Post #39,604
5/23/02 9:52:34 AM
|
White House: Terror warnings a tactic to fend off criticism
How else can you describe it when they [link|http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam%2Fsearch%2Ftgam%2FSearchFullStory2.html&cf=tgam%2Fsearch%2Ftgam%2FSearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam%2Fconfig&encoded_keywords=doug%2Bsaunders&option=&start_row=2¤t_row=2&start_row_offset1=0&search_results_start=1&num_rows=1|admit] it themselves?
"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 #39,614
5/23/02 10:47:28 AM
|
Klansman gets life in prison for 1963 killings -??
|
Post #39,632
5/23/02 11:55:55 AM
|
Huh?
I follow the link and get the story I expect.
"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 #39,656
5/23/02 1:04:51 PM
|
I think I had junk in my proxy server...
I got the article when I went back there also.
|
Post #39,633
5/23/02 11:57:18 AM
5/23/02 11:58:59 AM
|
Ignore this dup-post
sorry
"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
Edited by Silverlock
May 23, 2002, 11:58:59 AM EDT
|
Post #39,617
5/23/02 10:49:55 AM
|
But of course...
...this is what the Democrats >wanted<.
No specific threats, no real intelligence to indicate...but enough to continually tell all Americans >you are not safe<.
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.
Politics as usual.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #39,647
5/23/02 12:33:05 PM
|
So why cut off the drone ops?
But of course...
...this is what the Democrats >wanted<.
No specific threats, no real intelligence to indicate...but enough to continually tell all Americans >you are not safe<. Ummmm, Clinton was the one lobbing missles at Osama and ordering Predator drones to watch him. Yet I don't recall many (any?) announcements during his terms about how there may be unspecified attacks. Now, Bush had ordered the US to back off of the bin Laden's and cut counter terrorism funding and cancelled the drone missions. 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. Hmmm, Strawman strikes again. No, Bush did not KNOW that THOSE hijackers would hijacks THOSE flights and fly them into THOSE buildings PRIOR to them doing it. And no one has EVER said that he did. What people are saying is that the current regime wasn't focusing on terrorism. Now, before you go off on one of your strawman tangents, cutting counter terrorism funding and cancelling drone missions is NOT focusing on terrorism. So, you have a regime that is NOT concerned about terrorism and that results in SPECIFIC warnings being disregarded. And THAT is what has been said. Bush was SOFT on terrorism and that resulted in 3,000 people dieing. Now he's trying to show he isn't soft by issuing meaningless warnings while at the same time having the FBI and everyone warning that they can't stop any future attacks. Whatever.
|
Post #39,685
5/23/02 3:10:27 PM
|
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
5/23/02 3:25:13 PM
|
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
5/23/02 10:26:34 PM
|
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
5/24/02 12:15:33 PM
|
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
5/24/02 1:48:53 PM
|
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
5/24/02 8:12:18 PM
|
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
5/25/02 2:33:13 PM
|
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
5/26/02 11:57:01 AM
|
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
5/27/02 2:45:51 PM
|
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
5/26/02 10:05:50 PM
|
Tom Tomorrow: ____calls a spayed a spayed._________:-\ufffd
|
Post #40,101
5/27/02 8:17:10 PM
|
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
5/27/02 8:29:33 PM
|
Uh..their pilots have been reassigned to KP. Co$t reduction?
|
Post #40,120
5/27/02 10:56:33 PM
|
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
5/27/02 11:30:48 PM
|
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
5/28/02 1:57:25 AM
|
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
5/28/02 12:08:31 PM
|
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
5/28/02 12:41:45 PM
|
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
5/28/02 2:19:52 PM
|
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
5/28/02 2:35:48 PM
|
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
5/28/02 3:39:26 PM
|
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
5/28/02 5:41:59 PM
|
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
5/28/02 8:22:07 PM
|
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
5/28/02 8:47:39 PM
|
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
5/29/02 8:43:49 AM
|
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
5/29/02 11:35:43 AM
|
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
5/29/02 1:37:43 PM
5/29/02 1:42:53 PM
|
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.
|
Post #40,333
5/29/02 2:01:44 PM
|
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
5/29/02 4:28:02 PM
|
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
5/29/02 4:53:44 PM
|
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
5/29/02 5:17:30 PM
|
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
5/29/02 7:33:00 PM
|
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
5/29/02 5:56:48 PM
|
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
5/29/02 9:52:30 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:09:04 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:17:52 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:24:37 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:38:15 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:38:24 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:45:04 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:18:45 PM
5/29/02 10:39:45 PM
|
Dupe post. Ignore.
