1
   

Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 02:31 pm
There is also evidence in hand that Bush and Cheney didn't like the intelligence they were getting, so, keep sending it back till they got the intelligence they wanted. Cheney and Rumsfeld even created their own intelligence organization to invent what they wanted. To belie these truths is disingenuous Exclamation Then again, that sums up the entire Bush regime.... and so it goes.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 03:41 pm
Coastal Rat -- Many people questioned the veracity of the WMD evidence more than a year ago. There were huge protests. Do you want someone to go back and find something that might convince you?

I expect you were listening only to news reports on CNN and FOX... and did not read the New York Times, the London Times, the Christian Science Monitor, watch the news on BBC or CBC or PBS. Likely you accepted what the administration was saying and did not consider what the non-Administrative people were saying. In fact, there were a host of people who questioned this. Of course, they were being marginalized by the administration, most of TV and most radio stations. Really, in this country, in order to get the truth you have to dig. It is no longer readily available to the average American who gets his news from popular TV.

Okay, I've searched "Where were the Weapons of Mass Destruction?" for you on Google and here is fairly clear article and a link to the Salt Lake City Herald, from more than a year ago, May 5, 2003. Weapons of Mass Destruction Were a Fantasy From the Start

Quote:

By Gwynne Dyer
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

The favorite fantasy headline of British comedian Spike Milligan was: "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Found Alive! First World War a Mistake!" We are unlikely to see a similar headline in any American paper soon, but in the rest of the world the continued failure of the U.S. and British occupation forces in Iraq to find any of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) that were the alleged reason for their invasion is a diplomatic disaster and a joke in very bad taste.
Tony Blair ran into both phenomena and came away severely shaken when he visited Moscow last Tuesday. The British prime minister thought he had a good personal relationship with the Russian president, but Vladimir Putin is a former intelligence officer and, like his American and British counterparts, he was outraged at the way the U.S. and British governments misrepresented the intelligence they got from their own agencies in order to justify their war. Unlike the people at the Central Intelligence Agency and MI5, however, Putin was free to speak -- and did he ever.
Putin openly mocked Blair for the failure of the "coalition" to find any of the fabled WMD even weeks after the end of the war: "Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding in an underground bunker somewhere, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and destroy the lives of thousands of Iraqis."
The Russian journalists at the press conference roared with laughter -- maybe it loses something in translation -- but Blair looked distinctly grim. He is going to have lots more practice at that.
Two months ago, Blair talked a reluctant parliament into supporting the attack on Iraq by warning of Iraqi WMD ready to strike on 45 minutes' notice, and President George W. Bush warned of "mushroom clouds" if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq. It was all so desperately urgent, so hair-trigger dangerous, that Washington and London couldn't wait for the United Nations arms inspectors to finish their job; they had to bypass the U.N. and invade right away. So many thousands of Iraqis (2,500 civilians and perhaps 10,000 soldiers) were killed, 137 U.S. and British soldiers died, looters destroyed most of Iraq's cultural heritage while "coalition" troops stood idly by -- and nobody has found any WMD.
The rest of the world never really believed the White House's justification for war anyway. As U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in late April, Washington and London built their case for going to war on "very, very shaky" evidence, including documents that subsequently turned out to have been faked -- and with the war now over, Washington isn't even bothering to insist that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States any more. "We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News on 28 April. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The real reason for the war, according to the ABC report, was that the administration "wanted to make a statement" (presumably about what happens to countries that defy U.S. power). Iraq was not invaded because it threatened America, but because "Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from [the administration's] standpoint, the perfect target." The assumption, at the White House and the Pentagon, was that everybody else could be bullied into forgetting the lies about WMD and accepting the fact of American control of Iraq.
They probably could be if the occupation turned out to be a brilliant success that produced a happy, prosperous, united and independent Iraq, but that does not seem likely. Instead, it is going sour very fast, with U.S. troops shooting civilian demonstrators, the Shia majority seeking an Islamic state, and the beginnings of a guerilla resistance to the foreign occupiers. Even if the U.S. were willing to let the United Nations have a role in occupied Iraq, the desire of other powers to get involved in any way in this proto-Vietnam is waning from day to day.
Washington continues to insist that the U.N. weapons inspectors will not be allowed back in, which means that the rest of the world is unlikely to believe the U.S. and British forces even if they do claim to have found something. And frankly, hardly anyone in Britain believes in Iraqi WMD any more either -- not even former cabinet ministers.
On 22 April, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he doubted that there was a single person in the intelligence services who believed that a weapon of mass destruction in working order would be found in Iraq, and accused the White House of trying to bridge the credibility gap by "re-inventing the term 'weapon of mass destruction' to cover any artillery shell with a chemical content, or any biological toxin, even if it had not been fitted to a weapon." Even on that preposterous definition, they have not found any WMD in Iraq yet -- and as former British Defense Secretary Doug Henderson said on 18 April: "If by the turn of the year there is no WMD then the basis on which this [war] was executed was illegal."
The post-9/11 patriotic chill still prevents any senior American politician from questioning the existence of Iraqi WMD in public, but this issue is not going to go away. As the situation in Iraq deteriorates and the American body count rises, questions about how America got talked into this mess will keep coming back, and sooner or later they will have to be answered.
-----
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 03:51 pm
BillW wrote:
There is also evidence in hand that Bush and Cheney didn't like the intelligence they were getting, so, keep sending it back till they got the intelligence they wanted. Cheney and Rumsfeld even created their own intelligence organization to invent what they wanted. To belie these truths is disingenuous Exclamation Then again, that sums up the entire Bush regime.... and so it goes.


