“I am really appalled by this article.”

That’s nice. Not surprising coming from a libtard, but what else is new?

“It completely ignores the fact that the 9/11 families ASKED for this to be a National Day of Service.”

Really? All the families of the 3,000 who died wanted this to be changed to make sure Obama can fill up his Youth Corps? You have a pretty good chance at that insanity plea.

“I realize that many on the right like Ann Coulter HATE the 9/11 families, but I’d think their wishes might just possibly trump those of the Republican party.”

See statement above. Somehow I doubt it’s all of the 9/11 families. And Coulter hammered a few. That’s not necessarily all of them. But keep living in your fantasy world.

“Being a day of service honors the memory of the brave front line responders who saved so many lives that day.”

No, it’s supposed to be a day of remembrance for the losses we suffered, not as a recruiting mechanism for Obama’s paramilitary machine.

“Just because some moron at the National Spectator says that this is an effort to “rebrand” the day doesn’t make it so. It is possible for a day to have more than one meaning.”

I know, because we don’t really want to remember the fact that 3,000 people died horribly, do we? It’s all about the kumbaya peace, love, dope with you guys. That’s what 9/11 was. Lots of people died. You cannot change that fact, no matter how much you want to gloss over it.

“And since I doubt most people spend the entire day on 9/11 thinking solely about the horrors of “Islamofascism” it might be nice to also serve your community that day.”

If it were up to me, I’d replay images of the people jumping out of the upper stories in desperation because that’s forces people to remember the nature of the enemy that we’re fighting. But we like to sugar-coat everything in this country and mild it down so that it becomes meaningless. Hence Obama’s efforts to change the holiday.

“And, by the way, the patent dishonesty of the Spectator article out to be clear by the fact that they say Color of Change is upset by Beck covering Van Jones. People are boycotting Beck because he called the President of the United States a “racist” with a “deep seated hatred of white people” and insinuates that Obama is a Nazi every night.”

So…what church did he go to again for 20-something years? Yeah, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Obama doesn’t exactly relish whites. He may tolerate them because he can use some of them, but actually like them? No, I don’t think Beck’s too far off with that analogy at all. And no, I don’t think Beck ever called Obama a Nazi (though I’d cheerfully call him a Stalinist…does that count?).

It’s only the resident libtroll Fuster.

Moving on…

1)It completely ignores the fact that the 9/11 families ASKED for this to be a National Day of Service. I realize that many on the right like Ann Coulter HATE the 9/11 families, but I’d think their wishes might just possibly trump those of the Republican party.

2)Being a day of service honors the memory of the brave front line responders who saved so many lives that day.

3)Just because some moron at the National Spectator says that this is an effort to “rebrand” the day doesn’t make it so. It is possible for a day to have more than one meaning. And since I doubt most people spend the entire day on 9/11 thinking solely about the horrors of “Islamofascism” it might be nice to also serve your community that day.

And how did he do this exactly? He’s “committed” troops, but not nearly as many as he initially said he would. He talked tough about Afghanistan, but now has second thoughts. Yeah, that sounds like a pretty firm policy to me…

“One of George W. Bush’s biggest failures in the White House was to let military handle in the country to dissolve after we succeeded in routing the Taliban in 2004. Perhaps GWH’s ties the the bin Laden family influenced him to leave Osama alone.”

Uh, last time I checked, within days of 9/11, the left was warning Bush not to invade (more of that firm foreign Democratic policy, eh?) Afghanistan. Shortly after we went in, Democrats were looking for “exit strategies.” Seems to me that the exit strategy should be to… WIN THE FREAKING WAR (preferable with the smallest possible American military losses and the maximum to the enemy)!!!

“Perhaps GWH’s ties the the bin Laden family influenced him to leave Osama alone. I always wondered why Osama bin Laden has not been accused of the 9/11 crimes, according FBI’s most 10 wanted list.”

Ok, you really need to do some research. The Bush family has connections to the Saudi royal family, but not bin Laden (bin Laden isn’t royal). Big difference. bin Laden’s family was big in construction (kind of ironic, actually). And who said that bin Laden wasn’t responsible for 9/11?

“As for the events of 09/11/2001, the White Houses own incompetence allowed it to happen.
The president was given an intelligence report in August, 2001, that a strike using hijacked commercial jets U.S. skyscrapers was imminent.”

Actually, you can go a little bit further back and thank your buddy Clinton for that. He’s the one who gutted our intelligence capabilities in the 90’s (and then handed them off to Bush). You know, as part of the “peace dividend?”

“What did he do? He dismissed the intelligence report and went on with his month long vacation at his Texas ranch. Nice job, Mr. President!”

I seriously doubt he was at Crawford for a month. And like I said, the intelligence capability of this country was seriously compromised long before Bush (though like I said above, you certainly can thank Slick Willie).

“As for 9/11 Truth, it has not been revealed to the American people yet.”

And what “truth” is that? Please don’t tell me you’re a Truther tool…because your credibility will sink even lower than it already has.

But by all means, keep doing the tossed salad with Bammy. Perhaps you’ll figure it out sooner or later (though probably not).

Thanks for citing a source for this outlandish, specious, and almost certainly fabricated or at least ridiculously distorted claim.

Given that the intel community discovers hundreds of such potential threats all the time in the course of a year, figuring out which ones are valid and which ones aren’t is hardly trivial (see “Plame” and “Yellow Cake”).

Further, it would have had far more credibility if the “wall” created by Gorelick under Clinton hadn’t been erected and prevented the intel community from accessing useful and blatantly relevant information on the subject.

But you just expect us to take your claim — that the only reason for it was “Bush incompetence” for granted, since you did much the same, right? After all, there’s a reason you (or your friends) called him Chimpy McBushitler — right?

What I’ve always found amusing is the contradiction between “Bush=idiot” and “Bush=cunning monster”. Which is it? Sorry, the answer “Both” equals “I am one stupid fool”.

You want to believe it, so you do.

Facts? Who needs ‘em?

As for the events of 09/11/2001, the White Houses own incompetence allowed it to happen. The president was given an intelligence report in August, 2001, that a strike using hijacked commercial jets U.S. skyscrapers was imminent. What did he do? He dismissed the intelligence report and went on with his month long vacation at his Texas ranch. Nice job, Mr. President!

As for 9/11 Truth, it has not been revealed to the American people yet.