The Blue Site

9/11 Widows Make Asses of Themselves on MSNBC

I was watching Hardball for a couple minutes last night...Hardball with the always partisan- hack of a journalist, Chris Matthews (I used to like this guy, but I'm now sick of him)...and Chris was allowing victims' widows of the Sept 11 attacks bash Bush and say some truly stupid things.

The women contradicted themselves, saying that Rice didn't give enough information about this and that, then they turned around and said- well, she did actually give this info. blah blah blah.

One woman said this, which was absurd:

"...why the national security advisor did not know that planes could be

used as missiles. That’s her job. "

Who on earth knew that planes would be used as missiles?! No one in their right mind would have guessed as much.

The nonsense continued (with a conspiracy theory that claims government officials were told not to fly on Sept 11- a claim I've never heard, but it's clearly nonsense.):

LORIE VAN AUKEN, WIDOW OF 9/11 ATTACK: "We also know that people

stopped flying domestically. Ashcroft stopped flying. Pentagon officials

stop flying the day before September 11. They were warned not fly on

September 11. We think San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was told not to

fly. That’s all domestic. You know, everybody keeps telling us how they

were focused outward."

It seems this woman is implying that the administration knew of a pending attack and did nothing about it...

Then:

VAN AUKEN: You know, that’s the question we have, the urgency

question. In “Bush at War,” it was quoted that Bush said he felt that al

Qaeda was important but not urgent. Whose job is to convey urgency to

the president if not the national security advisor, getting information from

the intel. agencies up to the president?

But, she takes what he said out of context in the Woodward interview...Rice explained this and made clear that people were taking it out of context. These bitter widows are doing what reporters are doing...using parts of what someone said to make him or her look bad. It's just not right.

Then, one of the widows tries to imply another conspiracy:

"And on the morning of 9/11, even when the nation was fully under attack,

our nation didn't have a military response until after the Pentagon got hit.

That was a full hour-and-a-half after the first plane was known hijacked.

How is that possible?"

So, the white house allowed people to die, but didn't take action until the Pentago was hit? There was no "military response" after the Pentagon was hit anyhow...define "military response!" We didn't attack anyone, we didn't fire on anyone or anything...

Do I even need to say anymore of the stupidity coming from these women?

Matthews just sat there and kept attacking Bush and Rice...egging them on with their nonsense.

And some say the 9/11 hearings haven't become partisan. Hilarious.

after I posted this, I noticed more about these so-called "non-partisan widows"

these women should be ashamed of themselves...
------------------------------
Mrs. Breitweiser insists that she voted for Bush in 2000, but has
wildly declared that "three thousand people were murdered on
Bush's watch." Times arts editor Frank Rich also noted how she
tartly complained that a Showtime 9-11 docudrama failed to
display President Bush reading to school children "while people
like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center
towers" because it would have been contrary to "Karl Rove's art
direction and grand vision." She's hardly "nonpolitical."
------------------------------

Now Bush is being attacked for reading to school children?! Her comments are the very definition of partisan!!

Posted by Josh at April 9, 2004 03:44 PM | TrackBack