« dirty politics | Main | psa »

9/11 widow sues bush; the left engages in typical irony

A New Hampshire woman whose husband died in one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center sued President Bush and other government officials yesterday, contending their negligence of airport security resulted in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

And the anti-Busher at Democratic Underground cheer and applaud.

But, wait...aren't these the same people who denounce every single effort to make airport security tighter and better as attacks on our freedoms and civil liberties?

Just asking.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 9/11 widow sues bush; the left engages in typical irony:

» sport book 911 from sport book 911
sport book 911 [Read More]


Yes, but they aren't the only ones. Most of the right and the center have been just as vocal in complaining about homeland security / anti-terror efforts as infringements on their civil liberties. It seems we want it both ways around here: we want our government to keep us absolutely safe from terror, but we don't want to make any sacrifices or be even slightly inconvenienced for it. I'm not sure it's going to work that way.

Bet Michelle didnt see that one coming...

See what coming? That the right engages in the same thing? Sure I did, because I know it. I just happened to come upon the first mention I've heard of this at a site where everyone thought it was great that the woman is suing Bush. You're not going to see that on the other side.

Yes and no. I'm with dave on this.

The security that they ARE using isn't good. Witness http://www.stupidsecurity.com/

Both the left and the right are complaining. Witness Instapundit's bemoaning that no heads rolled over 9/11. They should have.

Not a lot happened over that, they just made life harder for you and I.

Suing the president is stupid. Doing what they're doing to "fix" the problem is stupid too.

I'm not sure I want the government to keep me 100% safe from terror. I'd like the government to bring the fight to the terrorists rather than the other way around, certainly. I'd also like airport security to make me more secure. I'm silly like that.

No more taking off my shoes unless there's a reason.

Well that's the 90s answer for everything - litigate, litigate, litigate.

What an entirely useless money absorbing process, accomplishing nothing.

I suppose I am more astounded by the whole suing the president thing than the actual bemoaning of less than tight security going on.

I'm just saying, it seems hypocritical to give a "you go, girl" to this woman suing the president and his staff and then crying every security measure that is put in place is another Ashcroftian boot stamp on their privacy.

You either want it or you don't want it. These people are just happy the woman is suing Bush because...it's Bush.

Nope - we're the ones complaining that the security measures taken after 9/11 are 99% useless; as opposed to, oh, checking airplane cargo (which has distinct and much less thourough procedures than checking passenger baggage), scanning airport employees (who at many airports come in by a back entrance with no screening), checking cargo ships at American ports, and a thousand other measures that are more effective and less intentionally humiliating than Ridge's goofy ideas.

Meanwhile, late yesterday the computer system that the State Department uses to issue visas, and hopefully prevent more terrorists from entering the country, crashed:


Now if after all the money spent on "homeland security", what we have is a key system to pretect our boarders can't even be secured against the average Microsoft virus. These people couldn't organize a piss-up at a brewery,

Ken, and others...

What is it about Homeland Security that you think will magically convert the government into an entity that can do ANYTHING effectively or efficiently ?

What, because it's important ? Yeah, so is most of the other stuff the government tries and fails to do.

These are government employees we're talking about. You know, like the ones that work at the IRS, the Post Office, and the DMV (although at the state level).

Government employees have a HUGE entitlement problem that prevents accountability. No government agency will ever be efficient or greatly effective at anything, except for the occassional personal committment of individual employees. What's the incentive ?

I'll be the first to admit our securit sucks. I guess I didn't quite make the point I wanted to make which is that no matter what the topic of converstation is at DU, it all comes down to anti-Bush statements.

Hey, I'm a government employee!

Case Closed

sorry forgot my smiley ;)

She was on O'Reilly last(?) year. I saw her.

I'm not saying she has to get over it because no one ever does which is the way it should be, but she's not working thru it, I know I'm not saying it well, but don't flame me.

She put me off back then. We've known for years security sucks and are surprised it didn't happen sooner.

We were asleep.

Well, the DU crowd would vote for Pol Pot if he ran against a Republican. Ends justify the means if you know what I mean.

Same people run homeland security run the DMV and the IRS.

Just a thought.

And suing Bush is ridiculous. He had been president for barely a year -- who had eight years before then to confront the terrorist/security problem head-on? How many Clinton administration methods were still in place that may have been part of the problem?

But blaming Clinton for this is also unfair (mostly). Remember, at the time the big fear was truck bombs -- that was the terrorist fad of the time. The previous World Trade Center attack was done with truck bombs. It probably didn't occur to anyone in the government that terrorists would have the audacity to use passenger planes as bombs. (It occurred to Hollywood though -- sometimes I wonder... many things.)