Back to the point

Post #40,137 by Silverlock 5/28/02 1:26:44 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 5/28/02 4:07:31 AM Reply	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 by Brandioch 5/28/02 2:34:20 PM Reply	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 by jb4 5/29/02 3:45:44 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 4:41:30 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 5/29/02 10:02:24 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:10:51 PM Reply	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 by folkert 5/29/02 10:15:24 PM Reply	Wow... Beep Stooping.... `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!`
Post #40,450 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:21:17 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 10:27:14 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:32:59 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:38:20 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 10:50:43 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 11:16:14 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/30/02 1:48:11 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/30/02 2:25:28 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/30/02 3:13:20 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 5/29/02 10:28:52 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:37:16 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 5/29/02 11:07:30 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/29/02 11:18:31 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 5/30/02 12:04:35 AM Reply	"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 by folkert 5/30/02 12:12:28 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/30/02 12:16:49 AM Reply	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 by folkert 5/29/02 11:57:17 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/30/02 12:20:05 AM Reply	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 by jb4 5/30/02 9:04:08 AM 5/30/02 9:12:32 AM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #40,519 by bepatient 5/30/02 10:55:09 AM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/30/02 1:24:01 PM Reply	Oh come on now.... surely you aren't suggesting that Ashcroft is more unpopular than Janet Reno.
Post #40,548 by bepatient 5/30/02 1:31:47 PM Reply	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 by jb4 5/30/02 2:38:44 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/30/02 4:00:14 PM Reply	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 by jb4 5/30/02 7:12:58 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/30/02 9:44:15 PM Reply	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 by Spammer 1029 9/20/07 5:42:32 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 9/20/07 6:24:44 AM Reply	SPAM much? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,286 by Spammer 1029 9/20/07 5:43:52 AM Reply	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=-

Welcome to IWETHEY!