| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2004 03:02:48 PM · #951 |
I'm not going to have to be stuck in a car, with complete strangers, in the wilderness, with wild beasts coming at us, while you guys argue political science at Fossil Rim, am I?
Lighten up!!!!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:04:48 PM · #952 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that you posted, and read the article in its entirety, they might actually get the impression from YOUR introduction to that link that "the US president gets the facts wrong on the WMD issues". That's why I feel it necessary to get defensive. He didn't get the facts wrong - he never claimed that the "50 tons" number was a "fact".
Ron |
If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that I posted, and listened to the president in his entirety, they might actually get the impression from HIS comments that 50 tons of mustard gas was recovered. He repeated the vague notion that 50 tons were recovered once, with qualification, then second time as a fact.
I'm glad to see his staff providing the accurate information though, which is certainly an improvement on the previous WMD allegations.
The link I provided, and the text associated with it are factually correct and accurate. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that. I said he mispoke. He did. I didn't say if he bumbled around and fudged the fact first. I was fairly disturbed by the whole press conference performance, but I would think he'd have the facts straight on at least his main message and on the main priority of his government. Though I'm sure a larger number more easily springs to mind.
Though I'm interested, did you find it a convincing performance from a someone who looked in charge, was aware and involved with what was going on ? It seemed a mis-mash of phrases from Condoleezza Rice's testimony with a lot of struggling to avoid answering any question straight on. (ps - if you feel like just responding to part of the post - I'd be most interested on your thoughts on this last paragraph)
Edited to correct incorrect statements I made about the quantities.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 15:28:12.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:17:00 PM · #953 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that I posted, and listened to the president in his entirety, they might actually get the impression from HIS comments that 50 lbs of mustard gas was recovered. He repeated the vague notion that 50 lbs were recovered once, with qualification, then second time as a fact.
I'm glad to see his staff providing the accurate information though, which is certainly an improvement on the previous WMD allegations.
The link I provided, and the text associated with it are factually correct and accurate. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that. I said he mispoke. He did. I didn't say if he bumbled around and fudged the fact first. |
The problem is that you DIDN'T say "he mispoke". You said he "gets the facts wrong"
If you had introduced your link with something like:
"Good to see the corrections coming out more quickly when the U.S. President misspeaks about WMDs"
I wouldn't have had an issue with it.
And, for the record, his second reference was
"They could still be there," Bush said Tuesday of the Iraq weapons. "They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm."
An obvious reference to his earlier comment, which he purposefully indicated may have been not 100% correct.
Ron
P.S. Not to worry, I'm not attending the Fossil Rim Expedition.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:19:30 PM · #954 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that I posted, and listened to the president in his entirety, they might actually get the impression from HIS comments that 50 lbs of mustard gas was recovered. He repeated the vague notion that 50 lbs were recovered once, with qualification, then second time as a fact. |
Oh, and for the record, Bush said 50 TONS, not 50 lbs.
Should I quote you out of context and say that you "got the facts wrong on the Bush speach"?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:25:10 PM · #955 |
Good call on completely ignoring my post.
As usual.
I really think you should run for office.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:26:38 PM · #956 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and for the record, Bush said 50 TONS, not 50 lbs.
Should I quote you out of context and say that you "got the facts wrong on the Bush speach"?
Ron |
Lucky I'm not commander in chief then isn't it. Though while you want to continue to mince words - he did get the facts wrong. He might have qualified it and said he wasn't sure, but he still got the facts wrong - so again, my statements were correct, even if for some reason you feel the need to attack them.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:28:10 PM · #957 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Good call on completely ignoring my post.
As usual.
I really think you should run for office. |
I didn't IGNORE your post, at all. I clicked on the link and read the entire text.
As usual.
I think that you should, too. You've already mastered the art of political persuasion.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:28:48 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
If anyone neglects to actually follow the link that I posted, and listened to the president in his entirety, they might actually get the impression from HIS comments that 50 lbs of mustard gas was recovered. He repeated the vague notion that 50 lbs were recovered once, with qualification, then second time as a fact. |
Oh, and for the record, Bush said 50 TONS, not 50 lbs.
