VIDEO: KO on MSNBC comment just before Bush 9-11 speech

[gerryhatrick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1OA2wHcBt4

I don't fully agree with his critisizm over the site not being built up yet, it's not Bushs' fault. There's extensive consultations going on over that site.

I do think his commentary on the partisan way in which 9-11 is being used is brilliant though.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm waiting for a poster to complain of Olbermanns bias or whatever, wait for it, it will come.

[Black Dog]

I don't fully agree with his critisizm over the site not being built up yet, it's not Bushs' fault. There's extensive consultations going on over that site.

I think it's a metaphor.

[jbg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1OA2wHcBt4

I don't fully agree with his critisizm over the site not being built up yet, it's not Bushs' fault. There's extensive consultations going on over that site.

I do think his commentary on the partisan way in which 9-11 is being used is brilliant though.

The beginning of this diatribe relates to the failure to build anything at the site. As you correctly point out, gerryhatrick, Bush has nothing to do with the rebuilding or lack thereof. It is a State, bi-State (with New Jersey) and municipal responsibility.

Let me explain. The WTC was a socialist nightmare of ownership and construction. The bi-state Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was the original builder and owner of the WTC. Its conception was to facilitate trade, which is one of the Port Authority's missions. In 1966 or 1967, my father, may he rest in peace, was asked to design some office space within the Twin Towers, then under construction. He refused, citing the elevators' design to head towards heat sources, hence any fires.

When it was finally built, New York State was forced to lease much of it in order to avoid massive losses for its then owner, the Port Authority. Quite simply, because of its location far from any major highways, indeed about 4 miles into gridlock from the end of the West Side Highway at 57th Street (its southern end, from 57th Street to the Battery collapsed during a December 1973 snowstorm) it was extremely unattractive to private tenants. Finally, the financial industry boom of the mid-1980's through 2000 filled the tower with largely private tenants. Just before the attacks, the Port Authority conducted a bastardized "privatization" where Silverstein Properties was given, not ownership of the land, but a 99 year lease on the WTC. This method of ownership is ensuring the maximum number of warring "stakeholders" in the WTC:

1. The companies providing insurance;
   
2. The Port Authority;
   
3. New York State's government;
   
4. New Jersey's government;
   
5. New York City's many warring branches of government; and
   
6. Just about every non-profit group imaginable, including some, who I have acquaintance of having very stubborn personalities.
   

Quite predictably, nothing is happening. Quite frankly, if you were a private tenant, would you want to be in a trophy building every radical nut case would want to bring down?

The rest of the speech is a mindless, bitter, partisan diatribe.

[gerryhatrick]

The rest of the speech is a mindless, bitter, partisan diatribe.

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some valid points. Bush is using 9/11 to forward his partisan case, which is despicable. We should be free from salesmen on some days.

[US Citizen]

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some valid points. Bush is using 9/11 to forward his partisan case, which is despicable. We should be free from salesmen on some days.

THANK YOU!!!!

[Wilber]

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some valid points. Bush is using 9/11 to forward his partisan case, which is despicable. We should be free from salesmen on some days.

THANK YOU!!!!

Not to worry "despicable" is Gerry's favorite word.

[jbg]

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some valid points. Bush is using 9/11 to forward his partisan case, which is despicable. We should be free from salesmen on some days.

THANK YOU!!!!

Not to worry "despicable" is Gerry's favorite word.

How did the thread move from discussing the 911 speech to discussing GH's supposed personality quirks? No one knows him personally and I'm interested in the various posters' ideas, not their attacks on what they hypothesize the poster is like personally.

[ft.niagara]

I'm interested in the various posters' ideas

I am disappointed in Keith Oberman. I think that MSNBC has formed itself into being the antiFoxNews. They had to define themselves, so they went to the left, and be antiBush for their definition. Once Bush and the Iraq War are history, one wonders where they will go. Over half the states have banned gay marriage, and I think most of the country is conservative. This vote was an antiIraq vote. The Republicans will have to redefine themselves, and the pendulum will swing back and forth. I doubt that it will take another 40 years for the Republicans to make a come back though, at least I hope not.