Cute use of selective memory.

Post #39,685 by bepatient 5/23/02 3:10:27 PM Reply	Cute use of selective memory. I believe there was another thread involving Marlowe that used non-specific threat announcements by the Clinton Administration as a point to prove that the GW administration was handling it all wrong. Quit the strawman bullshit as well. The comment on the Demo backpedal is perfectly within the scope of this conversation. And if you didn't notice the change in political spin from weekend to weekend...you just weren't paying attention. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #39,691 by Brandioch 5/23/02 3:25:13 PM Reply	You're still trying for that strawman tangent, aren't you? I believe there was another thread involving Marlowe that used non-specific threat announcements by the Clinton Administration as a point to prove that the GW administration was handling it all wrong. I believe I have already established the limitations of your memory. So, instead of addressing: #1. what Bush DID do (cut the drones and the funding and told people to lay off the bin Laden's) -and- #2. what Bush DID NOT do (put more sky marshals and plain clothes FBI on the planes).... You're going to go off on a strawman tangent about Marlowe and Clinton. When you can't address the facts (which is most of your "discussions"), you always retreat to the strawman. Whatever. Bush CUT counter-terrorism funding and operations prior to the attack. When the (non-specific) warnings were posted, there was NOT a corresponding increase in security. No, Bush did NOT know the SPECIFICS of the attack PRIOR to the attack.(pre-emptive anti-strawman for you there). Bush cut funding, cancelled active operations, told people to lay off the bin Laden's and didn't increase security when threat warnings were known. Now, I don't know about YOU, but to ME that means that Bush was SOFT on terrorism. Or ignorant.
Post #39,740 by bepatient 5/23/02 10:26:34 PM Reply	Why don't you... ...create an argument with someone else. There was no strawman in my post. The Dems WANTED warnings. Even if no specifics were known. THEY SAID THIS in their criticism of the administration. Now they get those warnings and they are critical (because the warnings are non-specific) because the warnings are due to their criticism. When your side makes up their mind...come on back and discuss it. I wasn't talking about the administration being soft on terrorism...YOU introduced that and claimed ME a strawman. I was speaking ONLY of the warnings. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #39,817 by Brandioch 5/24/02 12:15:33 PM Reply	Why don't you buy a dictionary. There was no strawman in my post. Okay. Now I'll quote from your ORIGINAL posting. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=39617\|Here] I also noticed a decided backpedal on weekend television. We never >meant to imply< that the President knew about 9/11 (bullshit)...we just want to make sure that the system is being addressed. I will point out the word "(bullshit)". Yep. Typical strawman from Bill "Strawman" Patient. No one DID claim that Bush knew that THOSE people would hijack THOSE planes and crash them into THOSE buildings. -BUT- Ashcroft stopped flying COMMERCIAL during that period. -and- No INCREASE in security was implemented. No, Bush didn't know about the attack. Yes, Bush KNEW that hijackings were planned and his people took the necessary steps to protect THEMSELVES. And THAT is where your strawman comes in. People want to know WHAT information Bush had and WHEN he had it. No one is saying he KNEW that THOSE people would hijack THOSE planes and crash them into THOSE buildings. So, to refresh your memory, a "strawman" is when you attack a position your opponent didn't state. No one has stated that Bush KNEW that THOSE people would hijack THOSE planes and crash them into THOSE buildings. That is the position you are attacking. Now they get those warnings and they are critical (because the warnings are non-specific) because the warnings are due to their criticism. Hmmm, I >SUPPOSE< that a "warning" could be something like "sometime in the next few years, somewhere in the world, someone will attempt to do something harmful to one or more US citizens". Now, do you see how cutting the FUNDING for anti-terrorist operations and CANCELLING existing operations COULD result is such a lack of operational intelligence that such "warnings" are viewed as the BEST the current regime can do? Oops. Sorry. I forgot I was talking at Bill "Strawman" Patient for a moment. Rather, let me put it to you in this fashion. The regime understood the warnings enough that Ashcroft altered his activities. Yet the regime did NOT increase security AT ALL. "Warnings"? When the current regime can't even decide where to deploy security? Rather, suppose that Ashcroft wasn't allowed to skip commercial flights. Put your money where your mouth is. What security measures do you think would be implemented if the current regime had to treat EVERY human life on those planes as if they were JUST AS IMPORTANT as Ashcroft's life? And WHY were those measures NOT implemented? I wasn't talking about the administration being soft on terrorism...YOU introduced that and claimed ME a strawman. I was speaking ONLY of the warnings. It is part of a whole. The current regime's past and present handling of terrorism. In the past, they cut the funding and the programs. Now, the best they can do is protect their own people and tell the rest of us to fuck off and die because someone, somewhere, sometime might try to kill someone. But that's all we know. I don't know how these things work in YOUR mind, Bill, but in the Real World, it takes TIME and RESOURCES and EFFORT to counter terrorism. All three of which were CUT by the current regime. Now, would you care to enlighten me as to the fantasy you operate under where you can cut funding and operations and STILL have an effective counter-terrorism program?