Re-elect Gore in 2004
Edited by Silverlock
May 29, 2002, 10:39:45 PM EDT
|
Post #40,442
5/29/02 10:10:54 PM
|
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
5/29/02 10:12:21 PM
|
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
5/29/02 5:06:06 PM
|
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
5/29/02 5:21:28 PM
|
Just too cockamamie amateurish: Not to be true!____:(
|
Post #39,920
5/25/02 6:05:18 PM
|
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
5/23/02 4:03:25 PM
5/23/02 4:54:35 PM
|
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?
|
Post #39,741
5/23/02 10:31:35 PM
|
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
5/24/02 11:06:23 AM
|
Ah...I see. thank you.
|
Post #39,820
5/24/02 12:24:07 PM
|
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
5/24/02 2:26:12 PM
|
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
5/24/02 3:01:48 PM
|
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
5/23/02 11:49:06 PM
|
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
5/24/02 10:17:58 AM
|
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
5/24/02 12:26:33 PM
|
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
5/28/02 11:16:17 PM
|
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 ;-)
|
Post #40,137
5/28/02 1:26:44 AM
|
Back to the point
Let's break it down, shall we?
The Bush regime had knowledge of heightened threat of aircraft hijackings.
No warnings were given (except perhaps to Ashcroft's security, NB, he hadn't flown commercial for months before the towers fell)
The administration took a decidedly 'hands off' approach to terrorist threats. (documented in many places. you want 'em I'll provide)
Came September eleventh, the most damaging and costly attack by terrorists in history.
Much patriotic fervor with almost unquestioned autority for Bush (or his handlers) to do what he will to respond. (Make no mistake. They are politicians after all, the most important thing was to be *seen* responding)
Months later knowledge comes out that the regime had the knowledge re. hijackings.
Shitstorm erupts in the press.
The regime responds, often with aspersions to the patriotism of those lobbing the critiques.
Days of warnings about possible terrorist attacks ensue. While no change is shown in the terrorist threat warning from our newly istalled minister of homeland security. (ya want links for this, I'll get 'em)
Articles in several papers give quotes of White House personnel stating the warnings are a direct response to the criticism they have gotten.
I started this thread by saying, in effect, the bushies are saying "Hey! Look over there!" Don't pay any attention to this bad stuff, just pay attention to this other bad stuff.
Bottom line. The did, in fact, trumpet a public scare in order to deflect criticism (admitted by their own words).
Once again; They played on people's fears to shield themselves from criticism.
Why is anyone defending this craven act?
"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 #40,145
5/28/02 4:07:31 AM
|
Because: we have to somehow weather this group - til 1/05
Anyone who saw clips today of Bush's banal speeches in France, complete with umms & uhs.. and the same phrases about "they hate freedom" yada yada: understands that this National Embarrassment cannot be more than just ameliorated, while holding breath & crossing fingers .. until 11/04.
Unless one wishes to count the odds for a successful impeachment via some next piece of news to emerge (?) perhaps about the many Enron meetings not reported by the White House, in response to Congressional inquiry
(+ a Genuine Smoking Gun\ufffd, complete with 3-D videotape and with DNA on the cassette - referring to the anticipated spoils from the Afghan [oil] pipeline Deal and the premeditated Calif. rapine) ?
That might do it. What else?
Ashton
|
Post #40,194
5/28/02 2:34:20 PM
|
Nothing else.
Enron
The WTC attack
"They hate freedom"
This is the level that we have achieved.
Just take a look at what passes for "political discourse" in this forum (after all, we should be fairly well educated).
And, given the current situation, will the next administration be any better?
I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. "The buck stops here."
Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today.
|
Post #40,357
5/29/02 3:45:44 PM
|
I think I got a new sig!
...with your permission, of course...
(Not quite sure how to credit it, however...Any Ideas?
jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today."
|
Post #40,377
5/29/02 4:41:30 PM
|
Are you certain...
...that this is not a case of 20/20 hindsight?
It's pretty certain that there was increase threat of hijackings. There seems to be ample evidence that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial for reasons >other< than the increased threat of hijacking...and considering how well he's liked by those in this group...imagine all the other folks who've made that opinion clear. If I were his security detail he'd probably never be seen in public (which would have its positive aspects, wouldn't it? ;-)
And the warnings...you go to the administration playing on peoples fear to >deflect< criticism. Those critical of the handling of the Aug 6 briefing wonder why there weren't public warnings prior to Sept 11..even though the threats were non-specific. Some have said that non-specific threats should be publicized.