Should I quote you out of context and say that you "got the facts wrong on the Bush speach"?
Ron |
It wouldn't be out of context. I got the facts wrong.
See - that isn't so hard. I even went back and corrected them.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:29:28 PM · #959 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I think that you should, too. You've already mastered the art of political persuasion. |
We've already been through this. I'm legally not allowed to.
As to ignoring questions, I was specifically referring to
Though I'm interested, did you find it a convincing performance from a someone who looked in charge, was aware and involved with what was going on ? It seemed a mis-mash of phrases from Condoleezza Rice's testimony with a lot of struggling to avoid answering any question straight on. (ps - if you feel like just responding to part of the post - I'd be most interested on your thoughts on this last paragraph)
Which you then responded to other parts of the post, and ignored the only question I was vaguely interested in hearing a response to.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 15:34:20.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:31:54 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The link I provided, and the text associated with it are factually correct and accurate. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that. I said he mispoke. He did. I didn't say if he bumbled around and fudged the fact first. |
Originally posted by RonB:
The problem is that you DIDN'T say "he mispoke". You said he "gets the facts wrong" |
The link I provided, as I stated, said 'he mispoke'. So, I did say 'he mispoke'. I was even quite careful about it, and didn't use some of the more inflamitory news headlines that are popping up about it. I was mearly sharing the correction of facts in the speech that the white house released. I'm quite perplexed why you feel the need to defend him quite so much, especially when it was a compliment for the current government.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 15:33:46.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 03:48:00 PM · #961 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though I'm interested, did you find it a convincing performance from a someone who looked in charge, was aware and involved with what was going on ? It seemed a mis-mash of phrases from Condoleezza Rice's testimony with a lot of struggling to avoid answering any question straight on. (ps - if you feel like just responding to part of the post - I'd be most interested on your thoughts on this last paragraph) |
I thought that the first part of his speech ( that is the part prior to the Q&A session ) was fairly concise and well put together. But then, I would have expected it to be, since it was prepared in advance, with the assistance of speech-writers, etc.
A Q&A session is always iffy at best, because one can only be somewhat prepared to anticipate the kinds of questions that will be asked. I thought that the media had a political agenda to 1) get the President to apologize for 9/11, 2) accept some kind of personal responsibility, 3 ) admit that he made mistakes that permitted 9/11 to occur, and 4) admit that the liberation of Iraq was becoming "a quagmire" like Vietnam. The majority of their questions were in those directions.
I don't think that Bush was quite prepared to handle that kind of attack. He DID seem nervous, at times perplexed, and his answers were not clear, organized, well-thought out, or even cogent at times. BUT...the media did not get the answers that they were after.
That's what I think.
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 04:02:15 PM · #962 |
Thanks for responding. I think we saw it pretty much the same way. I was surprised that he wasn't prepared for the media questions though, they seemed fairly in keeping with the theme of the whole 9/11 commision.
your comment BUT... the media did not get the answers that they were after sounds, at least to me, like you feel that it was a good job he did, in not giving any straight answers to any questions.
I guess I see the point of press conferences a little bit differently - I would like to hear if he does feel any personal responsibility. If he doesn't - I'd like to hear that too.
I would like to hear if he thinks things are going well in Iraq - he pretty much avoided answering that too. I might well disagree, but it would be good to hear his actual opinion.
The message, that he believes he is on a mission to do god's work in the middle east to spread freedom was probably the most scary (yes, I'm paraphrasing - it is actually a fairly well accepted concept in English). The relevent sections were about freedom being a gift from the almighty that he is spreading throughout the world, or something similar. The middle east could probably do without yet another holy war.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 04:39:50 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
your comment BUT... the media did not get the answers that they were after sounds, at least to me, like you feel that it was a good job he did, in not giving any straight answers to any questions. |
No, I don't think that he did a very good job in the Q&A section of the Press Conference at all. You're right - he should have been more prepared for those questions since that's what the media has been focusing on for the last couple of weeks. My understanding is that he does not read newspapers, or listen to or watch new programs on radio or TV. I can understand that to a degree, since much of it is political rhetoric and has little value to him in the decision making process. But certainly his advisors should pay attention to what's going on in the media and brief him on pertinent points - not as something to affect his judgement, but to keep him abreast of the nations concerns ( which, unfortunately are directed by the media - a veritable catch-22 ).