Post #39,831 by Simon_Jester 5/24/02 1:48:53 PM Reply	WHOA...wait a minute... Now they get those warnings and they are critical (because the warnings are non-specific) because the warnings are due to their criticism. That's just plain wrong. Several democrats are criticial, NOT because the warning are non-specific, but because they believe the WARNINGS ARE MEANT TO DISTRACT FROM OTHER ISSUES. And that, for the record, was a PERFECTLY valid criticism of the Clinton administration, so I don't why it's suddenly hands-off now.
Post #39,866 by bepatient 5/24/02 8:12:18 PM Reply	They just spent the better part.... ...of 2 weeks being critical of the administration for not issuing non-specific warnings. So they issue a non-specific warning. Now the warning is to distract from other issues. And this is somehow >NOT< politics as usual? I'm not sure how Brandioch has turned this statement into some rant on Bush's weak stance on terrorism and elimination of drone ops. And I'm supposed to the the strawman expert ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #39,910 by Brandioch 5/25/02 2:33:13 PM Reply	I will even give you the chance to show it isn't straw. Not that I think you'll be able to. I don't think you can even tell the difference. They just spent the better part.... ...of 2 weeks being critical of the administration for not issuing non-specific warnings. Really? I suppose you can provide a link or reference showing that "they" SPECIFICALLY requested a NON-SPECIFIC warning? Hmmmmmm?
Post #39,972 by Silverlock 5/26/02 11:57:01 AM Reply	Nice wording Especially in light of the Administration's reliance on the same [link\|http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/05/24/tomo/index.html\|word] "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Post #40,060 by Brandioch 5/27/02 2:45:51 PM Reply	And they mocked Clinton for that, didn't they? It's okay when your party does it, but it's a disgrace when the other party does it. Besides, Clinton did it first. Or, at least, Clinton did it before Bush did it. Ever get the feeling that the "adults" in office are nothing more than spoiled brats?
Post #40,000 by Ashton 5/26/02 10:05:50 PM Reply	Tom Tomorrow: ____calls a spayed a spayed._________:-\ufffd
Post #40,101 by bepatient 5/27/02 8:17:10 PM Reply	So what about the drones? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,103 by Ashton 5/27/02 8:29:33 PM Reply	Uh..their pilots have been reassigned to KP. Co$t reduction?
Post #40,120 by Brandioch 5/27/02 10:56:33 PM Reply	You don't have to grovel. Suffice to say that you made a claim that was demonstratably erroneous. Again. And you don't have the guts or decency to openly admit it.
Post #40,129 by bepatient 5/27/02 11:30:48 PM Reply	You don't have to get it... ...but I can still laugh. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,139 by bepatient 5/28/02 1:57:25 AM Reply	Company [link\|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020522-217139.htm\|Wash]ington Times But many of the critics who said Mr. Bush should have informed Americans of his Aug. 6 briefing... Looks like this guy watches the same talking heads... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,177 by Brandioch 5/28/02 12:08:31 PM Reply	You REALLY need to learn how to read. Or is it your memory that is, again, at fault? I told you to provide a link or reference where "they" specifically requested that non-specific warnings be issued. The article you just referenced has NOTHING about that. Now, was that because you can't read or because you can't remember what I told you to do?
