK to be critical of the government, but if you have an audience because you have a TV program or I presume a printing press your first ammendmant rights no longer hold and you must not speak your mind.
How much influence do you have to have before it is treason to speak your opinion? I want to be careful that the SS does not come take me away.
(I mean Secret Service - did not want you to confuse them with the Waffen SS.)
posted on September 27, 2001 08:38:42 AM new
Linda_K, I'm curious about what you consider "siding with the enemy". If this country won't tolerate dissent or disagreement, how are we different from those we fight against? I realize that we haven't sent planes loaded with innocent civilians into occupied buildings, but isn't one of the reasons people flock to this country our history of tolerating dissent.
posted on September 27, 2001 09:01:06 AM new
It does not surprize me one bit that Air Force One was NOT a target. Seemed to me, given the uncertainy of the situation early on, that they had no way of knowing what was next & simply kept GW moving to hopefully avoid his termination....I found it quite bazaar when they released info that AF1 was a target that they kept the plane up in the air moving around. If that was the case, only the hardest of GW opponents would have sent him up over & over & over again! Personally, I don't think he was even in the plane. But rather the whole thing was a cover for his security.
In situations like that I don't think information should be given out to the general public anyway. Does it really matter to me where Dick Cheany is?....I would be satisfied knowing they are in a "safe" location. They did that in NY immediately following the attack. The PTB were moved to a "secure, secret" location, and although reports could get statements, they were instructed NOT to disclose the location.
IMO, we give away WAY too much info that can be used against us. Perhaps we should start learning something from this attack and tighten up the spread of info that can be used by our enemies.
posted on September 27, 2001 09:05:13 AM new
Unbelievable that anyone could question the decision, made as events of unknown proportions unfolded on Sept.11, to protect the President. To use the initial response of those around him to protect our President and Commander-in-Chief as reason to call Bush a coward is reprehensible.
As to Maher's comments, you may find their timing to be less than desirable, but un-American? What is un-American about expressing an opinion?! His remarks were a jab at what so many of us believed about the Clinton administration responses (or lack thereof) to previous attacks. If advertisers wish to withdraw their sponsorship of his program, they are within their rights, but no one has grounds to question his patriotism. I took Fleisher's remarks on the subject to be a statement of the Bush administration that they would not engage in blaming the Clinton administration or second-guessing the actions of that administration. I find it hard to believe that there was any sinister intent in his remarks.
Sounds to me like the Bush-haters are just looking for things to jump on. Believe me, after suffering eight years of Clinton, I understand just how you feel!
posted on September 27, 2001 09:34:48 AM new
We should all realize that, notwithstanding anything else that goes on, "politics as usual" keeps on happening. Maybe we don't like to think that way, it seems... crass... if that's the right word. But these guys are all politicians, and they don't stop being politicians just because something happens.
Remember, we heard that right after the attacks, Bush's political advisors were saying he should get back to D.C. asap, to make a speech, and that Secret Service disagreed. Bush's political advisors realize that one of the goals here is to make Bush look good. That's always been one of the goals, from day one of starting his campaign, and nothing changes that. Winning the war, and winning the next election - both important. Expect a critical juncture in this thing to be reached right around the time the next presidential election comes around.
Yes, they are going to lie, and they're going to spin, and not only in the interest of National Security, but in the interest of Bush and co.'s political future. They won't admit that - they'll say it's only in the interest of National Security. They'll righteously accuse others of "playing politics," or being "unpatriotic" while the fate of the free world is the only thing in their minds!
Godzillatemple thinks it was "loopy" for them to say Air Force One was a target when it really wasn't. Not loopy, just politics as usual.
posted on September 27, 2001 09:52:49 AM newdonny - Winning the war, and winning the next election - both important. Expect a critical juncture in this thing to be reached right around the time the next presidential election comes around.
I agree. All politics, all the time. Bush and his party will be trying to prove how necessary it is to keep them in office, so we can win the war.
The Democratic candidate and his party will be trying to prove what a terrible job the Bush admin. is doing, and how necessary it is for them to gain control, so we can win the war.
Don't know which of the two inevitable tactics frightens me more.
posted on September 27, 2001 09:55:15 AM new
Antiquary - Rush Limbaugh strongly supported Maher. So wouldn't he also be siding with the enemy? I haven't read what Rush has said about this issue so I can't comment. But if Rush disagrees, then I'd be in disagreement with him too.
I'm arguing that Maher used a platform that isn't available to most Americans. The timing of his statements couldn't have been worse. If he'd said exactly the same thing the day before (10th) I'd bet few would have cared. He said what he wanted to....and the following reactions (advertizers pulling ads) where the consequence.
My argument is that others have a right to judge his words about our military actions being cowardly and the terrorists not being the cowards. If those advertizers choose to remove their support from his program because they see his statements as unpatriotic, then that's their right.
He sits in the comfort/safety of his chair, calling our military actions cowardly. Do I feel that's unpatriotic? Most certainly. If he doesn't want the US to fight from 'afar' then let him put his a** where his mouth is, on the ground and on the front line.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:01:56 AM new
I don't get it, Linda. How can Maher's remarks be a slap at the military's courage? The President chose what action would be taken. The military simply carried out the order. If anyone's courage was impugned by Maher's comment, it would have to be Clinton.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:12:14 AM new
Hi gravid - So am I reading this right? If you speak as an individual - like at a cocktail party it is OK to be critical of the government, but if you have an audience because you have a TV program or I presume a printing press your first ammendmant rights no longer hold and you must not speak your mind
I'm saying that anyone can say whatever they want...as Maher did...but then people yell about the advertizers who didn't agree with his statements who pulled their ads. They have a right to do so. Consequences of Maher's words, which seemed to many to be very unpatriotic.