Originally posted by Gordon:
I guess I see the point of press conferences a little bit differently - I would like to hear if he does feel any personal responsibility. If he doesn't - I'd like to hear that too. |
I would think that a Press Conference is an opportunity for the representatives of the media to ask for insight into policy decisions, not as an excuse to grandstand and create sound bites.
As to feeling personal responsibility? No, I don't think that he does. Regret, yes; responsibility, no. He made it pretty clear that he feels that the responsibility rests with bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I would like to hear if he thinks things are going well in Iraq - he pretty much avoided answering that too. I might well disagree, but it would be good to hear his actual opinion. |
In his prepared statement, he said that "Most of Iraq is relatively stable". That's about as close as he came to saying that things are going "well". He also mentioned in the Q&A session that we were "making progress" in Iraq.
Originally posted by Gordon:
The message, that he believes he is on a mission to do god's work in the middle east to spread freedom was probably the most scary (yes, I'm paraphrasing - it is actually a fairly well accepted concept in English). The relevent sections were about freedom being a gift from the almighty that he is spreading throughout the world, or something similar. The middle east could probably do without yet another holy war. |
The U.S. Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I think that the President had that in mind when he says that freedom is "the Almighty's gift". And I don't think that he claims exclusivity to the Almighty. From a biblical perspective, the geneology of Christians, Jews, and Arabs all meet in Father Abraham who was chosen by God to be the father of nations.
The WORLD could do without a holy war, but at the present time, it appears that Islamic radicals are the agressors in most of the conflicts worldwide. It is they who have declared jihad. That, in and of itself, would seem to indicate that it already is a holy war ( or wars ).
Ron |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 07:27:31 PM · #964 |
It's a scary thought to think that our president does not keep himself informed except by what his advisers tell him or whatever briefings he gets. What is the man doing in there?
I did not get a chance to listen to the news conference, but heard some parts of it and my feeling is that this is a man who is not able to think on his feet. He sounded nervous to me. Yet another reason for the public to be scared.
Btw...how many news conferences has this president given? I think maybe 3 or 4 his whole presidency. That's terrible and shows even more that this is not a very transparent administration.
Originally posted by RonB:
My understanding is that he does not read newspapers, or listen to or watch new programs on radio or TV. I can understand that to a degree, since much of it is political rhetoric and has little value to him in the decision making process. But certainly his advisors should pay attention to what's going on in the media and brief him on pertinent points - not as something to affect his judgement, but to keep him abreast of the nations concerns ( which, unfortunately are directed by the media - a veritable catch-22 ).
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 07:32:04 PM · #965 |
i just don't understand why the reporters were so intent on trying to get him to say he was wrong. what's the point?
as for those who think that bush is somehow misinformed because he doesn't read the paper or watch foxnews or cnn is ludicrous. when did reporters suddenly become the smartest people in the world? why do you think that celebrities in america do the exact same thing? because 90% of what is written about someone is complete bs. news organizations these days are mostly about stretching news and creating news. it's all a ratings game. why would the president want to immerse himself in that. the world would not be a better or worse place if bush started reading the paper. where's the connection?
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 19:33:58. |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 07:44:26 PM · #966 |
I think what "we" find distressing is that, despite having the entire intelligence-gathering/analysis apparatus of the most powerful nation in the world at his disposal, and both a salary and living expenses provided so he has no other obligations, he is still uninformed (mis-informed?), unsure, misleading and evasive.
I personally find his tone and manner detatched, unconvincing, and insincere. "I don't like to see dead bodies on television -- no one does" came across with the same level of feeling of "I don't like liver and onions -- no one does."