Post #40,180 by bepatient 5/28/02 12:41:45 PM Reply	chuckle berates me for reading when he failed to do the same sort of like the straw man thing....you know...them drone ops You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,191 by Brandioch 5/28/02 2:19:52 PM Reply	Like I said, learn to read. Or is this your attempt to right shift this thread? I read the article. I understood the article. Nowhere in that article did it say that "they" requested non-specific warnings be issued. Your original statement was that "they" requested non-specific warnings be issued. The article you linked to does NOT support your statement. As for my refrence to the drones (and cutting counter-terrorism funding and telling people to leave the bin Laden's alone), that is an illustration of the "BIG PICTURE". Now, it would be a "strawman" if I said that you said that Bush continued the drone operations. Really, do not try to use words you don't understand. It only shows your ignorance.
Post #40,195 by bepatient 5/28/02 2:35:48 PM Reply	Oh... ...you mean like Sen Graham... "I think there are some reasons to make this public. I believe that the American people have a right to know and should be treated as mature adults in the way they'll handle information about threats." Like I said in the post you are ignoring...looks like that guy watched the same talking heads... Just because you have your nose glued to your monitor...don't assume that about the rest of us. The "big picture" is much more than a 19 diagonal. Sometimes it pays to >watch< the news. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,208 by Brandioch 5/28/02 3:39:26 PM Reply	Bill "Strawman" Pathetic. You "quote": "I think there are some reasons to make this public. I believe that the American people have a right to know and should be treated as mature adults in the way they'll handle information about threats." Yet that passage does NOT seem to appear in the link you've previously referenced. Most peculiar. Ah, judging from what you posted after that quote, it would seem that you're "quoting" from a TV show. So, no way I can verify your quote (hmmm, what was that problem you had with attempting to support your position with secret insider-only revealed information?). Not to mention that it seems to be somewhat "out of context". What is this "this" that is refered to? You truly are Bill "Strawman" Pathetic. Now, since you've retreated to unverif[ed,able] claims, I think this is a good time to leave this thread. We've hit the point where you go off into fantasyland, again. buh bye eot
Post #40,223 by bepatient 5/28/02 5:41:59 PM Reply	Not my problem... ...that you don't watch tv. Nor is it my job to do your homework for you. I copied and pasted the quote. Of course it wasn't in the previous article. It really was simple...that journalist happened to also watch weekend political shows...shows that include guests like the afformentioned Democrat who thought that the public should be made aware of non-specific threats. Now what about those drone ops??? Big baby. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,234 by Simon_Jester 5/28/02 8:22:07 PM Reply	Umm...you mean, this quote? The about where the terrorists came into the US via a cargo container? ''They entered in a foreign country, hid out in a container and then entered the United States at the first port of entry, two of which happened to be in the state of Florida,'' said Graham earlier this week. ``I don't believe that we have done anywhere near what we need to do in terms of increasing our seaport and particularly our container cargo security.'' Graham defended his public discussion of the Coast Guard report. ''I believe that the American people have a right to know and should be treated as mature adults in the way they'll handle information about threats,'' he said. [link\|http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/3309468.htm\| source ]
Post #40,236 by bepatient 5/28/02 8:47:39 PM Reply	Nope...but that was a good try... ...and at least he's [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/20/ftn/main509548.shtml\|consistent]. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,291 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 8:43:49 AM Reply	So you mean this quote.... ROBERTS: Senator Graham, you said it, and National Security Advisor Rice said it before you, that this is not a new set of warnings. She added that we're already at an appropriate level of alert. So my question to you is, why make anything of this information publicly? GRAHAM: I think there are some reasons to make this public. I believe that the American people have a right to know and should be treated as mature adults in the way they'll handle information about threats. I would slightly disagree with Dr. Rice relative to whether we have done everything we need to do. Let me just cite two recent examples. The Coast Guard reported recently, within the last 15 days, that there were a number -- 25, more or less -- what they described as extremists who came into the United States on container vessels. They entered in a foreign country, hid out in a container, and then entered the United States at the first port of entry, two of which happened be in the state of Florida. I don't believe that we've done anywhere near what we need to do in terms of increasing our seaport and, particularly, our container cargo security. [...] [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/20/ftn/main509548.shtml\| your source ]