So the administration publicizes the non-specific threats. In essence, doing what their critics would have them do. You have them committing "craven acts".
So the question is...do you or do you >not< want to know what the threats are?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,439
5/29/02 10:02:24 PM
|
Pardon me, but BULLSHIT!
What the fuck are you talking about? I made a simple point. The current regime used threats of terrorist attacks to defuse criticism.
I repeat, what the fuck are you talking about?
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #40,441
5/29/02 10:10:51 PM
|
Are you being dense on purpose?
The criticism was that he should make announcements.
So he does.
Now he's criticized for the announcements.
Bullshit me all you like...thats just fucking stupid.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,445
5/29/02 10:15:24 PM
|
Wow... Beep Stooping....
greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!
|
Post #40,450
5/29/02 10:21:17 PM
|
True...not necessary...apologies
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,453
5/29/02 10:27:14 PM
|
To spell it out...
The argument (which you're ignoring) is that he should make announcement based on the facts and rumors that he has.
He SHOULDN'T be making announcements because he wants to deflect criticism of his administration.
ObClinton reference:
It's perfectly valid for Clinton to waste a couple of million on a bunch of cruise missiles to kill an International Terrorist (who later kills a couple of thousand Americans).
It's not valid for Clinton to waste a couple of million on a bunch of cruise missiles to deflect from some semen stains on a blue dress.
|
Post #40,456
5/29/02 10:32:59 PM
|
I'm not mmissing that point.
And the facts and rumors have long included further attacks and the use of nuclear materials.
Again...I find this amusing because the administration was criticized for not issuing warnings based on non-specific evidence supplied in an Aug 6 briefing.
So they issue non-specific warnings based, I'm sure, on reams and reams of data supplied by the prisoners in Gitmo...stuff coming in over the wires...and an increase in chatter on the terrorist bands (chuckle...like its short wave or something)
So now the criticism is that he made announcements to deflect the criticism that he should have made announcements...which he did in response to the criticism...this is the song that never ends...it just goes on and on my friends.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,459
5/29/02 10:38:20 PM
|
But I am apparently stuttering ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,462
5/29/02 10:50:43 PM
|
Well, I'm glad you're not missing that point...
because...personally...while the warning/no-warning thing is funny....
the "Gee..Clinton is evil because he's trying to divert our attention" but the "Bush is good because he's trying to divert our attention" coming from the same mouth is, to me, even funnier.
|
Post #40,464
5/29/02 11:16:14 PM
|
Not around here.
I didn't bring up the Monica missiles...you did;-)
And I'm not making a value judgement here. Neither good nor bad.
I think we're smart enough to understand that the risk is present without having to be told over and over again.
Specific threats are different...vague everyday crap is unecessary. I thought we had already agreed on that somewhere else.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,549
5/30/02 1:48:11 PM
|
Well...there is a lot of humor to go around.
I didn't bring up the Monica missiles...you did;-)
Yep, I surely did.
And I'm not making a value judgement here. Neither good nor bad.
Neither was I. You were pointing out the humor those demanding threat warnings and then complaining then they got them. I was pointing out the (greater) humor (imo) of that many of the people laughing about Bush's wag-the-dog warnings are the same ones who complained about Clinton's wag-the-dog Monica-missiles. I could even laugh at the people who's are now whining about the "can't please everyone." Most of them were the same ones who were, again, blasting away for Clinton for wagging-the-dog by shooting missiles at terrorists and for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess you really can't please everyone.
I think we're smart enough to understand that the risk is present without having to be told over and over again.
Specific threats are different...vague everyday crap is unecessary. I thought we had already agreed on that somewhere else.
Indeed, I think we did. But that ITSELF is the funniest of all. We both agree that unfiltered information is bad. Yet, you claim that Democrats first demanded vague threat warning and then complained when they got them. You even cited a Democrat that complained about the lack of warnings. So, is he complaining about the amount of vague threats now? No! He STILL believe that more information (and more specific information) needs to be made available. Yet, you somehow feel that this backs your position.
|
Post #40,560
5/30/02 2:25:28 PM
|
I suppose
the Monica Missiles thing had a humorous side. Its a little harder to laugh about it after getting smacked down by a warhead, though ;-)
Now they're speculating that the Mon missiles are the act that set Osama in motion for 9/11.
Oh...the tangled web we weave.
Graham was one of many. And possibly the problem really stems from the fact that the Dems can't seem to agree on anything lately...except that they hate Bush. But hey...thats an easy one.