I'd feel more convinced if he'd ever been in a position to see a few dead bodies in the field -- maybe his gut would "wrench" then* ...
If Mr. Bush's handlers didn't anticipate the questions he got, they should either be fired for gross incompetence, are drinking too much of Kentucky's finest, or perhaps they need to increase the size of their bribes so the reporters they buy will stay bought ....
*I'm resisting making a bad joke here.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 19:50:19. |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 07:53:58 PM · #967 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It's a scary thought to think that our president does not keep himself informed except by what his advisers tell him or whatever briefings he gets. What is the man doing in there?
I did not get a chance to listen to the news conference, but heard some parts of it and my feeling is that this is a man who is not able to think on his feet. He sounded nervous to me. Yet another reason for the public to be scared.
Btw...how many news conferences has this president given? I think maybe 3 or 4 his whole presidency. That's terrible and shows even more that this is not a very transparent administration.
|
1. I don't watch much of the "news" on TV, but I do read quite a bit, and I know that you do to, Olyuzi. I believe that we both might consider ourselves "informed". Yet we seem to differ considerably in our views. So, which view should / would the President have if he were to become "informed" by immersing himself in what the media has to say? My view or yours? I think that he rightfully chooses to pay little attention to the media, and instead choose to have advisors who are able to filter the information he will be acting on. Granted, that information can be questionable - but the media didn't know it all on 9/10 either, nor did they know it all before last March. Those shouting loudest probably DO pay attention to the media, and yet they believed what the administration was saying enough to vote to give Bush war powers. They were "informed" yet were as wrong in hindsight as Bush was.
Bush can think on his feet. But he has been taught by the media that everything he says will be parsed and quoted out of context - so he has to be very careful what he says, and even how he says it. But at the same time, he can't say "Please wait a minute while I formulate an answer". So he stumbles a bit in his speach. I can understand why.
This was his third Press Conference. Clinton gave many more, but then the media was far more kind to him. I'll bet that if the media treated Bush the way they treated Clinton, he'd give more, too.
BTW, Why on earth would you want a transparent administration. I know that al Qaeda and John Kerry would like that, but why would you? Then again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "transparent". Could you give some examples of what you mean by that?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 08:00:41 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd feel more convinced if he'd ever been in a position to see a few dead bodies in the field -- maybe his gut would "wrench" then* ...
|
this makes no sense. what war have you fought in? obviously your gut has wrenched like everyone else's in america. obviously fighting in a war would make you look at death differently. this has no effect on the decision to go to war, as many presidents have been former soldiers. stop judging a person you know little or nothing about, besides what you read in a newspaper or saw on tv, that is
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 08:22:10 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think what "we" find distressing is that, despite having the entire intelligence-gathering/analysis apparatus of the most powerful nation in the world at his disposal, and both a salary and living expenses provided so he has no other obligations, he is still uninformed (mis-informed?), unsure, misleading and evasive. |
The "entire intelligence-gathering/analysis apparatus of the most powerful nation in the world" was hamstrung - that's part of the problem. When Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested the FBI couldn't get even a warrant to search his computer--because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. If they had, they would have known that his "associates" were in the country and studying how to fly 747's. They are STILL not up to speed on the sharing of information and coordinated analysis. If he is misinformed, blame the previous adminstrations that hamstrung the FBI & CIA & NSC.
BTW, What did you think that he was uninformed ( mis-informed ) about? Unsure about? Misleading about? Evasive about?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I personally find his tone and manner detatched, unconvincing, and insincere. "I don't like to see dead bodies on television -- no one does" came across with the same level of feeling of "I don't like liver and onions -- no one does."