Post #40,310 by bepatient 5/29/02 11:35:43 AM Reply	Yep.. ...and discussed in the context of the interview with C Rice on non-specific information available now and in the past...it appears that Dem Senator Graham is indeed saying that this info should be made public...to indeed tell the public on a continual basis that they are not safe. And...the program's in general (not just Meat (heh) the Press) had Democrats backing away from statements made by H Clinton and a couple of other loons that suggested rather strongly (by holding up the Post in Clinton's case) that GW knew of impending attacks...instead focussing on a "breakdown in intelligence" and wanting to make sure that these "warning signs" won't be missed again...which has been going on since Ridge was annointed "Big Brother". Not sure where all that other crap came from that right shifted this forum...(well I do...but thats secondary ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,329 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 1:37:43 PM 5/29/02 1:42:53 PM Reply	Excellent...so, what are you arguing again? So...if I understand it right, you're enjoying the fact that Democrats are complaining that vague non-specific terrorist threats were never published prior to 9/11 and that Democrats are complaining about vague non-specific terrorist threats currently being published. And you're using Senator Graham, somehow as an example. Yet, Senator Graham complains that we haven't done enough and goes into specifics on the current threats. Doesn't that imply that Senator Graham doesn't agree that vague non-specific threats are enough? BTW: I'm glad to see that the "breakdown in intelligence" that Senator Feinstein noted back in May 2001 is finally being fixed. I'm just sorry that the current administration ignored it until 2 building fell. Edited by Simon_Jester May 29, 2002, 01:42:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #40,333 by bepatient 5/29/02 2:01:44 PM Reply	I wasn't arguing... ...just making the observation that you characterized in your first paragraph as well as the observation on the backpedal of other Dems away from the "he knew" to the more sedate "we should have known". It really was a simple point really. I found it amusing. The claim from >both< sides that neither side was politically motivated. My friend decided to chime in about some other nonsense after that. Sen Graham aparently believes that most intel should be made public so that we free thinking adults can parse the info themselves. That is too far too the opposite end of the spectrum and, imo, could compromise alot of the sources of that intel. The system put in place by Ridge seems to be a decent balance...the threat is there...any marked increase in volume of non-specific intel reports should require notice to law enforcement and possibly public warning. He was just one of the several that I had heard criticizing Bush for not making the August 6 briefing public and/or issuing warnings based on the information contained within it. I remembered him saying it though...and knew that transcripts of those Sunday AM shows are online...so I used his. However...around here I should know that if I don't openly despise Bush and vehemently oppose anything the man says or does...that makes me an apologist. I find that even more amusing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,372 by Ashton 5/29/02 4:28:02 PM Reply	Nah Beep, no need to despise your candidate having been IDd as The Village Idiot after selection, merely because he gave every indication before selection. (At least you voted for Something, one supposes) After all, if you were prescient you'd be rich already, and Own that Corporation. (and your sec. could write yer posts of the sort: Nyaa Nyaa Nyaaaa!) Right? Ashton Corporateless therefore presumably aimless
Post #40,383 by bepatient 5/29/02 4:53:44 PM Reply	Actually Ash... ...all of the NJ electoral votes went to Al Gore. So it would really depend on how you decide to classify >my< candidate. The 2 main candidates were both idiots. The following several were just as bad or worse. Ralph??? President?? "Unsafe at any US location" would be the next book. R, D, GDI, L...no matter...we've guaranteed that noone in their right mind would ever want to be President...so we get nutcases and idiots. Shame is...alot of folks want these nutcases to have even more authority than they already do in order to "save us" (hallelujah) from ourselves. If I were prescient, thusly rich...I don't think I would bother owning that Corporation...that requires >work<;) And I already type faster than my secretary. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,391 by Ashton 5/29/02 5:17:30 PM Reply	Damn, BeeP.. Spoken like an Ordained Skeptic! Se ya at the Roast tonight; we're featuring unborn-baby Naif as an appetizer. :-\ufffd Ashton so much to do so little reason to imagine it matters Aha!