Maybe the problem is similar to the one of the legal system havng too many lawyers...maybe there's just too many "journalists"...so they create there own news stories. The Ashcroft thing as a case in point...scandle created out of the "analysis" of a news anchor. I thought their job was to report...but that was then..this is now.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,580
5/30/02 3:13:20 PM
|
Exactly..
Now they're speculating that the Mon missiles are the act that set Osama in motion for 9/11.
Oh...the tangled web we weave.
of course they are. The flip side of the coin is that had the missiles actually nailed Bin Laden, thousands of Americans would probably be alive now.
Maybe the problem is similar to the one of the legal system havng too many lawyers...maybe there's just too many "journalists"...so they create there own news stories. The Ashcroft thing as a case in point...scandle created out of the "analysis" of a news anchor. I thought their job was to report...but that was then..this is now.
You don't really think those talking heads do any real "analysis" or even journalism, do you? Come on. However, the sources of Ashcroft's flying rumors are far more than the result of a single news anchor. (But if you want to blame just him...be my guest.) I remember hearing questions of Ashcroft's flying habits months ago. I discredited them months ago because, even if it was true, it wasn't going to be proven. However, like it or not, our journalistic standard (via Drudge and others) is to report rumors - and the more outragous the rumor, the better the ratings. Hell, look at the Air Force 1 theftgate. Was there ever any real evidence to that story, or was it all rumors to improve ratings? I think you're at least partly right. I think there's too many news organizations. Unforuately, with this many news organizsations, they can no longer simply compete to deliver the best news and hope to get the best ratings. So now, they compete to get the best ratings irregardless of the validity, balance or truth of the news. As such, they are reporting more and more outragous claims; truth (and integrity) be damned. Ah, but such is the capitialistic system.
|
Post #40,455
5/29/02 10:28:52 PM
|
I am trying not to insult
My point was the administration is publicising terrorist threats to defuse criticism. NOT that "The criticism was that he should make announcements." Please don't use the tired old "defend a charge not made" defense.
I repeat, The current regime has admittedly used terrorist threat warnings as a ruse to deflect criticism. Do you agree with this tactic?
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #40,457
5/29/02 10:37:16 PM
|
My point was simple...
..the Dem criticism I saw was that there should have been warnings given based on the Aug 6 briefing.
What did he know...when did he know it...why didn't he tell us??? (sound familiar???)
The administration said the briefing was non-specific in nature...to no avail....the criticism was still that the "people have a right to know".
So he told them.
Now the press comes back and says the warnings were to deflect criticism.
What was the criticism again????
Do we need to continue this course???
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,463
5/29/02 11:07:30 PM
|
Umm... fine...
Care to respond to *my point*? I'm sure I've made this clear.
Just in case, "The bush regime is using terrorsit threats as a means to deflect criticism.
Did you notice the period at the end of that last sentance? Please don't try to bring up which critcism it is.
Once again, the bush regime has used threats of terrorist attack as a means to deflect criticism (for the record, I don't care which criticism).
Do you agree with this?
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #40,465
5/29/02 11:18:31 PM
|
Yep
Not caring about the criticism is kind of missing the point, though.
Damned if you do...damned if you don't I guess.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,471
5/30/02 12:04:35 AM
|
"missing the point"?
Ummm... No.
The entire point is and has been from the beginning of this thread; "Bush regime uses terror warnings to deflect criticism". Get a fucking clue.
Re-elect Gore in 2004
|
Post #40,473
5/30/02 12:12:28 AM
|
Come on ....
Keep it clean now...
Swear words only inflame... and really do nothing to enforce the arguement.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!
Re-Elect the Barn Oak in 2004
|
Post #40,475
5/30/02 12:16:49 AM
|
Bog
Do you want a discussion or are all your posts a yes or no proposition?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,467
5/29/02 11:57:17 PM
|
Well...
You know... I have stopped watching TV or listening to the radio since I couldn't stop watching or listening during the aftermath of 9/11.
Politics is Politics. Never shall the Politickers EVER be honor bound. Forever be shrouded in darkness. Forever relenting to thier inner-most evils. Allowing themselves to be sway into dealing with the fringe. Allowing the lobbyists to make thier decisions for them. Making decisions on thier own to buy $10,000 hammers, $3,600 toilet seats, $40 BIC pens, $1 a sheet 20-pound copy paper. Let alone denying that [link|http://www.area51researchcenter.com/area51/1993detail1.html|this] doesn't exist. Or even [link|http://www.stratcom.af.mil/|this] doesn't even really show up on any budget.
I could go on and on... and on and on....