Do you really think you could look your boss in the face and tell him what a d*** you think he is, and still have your job? You have a right to your freedom of speech, but maybe that's not the appropriate time or way to do so. Sure you can do so....but you will suffer the consequences of your actions. That's what I'm saying.
How much influence do you have to have before it is treason to speak your opinion? I want to be careful that the SS does not come take me away. It's a fine line, and I think we each decided where our own line is and what we're willing to risk for our statements. Kind of like when that person wore the t-shirt that said something to the effect "Like what happened?....be prepared for more." It was a t-shirt that showed the WTC and was suggesting they were warning more of the same was coming. That person has the right to wear that shirt, but must also be aware that doing so might bring a bullet to his chest by someone who see's that statement as treason.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:30:52 AM new
Yup, you're right, Toke, the Democrats will be playing the same game. Their problem will be how to do without coming off as unpatriotic whiners. It's going to be difficult.
Neither of those tactics really worries us, does it? We expect them. We recognize them. What worries us, I think, is that other people won't.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:30:57 AM new
Hi saabsister - Linda_K, I'm curious about what you consider "siding with the enemy".
When a person states that they found what the US military did by bombing from afar was cowardly, and also states that the enemy was not acting cowardly, that's when I feel they are siding with the enemy. I'm referring to the terrorist who have repeatedly destroyed US facilities in the past, and more recently on our own soil.
If this country won't tolerate dissent or disagreement, how are we different from those we fight against? I realize that we haven't sent planes loaded with innocent civilians into occupied buildings, but isn't one of the reasons people flock to this country our history of tolerating dissent.
I see this issue of Maher vs. his advertizers as...he used his free speech rights, and they have a right to disagree with it. Since they are free to choose where they wish to pay for their ads to be shown, that's their way of showing their disagreement with what he said. Are you saying you feel they have no right to pull their advertizing? He has the right to say whatever he wishes, but they don't have the right to pull their business if they feel his statements were unpatriotic?
posted on September 27, 2001 10:39:47 AM newI see this issue of Maher vs. his advertizers as...he used his free speech rights, and they have a right to disagree with it.
Sure. Kind of makes one wonder what the advertisers were thinking they were going to get, with a show called Politically Incorrect, anyway.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:44:45 AM new
elfgifu - Trust me...this is not about clinton (to me) nor about President Bush, but it's about who ever is our commander-in-chief. I know who our military gets their orders from. Our son is a Marine who, by his own choice, will have his life on the line.
I agreed with most of what you shared in your first post....with the exception of If advertisers wish to withdraw....but no one has grounds to question his patriotism.
Anyone has grounds to question anyone's patriotism. I question the patriotism of all who burn our flag, who cheered when the WTC was attacked. There are many things that can cause anyone to question a person's patriotism. And in this issue, I question (as did many others) Maher's patriotism.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:55:23 AM newHe sits in the comfort/safety of his chair, calling our military actions cowardly.
...whereas sitting in the comfort/safety of one's chair and mindlessly supporiting any and every action taken by the C-in-C is heroic, I presume.
I question the patriotism of anybody who's as uncomfortable with freedom of speech as some folks around here are.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:56:58 AM new
MrPotatoHeadd - I understand the point you're making. I guess this is (to me) where that 'fine line' comes in to affect. Obviously they had supported Maher's program, until (in their opinion) he crossed [i]their[/] line. I'd guess because they received many complaints from people who feel just like I do....wrong thing said at the wrong time.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:59:57 AM new
I'm sorry, it's just stupid to call the guys who hijacked the planes "cowardly." Bush said they were cowardly, and even when Bush says it, even when he's the president, and even when we're at war, it's just plain stupid.
This notion of "patriotism" is being waved around like a club to whack anyone who dares voice that the emperor has no clothes.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:04:21 AM new
Oh yes, Donny. Those men who slit the throats of women on those planes, used children and babies as human bombs, killed 6000+ unarmed civilians....they were brave bad MF's! Uh huh.
Cowards IS the correct terms for those sacks of s**t.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Sep 27, 2001 11:05 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 11:06:09 AM new
Linda, my son, too, will be on the front lines of any ground war that might take place. And what I realize is that he is in the position of following orders. That is why Maher's remarks were no reflection on his or any other military personnel's courage. Maher's remarks were directed only at the person who chose the action--the Commander-in-Chief. I do not believe that patriotism is defined by lock-stepping with every military decision made by our government.
Both as a citizen and as the mother of a military man, I believe I have a duty to be informed and to question any and all decisions made by our government. I cannot agree that such questioning of military matters makes me less supportive of our fighting forces or of my son, and I certainly cannot agree that it makes me or anyone else unpatriotic.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:08:53 AM new
When you kill yourself, on purpose, as part of your objective, that's not cowardice. You can call it something else, you can add lots of astericks, but to pull out every label to describe it is dumb. Cowardice just doesn't fit, but there are plenty of others, and they're appropriate.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:08:59 AM newdonny - Neither of those tactics really worries us, does it? We expect them. We recognize them. What worries us, I think, is that other people won't.
I'm just sick and tired of such tactics...all the more because I resent the fact I do expect them, and would like to be proven wrong, occasionally... And yes, it does worry me in time of war. The consequences of political chicanery could be enormous and devastating now...and I don't know what, if any, either party's limits are.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:11:12 AM newWhen you kill yourself, on purpose, as part of your objective, that's not cowardice. No it's called insanity. The cowardice part comes from killing innocent civilians along with themselves. They are cowards pure and simple.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:15:10 AM new
None of this has a damn thing to do with freedom of speech. People have the freedom to say what they please, and those that dislike what's been said (freely) have an equal right to excoriate them for saying it.