Post #40,411 by bepatient 5/29/02 7:33:00 PM Reply	Oooh...my favorite! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,398 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 5:56:48 PM Reply	Grin -- I agree... Sen Graham aparently believes that most intel should be made public so that we free thinking adults can parse the info themselves. That is too far too the opposite end of the spectrum and, imo, could compromise alot of the sources of that intel. The system put in place by Ridge seems to be a decent balance...the threat is there...any marked increase in volume of non-specific intel reports should require notice to law enforcement and possibly public warning. I think Sen. Graham (apparent) idea of throwing most of the terrorist intel out to the public is bound for problems - false positives and pure bulk of unsubstantied reports will cause problems. And...for the record, my recollections confirm yours of Sen. Graham comments directly after the Washington Post came out.
Post #40,436 by Silverlock 5/29/02 9:52:30 PM Reply	What does that have to do with my original point? If I remember correctly, you never responded to the actual topic. Correct me if I'm wrong. Were the latest spate of terrorist threat warnings a ploy to defect criticism or not? Re-elect Gore in 2004
Post #40,440 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:09:04 PM Reply	Everything [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=40377\|Formal] Follow along... He should have made an announcement...even though the threats were non-specific. (Dem criticism) He makes non-specific announcemets. He only did it to scare people so they'd ignore other things.(your criticism) So... He doesn't make announcements...something happens...you tell him to make announcements...he does...now he shouldn't have because he only did it to scare people. Don't you find that just a tad silly? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,447 by Silverlock 5/29/02 10:17:52 PM Reply	You continue to miss the point The current regime has used warnings of terrorist threats to deflect criticism. Address this point instead of your own (different) point. please. Re-elect Gore in 2004
Post #40,451 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:24:37 PM Reply	To deflect >what< criticism? The criticism that they DIDN'T ISSUE WARNINGS! So they did. And now you're telling them that they used the warnings to deflect the criticism that they didn't issue warnings. Aren't you finding this anywhere near as amusing as I am??? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,458 by Silverlock 5/29/02 10:38:15 PM Reply	Don't play stupid It's beneath you. The point was, and remains, the current regime is using fear of terrorist attacks (the many and varied recent 'warnings') to deflect criticism. Try again. Re-elect Gore in 2004
Post #40,460 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 10:38:24 PM Reply	Bepatient... this is annoying. You're standing here (after I cited Senator Feinstein's article) and are telling us, with a straight face that the only thing Democrats have complained about was the lack of a warning. That there was no other thing that the President could've done? Surely, if the only thing the President could do was issue warnings, then that's the ONLY thing he's done since 9/11, right?
Post #40,461 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:45:04 PM Reply	Look...its really simple. And I don't find it terribly important...its the continuing MO. One of the single largest points harped on by the Dems was that no warnings were issued in response to the non-specific threats contained in the Aug 6 briefing. Noone is saying thats the only criticism...just one of the more pronounced ones. So they issued warnings. TO get this criticism. I find that funny...ok? Very simple really. Both R & D sides seem to agree that the Intel committees need to address the failings in the systems...and to a large part Ridge's office is responsible for these things...and has been working on these issues. I happen to agree with Cheney in that the nature of the problem is way too sensitive to allow an independent panel in to make an inquiry. Independent panels can't keep secrets...and there are secrets here than need to be kept. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,448 by Silverlock 5/29/02 10:18:45 PM 5/29/02 10:39:45 PM Reply	Dupe post. Ignore. Re-elect Gore in 2004 Edited by Silverlock May 29, 2002, 10:39:45 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #40,442 by folkert 5/29/02 10:10:54 PM Reply	Absolutely nothing.... Did you know that a scientist discovered that a new unique speces? Yeah, the first cross between Animal and Plant... an Barn Owl and an Oak tree... A completely unexpected result came about... Down..... More.... Yet some more... Almost.. Al Gore `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!`
Post #40,444 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:12:21 PM Reply	that was...um...unexpected.... rofl You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,386 by bepatient 5/29/02 5:06:06 PM Reply	Stopped under Clinton Administration [link\|http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/indepth/id-CIAdrones.html\|url] The mission suffered another setback. In October 2000, a botched landing at the base in Uzbekistan caused severe damage to one of the drones. The crash raised a prickly question that then bubbled in Washington for months: Who would pay if one of the drones, worth about $2.5 million a piece, was destroyed? The planes were on loan to the CIA but officially owned by the United States Air Force, which expressed reluctance to pick up the tab. Nor did the CIA's Directorate of Operations, whose classified budget is dwarfed by that of the Air Force. The tussle became "one of those bureaucratic, inside-the-Beltway things," says one senior CIA official, who denied the money dispute was ever a serious impediment. Brig. Gen. Ron Rand, an Air Force spokesman, declined to comment about the funding dispute. As an early autumn came to the region, lousy weather and high winds then imperiled the remaining Predators. The decision was made in mid-October to stop the overflights for fear of losing a drone, said two United States officials. The Predators were no longer flying over Afghanistan by Oct. 12, 2000, when terrorists in Yemen killed 17 sailors in an attack on the USS Cole. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,393 by Ashton 5/29/02 5:21:28 PM Reply	Just too cockamamie amateurish: Not to be true!____:(
Post #39,920 by Simon_Jester 5/25/02 6:05:18 PM Reply	Actually I think it is politics as usual. ...of 2 weeks being critical of the administration for not issuing non-specific warnings. So they issue a non-specific warning. Now the warning is to distract from other issues. And this is somehow >NOT< politics as usual? According to some people, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a President has tried to divert attention from an unfavorable issue.