The point IS that ALL politicians are not honorable and do things behind the scenes that are reprehensible. They all "appear" saintly... but America Really Really DOES NOT CARE. It's the media needing a story. They care not about what damage or undermining the nation. Deflecting criticisms has become a needed skill for ALL politicians.
Okay... Guilty as charged. I don't care... most of America doesn't care. We just hear Psycho-Babble coming out of the TUBE. 24 hour news channels have to fill the voiud with SOMETHING. Digging out those stories that would have never seen light of day as they were a fart in the wind, cept there is air time to fill.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. News these days just is fodder for here...
Maybe I should watch TV or listen to the radio... *MAYBE* just *MAYBE* I'd have a way to even comment sensibly in this hallowed forum.
Nah, I got's plenty of DRAMA right here... plenty of excercising. Everyone is Jumping to conclusions, running thier mouth, flying off the handle...etc...
whew-boy---
greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!
|
Post #40,476
5/30/02 12:20:05 AM
|
No need really.
Life provides its own daytime drama.
No need for TV.
Radio is just as painful. Howard Stern is there.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,497
5/30/02 9:04:08 AM
5/30/02 9:12:32 AM
|
And what might that be?
There seems to be ample evidence that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial for reasons >other< than the increased threat of hijacking [...] And what might that be, Bill? In all the reports linked to by that wonderful [link|http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/23_Bush_Knew.html|rant Silverlock referenced], nobody anywhere mentioned the reason that Ashhole started charging fishing trips to the General Populace. In fact , in the CBS news story, AshHole stated he [link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml|"didn't know why" he was flying a NASA plane]. So what insider information do you have that we don't? Care to share with the class? Edit notes: Added actual links. jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while
still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Edited by jb4
May 30, 2002, 09:12:32 AM EDT
|
Post #40,519
5/30/02 10:55:09 AM
|
Wow....
...y'all are incredible.
Dan Rather makes an outlandish claim and its gospel.
[link|http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020516/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_ashcroft_travel_2|Not that I'm surprised] that people have threatened to kill him...considering how popular he is.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,547
5/30/02 1:24:01 PM
|
Oh come on now....
surely you aren't suggesting that Ashcroft is more unpopular than Janet Reno.
|
Post #40,548
5/30/02 1:31:47 PM
|
Amazingly enough...
...I am.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,569
5/30/02 2:38:44 PM
|
C'mon Bill..stop shoveling straw
Were you to have tracked down the link, you would have seen several quotes attributed to "terror-terrified Lord Protector John Ashcroft" (as so aptly dubbed by [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/25508.html| Thomas C. Green of the Reg]). No mention of Dan Rather anywhere.
How is it that when ttLPJA's lips move, you think that Dan Rather is speaking?
Hope that pitchfork does not give you blisters....
(oh, and lay off the 'shrooms, OK?)
(I propose to refer to Ashhole from this point forward as ttLPJA. Thanks, Thomas!)
jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #40,590
5/30/02 4:00:14 PM
|
The latest incarnation...
...of the story is that Ashcroft has launched a smear campaign against Rather for stating that >unsubstantiated< story...and then following it up by repeating it the following morning in an interview with Don Imus.
Yea boy.
Take the ball and run with it, I suppose.
Ain't no straw here...though I suppose talking about the same story from more than one source may almost qualify.
The story...no matter the source...is unsubstantiated rumor. The official response is that there were personal threats against Ashcroft. No surprise there...considering his amazing popularity;-)
He said, she said.
Sams shit...different day.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,619
5/30/02 7:12:58 PM
|
Yeah, except for one thing:
The "he" who said it was ttLPJA hisself.
Read the link, awready!
jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #40,641
5/30/02 9:44:15 PM
|
I read them.
He said his security people told him to not fly commercial. Justice stated (in the other link) that it was due to threats against his person.
Rather said it was because >he< (Ashcroft) knew of the hijackings. Ashcroft said >last July< that he didn't know why...it was his security teams job to make those assessments.
And your point???
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #293,285
9/20/07 5:42:32 AM
|
Re: I read them.
Yeah I agree and I believe my friend, [link|http://www.aftermarketperformanceparts.com/mr-gasket.html|mr gasket] will have the same idea on this one..
-=Angel=-
|
Post #293,288
9/20/07 6:24:44 AM
|
SPAM much?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,286
9/20/07 5:43:52 AM
|
Re: I read them.
Yeah I agree and I believe my friend, [link|http://www.aftermarketperformanceparts.com/mr-gasket.html|mr gasket] will have the same idea on this one..
-=Angel=-
|