I'd feel more convinced if he'd ever been in a position to see a few dead bodies in the field -- maybe his gut would "wrench" then* ... |
Fair enough, you can feel that way if that's the way you feel.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If Mr. Bush's handlers didn't anticipate the questions he got, they should either be fired for gross incompetence, are drinking too much of Kentucky's finest, or perhaps they need to increase the size of their bribes so the reporters they buy will stay bought .... |
a) It is disrespectful and show a lack of class to refer to the Presidents advisors as "handlers". "Handlers" are used to direct the actions of animals. You are certainly entitled to feel that they should be fired if they did not anticipate the questions, but that does not convey the right to be crass.
b) It shows no class to impune the sobriety of the President's advisors - again a classless accusation
c) You have no evidence that ANY of Bush's advisors has EVER bribed a reporter, so why do you make a statement like that? What are you trying to prove? That you are just like all the other Bush bashers that have no respect for the truth?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
*I'm resisting making a bad joke here. |
Gee, it looks like you didn't resist much else. Guess you felt that you should stop while you were "ahead".
Ron |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 09:40:55 PM · #970 |
Well, it was the news media (except for a few) who was reporting that Iraq had wmd's...so I guess that's BS too.
Originally posted by achiral:
i just don't understand why the reporters were so intent on trying to get him to say he was wrong. what's the point?
as for those who think that bush is somehow misinformed because he doesn't read the paper or watch foxnews or cnn is ludicrous. when did reporters suddenly become the smartest people in the world? why do you think that celebrities in america do the exact same thing? because 90% of what is written about someone is complete bs. news organizations these days are mostly about stretching news and creating news. it's all a ratings game. why would the president want to immerse himself in that. the world would not be a better or worse place if bush started reading the paper. where's the connection? |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 09:44:16 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Well, it was the news media (except for a few) who was reporting that Iraq had wmd's...so I guess that's BS too.
Originally posted by achiral:
i just don't understand why the reporters were so intent on trying to get him to say he was wrong. what's the point?
as for those who think that bush is somehow misinformed because he doesn't read the paper or watch foxnews or cnn is ludicrous. when did reporters suddenly become the smartest people in the world? why do you think that celebrities in america do the exact same thing? because 90% of what is written about someone is complete bs. news organizations these days are mostly about stretching news and creating news. it's all a ratings game. why would the president want to immerse himself in that. the world would not be a better or worse place if bush started reading the paper. where's the connection? |
|
exactly, thank you
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 10:24:19 PM · #972 |
I think the president should have any opinion he likes, not mine or yours, but his. My feeling is that he really doesn't have one of his own. My feeling is that the president we have here is someone who really doesn't make policy or decisions but rather, goes along with what others want or are telling him to do. In other words, he's a puppet and is being used. His job, in my opinion, is to be the media "cog" of this machine...a PR person. For a while, especially after 9/11 he was able to do that with little problem as the whole country was behind him. With so much going wrong now he's not coming across as genuine because he really has been acting all along. The best thing I could say about the president is that he's a baseball man...but then again, didn't he trade away Sammy Sosa?
Ok, I will grant him this: he's a businessman. Isn't that what he got his degree in from Yale? But that doesn't mean he's an ethical one.
With the media being such an important part of any democracy it would make sense to me that any president should be reading, watching or listening to what's happening in the world. Not just media from our country either. Any smart executive should be emmersing him/herself in learning about what's going on in the world about anything that could be important to the job they're doing. A president should not just be relying on his advisors for information as that would lead to a very insulated person running the most powerful country in the world and that is very dangerous because that means that people whom we didn't elect are really "calling the shots." It's amazing to me that a president who ran on an education platform of "leave no child behind" does not read current affairs. I guess with this president we should change that to read: "leave no president behind."
edit: I will answer your question about transparency shortly
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It's a scary thought to think that our president does not keep himself informed except by what his advisers tell him or whatever briefings he gets. What is the man doing in there?
I did not get a chance to listen to the news conference, but heard some parts of it and my feeling is that this is a man who is not able to think on his feet. He sounded nervous to me. Yet another reason for the public to be scared.