Post #39,700 by Simon_Jester 5/23/02 4:03:25 PM 5/23/02 4:54:35 PM Reply	Re: Cute use of selective memory. I believe there was another thread involving Marlowe that used non-specific threat announcements by the Clinton Administration as a point to prove that the GW administration was handling it all wrong. You might want to review that thread. Specificially, that topic came up when someone speculated what could Clinton have done. The non-specific terrorist threats were provided as the answer. In short - someone tried to defend GW admin and failed. Not a specific attack against the GW admin. Specific attacks were provided by me. :-) And I even speculated that none of my 'attacks' would've prevented 9/11 (which is the usual Republican strawman). And I still want to know : Why a specific threat of flying an aircraft into a buildling considered to be worthy of action...but a 'normal' hijacking considered to be acceptable? Edited by Simon_Jester May 23, 2002, 04:54:35 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #39,741 by bepatient 5/23/02 10:31:35 PM Reply	I know the thread. Brandioch claimed the former administration never issued non-specific warnings. Yet I don't recall many (any?) announcements during his terms about how there may be unspecified attacks. Thats why I referenced that thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #39,810 by Simon_Jester 5/24/02 11:06:23 AM Reply	Ah...I see. thank you.
Post #39,820 by Brandioch 5/24/02 12:24:07 PM Reply	Maybe it should be "Bill 'Strawman' Pathetic"? Brandioch claimed the former administration never issued non-specific warnings. Now, shall we take a look at what I ACTUALLY posted? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=39647\|So why cut off the drone ops?] Yet I don't recall many (any?) announcements during his terms about how there may be unspecified attacks. So, Bill "Strawman" Pathetic claims that I said Clinton NEVER issued non-specific warnings. When what I actually posted was that I didn't RECALL any issued. Now, this is the reason why LINKS and REFERENCES are so important to a discussion. Well, they're important unless you prefer to use strawmen and lies as your only means of "discussion".
Post #39,838 by Simon_Jester 5/24/02 2:26:12 PM Reply	However, Brandioch... regardless of whether you remembered Clinton's warnings or not, the fact is that he made them. How this is supposed to strengthen BePatient's case is beyond me, however. I suppose that BePatient feels that this somehow confirms that this entire issue is political in nature and therefore can be discounted. But...does it matter that it's politically driven? It certainly isn't the first time a President has had to deal with issue backed by politics. Egads, more than half of Clinton's issues were politically driven. Presidents are expected to be able to deal with it. And...just because an issue is political in nature...does that mean it's unimportant?
