Re: Cute use of selective memory.

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!