Btw...how many news conferences has this president given? I think maybe 3 or 4 his whole presidency. That's terrible and shows even more that this is not a very transparent administration.
|
1. I don't watch much of the "news" on TV, but I do read quite a bit, and I know that you do to, Olyuzi. I believe that we both might consider ourselves "informed". Yet we seem to differ considerably in our views. So, which view should / would the President have if he were to become "informed" by immersing himself in what the media has to say? My view or yours? I think that he rightfully chooses to pay little attention to the media, and instead choose to have advisors who are able to filter the information he will be acting on. Granted, that information can be questionable - but the media didn't know it all on 9/10 either, nor did they know it all before last March. Those shouting loudest probably DO pay attention to the media, and yet they believed what the administration was saying enough to vote to give Bush war powers. They were "informed" yet were as wrong in hindsight as Bush was.
Bush can think on his feet. But he has been taught by the media that everything he says will be parsed and quoted out of context - so he has to be very careful what he says, and even how he says it. But at the same time, he can't say "Please wait a minute while I formulate an answer". So he stumbles a bit in his speach. I can understand why.
This was his third Press Conference. Clinton gave many more, but then the media was far more kind to him. I'll bet that if the media treated Bush the way they treated Clinton, he'd give more, too.
BTW, Why on earth would you want a transparent administration. I know that al Qaeda and John Kerry would like that, but why would you? Then again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "transparent". Could you give some examples of what you mean by that?
Ron |
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 22:34:34. |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 10:53:05 PM · #973 |
By the way, just as an aside...since I brought up President Bush's education policy, I have spoken with a number of teachers from differnt school systems around the country, as well as, NYC dept of education managers, and they all believe that Bush's education policy is a bunch of bunk and has nothing to do with improving education. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I have heard that his policy is all about testing and getting kids to pass those tests. So the teachers and education systems are all gearing their education to preparing children to taking tests, but this doesn't really have to do with learning at all. If the schools don't get their kids to pass these exams they don't get federal funding.
I have a real problem with that because for one, to me the gov't should be putting more resources to help a school/community improve their performance. I also would imagine that these "bad" schools are from low income areas. I have also heard from these teachers that if their school's performance does not improve they will lose their jobs to PRIVATE education firms. So in my opinion, it sounds to me like what the president really wants to accomplish here is privatization of the school systems around the country.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 10:56:47 PM · #974 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The "entire intelligence-gathering/analysis apparatus of the most powerful nation in the world" was hamstrung - that's part of the problem. When Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested the FBI couldn't get even a warrant to search his computer--because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. If they had, they would have known that his "associates" were in the country and studying how to fly 747's. They are STILL not up to speed on the sharing of information and coordinated analysis. If he is misinformed, blame the previous adminstrations that hamstrung the FBI & CIA & NSC.
Ron |
This is, I am afraid, Ron, a total crock. And is exactly the republican talking points on the subject. Again, I urge you to broaden your sources of information.
Clinton's executive directive made it easy to gain warrants for investigation of property during terrorism related investigations. Only probable cause is needed.
So easy in fact, that to date, Ashcroft has received over 1200 of them, and has never been denied under application of the directive.
If you listened to, or read about Janet Reno's testimony to the 9/11 commission, which directly followed that of Ashcroft, she absolute contradicted his blatantly baloney argument concerning this so-called "wall" of separation. It does not exist.
The FBI field agent who investigated the Zacarias Moussaoui case was so shocked and upset that the subpoena was not issued that she testified before a Congressional committee where her statement that " It was as if my bosses worked for the terrorists" ( loose quote) put her and her fellow whistleblowers on the cover of Time.
Later in those hearings, she watched her new boss, FBI director Meuller lying his butt off, and she was so mad that she wrote him a 13 page letter, which she cc'ed to Time as well.
The White House got MORE than enough info to act responsibly - it did not, and 2745 innocent people are now dead because of it.
My god, they got a lot more info than just from the FBI and the CIA.
All sorts of heads of state were calling up the White House directly with specific urgent warnings, just days and weeks before 9/11. ( Do you want a listing?)
But the monkey-in-a-mansuit was on another of his week-long vacatiuons and did NOTHING. Put blame where blame is due.
To me the question is not were they negligent - it is were they deliberately negligent? |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 11:28:36 PM · #975 |
| None of the 9/11 hijackers were in this country when Bush took over office in January of 2001. They all came in under his "watch." |
|