Post #39,843 by Brandioch 5/24/02 3:01:48 PM Reply	Yup. However, Brandioch... regardless of whether you remembered Clinton's warnings or not, the fact is that he made them. Yep. And I didn't say he didn't make them. Just that I didn't recall them. The reason I stated it in that fashion is that I did not KNOW that he hadn't made them. How this is supposed to strengthen BePatient's case is beyond me, however. Simple. It proves that Clinton did it first. And that I don't recall every event. But Clinton did it first. But...does it matter that it's politically driven? Yes. I think it does. If it is political in origin, the solution will tend to be political also. Not that it must end that way. An example is the political investigation of Whitewater that resulted in an essay about oral sex. ON THE OTHER HAND, the cover-up could be political in origin and the investigation would be non-political EXCEPT that one side would refuse to support it so it would APPEAR to be political. whew And...just because an issue is political in nature...does that mean it's unimportant? :) Actually, I think ALL the issues a President has to deal with are political (to a degree). He has to keep the factions somewhat happy while taxing people to pay for programs that not everyone will support. The key (and what I think you meant by "political") is whether an issue is being used SOLELY (or almost solely) to gain political capital or to reduce your opponent's political capital. When it is phrased in THOSE terms, having Congress investigate WHY there was a failure (and propose solutions for the problem) would NOT be "political". -BUT- If the WHY turns out to be (as I have said before) that Bush was incompetant and SOFT on terrorism, THAT FINDING could be used in political capital games. So, you have a political blocking of a non-political investigation because the party blocking the investigation believes that the findings could be used against them in political maneuvers. Hmmm, sounds like business-as-usual in D.C., eh?
Post #39,752 by mmoffitt 5/23/02 11:49:06 PM Reply	Okay, Simon, Here's MY problem. And I still want to know : Why a specific threat of flying an aircraft into a buildling considered to be worthy of action...but a 'normal' hijacking considered to be acceptable? But if a "normal hijacking" was considered "acceptable", why create a plan to "take out" Al Queda? I mean, assuming that the US does not lay battle plans for a war against an entity that poses only an "acceptable threat", the plan that was instituted against Al Queda post 9/11 should never have been prepared pre-9/11, no? What troubles me most is this apparent double-speak. Perhaps you can enlighten me and explain this apparent inconsistency?
Post #39,800 by Simon_Jester 5/24/02 10:17:58 AM Reply	Fair enough... But if a "normal hijacking" was considered "acceptable", why create a plan to "take out" Al Queda? I mean, assuming that the US does not lay battle plans for a war against an entity that poses only an "acceptable threat", the plan that was instituted against Al Queda post 9/11 should never have been prepared pre-9/11, no? Personally, I think that the attack plan against Al Queda had nothing to do with the airline attacks. Al Queda, has a long history of attacks against the US that more than justify a plan being laid out to "take out" the Al Queda. I just have a problem with the President continuously repeating that he didn't take additional actions because he didn't know that they were going to fly the planes into building.
Post #39,821 by Brandioch 5/24/02 12:26:33 PM Reply	Slightly less fair...... I just have a problem with the President continuously repeating that he didn't take additional actions because he didn't know that they were going to fly the planes into building. Some specific actions were taken. Well, one. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights. You know. The ones that have the risk of terrorist hijackings.
Post #40,254 by mmoffitt 5/28/02 11:16:17 PM Reply	Admitted Bias. I've got to say (again if I've said it elsewhere) that I can't talk rationally about this. See, I'm a student pilot getting ready for my check ride. I was actually in the air solo on 9/11 and got called down immediately. Student pilots were "officially" grounded for about 2 weeks. Then, the weather turned shitty here and I couldn't fly for another 2 weeks. BUT! the bin Laden family was cleared to fly WEEKS BEFORE I WAS. Now, maybe you can forgive me, but the fact that the bin Laden Group was responsible for Dubya's first non-family earned million, the fact that at least one Deputy FBI Director resigned protesting Dubya's immediate call to "back off the Saudis" following his Selection as Resident, and the fact that the fricking kinfolk of the apparent architect of the aircraft into buildings were allowed to fly BEFORE I WAS has forever chastened my (normally) objective view. In short, there is a hell of a lot of baggage predisposing me to believe the worst of our Resident. Further fueling my jadedness is the fact that whenever anyone dares to criticize the Resident or his family there is an almost knee-jerk reaction of "INTENSIFIED WARNING OF FURTHER ATTACKS! CODE RED! CODE RED! CODE RED!" coming out of the White House. I believe the Executive Branch is occupied by un-American, indeed EVIL people who are capable of any number of unspeakable acts. But then, maybe that's just me ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Al Gore