Good point, Bill; and this is something they continue to do, and it makes me sick. That and Removing what they disagree with. They are trying to create a world that has only what they say it does, and in large part, righties let them get away with it. It's like a disease.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 03:58 pm
There is a name for it - fascism........
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:12 pm
Cycloptichorn'squote--

P.S. To the people who say, 'well, the decision to let the Bin Laden family leave was not Bush's call,' I say that that is bullshit. Ever hear of the phrase, 'the buck stops here?' It was Bush's responsibility, even if he delegated the decision to someone else. It was a boneheaded move, and I'm sure that the fact that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are well connected had NOTHING to do with it. Just like none of the business connections of our political elite have NOTHING to do with policy.

It astounds me how obtuse some people can be.
---------
Retarded. This means Bush is responsible for everything done or not done by every public servant. Bush wasn't even asked. The decision didn't go above Clarke. Bush holds one position, not 669,783,927, including Clarke's... Clarke made the call. He said he made the call. Even though he has changed his story at least once, I'll take his word over yours.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:30 pm
Sorry Sofia, Bush holds no position. It is all their -----> fault Exclamation He is but a titular head <sigh>
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:31 pm
Likewise in your avowed un-obtuseness, Sofia, you must be sure that the evacuation of all those Saudis wasn't mentioned at all when Bush had his private meeting in the White House with the Saudi ambassador on September 13th, 2001.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:32 pm
No leadership, devoid, nada <sigh>
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:41 pm
Well, Piff, if you have the minutes to that meeting, I will certainly give it my attention--otherwise, why disbelieve Clarke's OWN ADMISSION?

Do you accuse him of lying?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:46 pm
Hmm, I take accountability for all my subordinates. I listen to them, and put their advisement in order. If I mess it up, I take responsibility - but, in the Bush regime - the buck stops over there. Sad but true. No leadership, devoid, nada <sigh>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:51 pm
Quote:
This leads into a long and eyeball-glazing section on the longtime association between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family, including members of Osama bin Laden's large extended clan - not exactly the scandal Moore makes it to be, considering that the Bushes have long been in the oil business, as have the Saudis.

Moore's critics on the right have long complained he plays fast and loose with the facts, and he gives them ammunition by implying that Bush allowed a large contingent of bin Ladens and other Saudis, mostly students, to leave the United States immediately after 9/11, while commercial flights were still grounded.

In fact, the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission has found that most, if not all, of these evacuations took place after Sept. 13, when the ban on commercial flights was lifted - and the evidence weighs against Dubya even being aware of these special flights.
--Lou Lumenic (exerpted)


http://www.nypost.com/movies/26195.htm
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:51 pm
You never had a subordinate perform a task that they didn't put past you? Do you have thousands of subordinates? Do you micromanage everything they do? If so, you should fire them all immediately--they're a waste of space and obviously unnecessary, since you can do all their work.

C'Mon, people.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:52 pm
Sofia, Clarke tried to put nothing past the closed ears. Why would he Question Jesus Christ almighty, when will your kind stop making excuses for the inept Question
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:53 pm
That has been my point all along Sofia. The principal was there. She saw what was happening--ALL of what was happening--and didn't focus only on the president reading to school children. She judges his demeanor and behavior appropriate. Those who weren't there pluck this and that out of it and speculate when they have no clue what Bush's staffers said to him or what he responded.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 04:56 pm
Yeah, then he ran in the back - put on his SuperBrat cape and hide under the principles desk until they could load him (still under the desk) aboard Air Force One where they flew everywhere away from anything moving while he zoomed around the plane in his SuperBrat suit Cool

We can create anything we want to, yeah, that's the ticket - What you see before you is not really what you are seeing. It is all a hoax put on by them evil............ yeah that's the ticket. Oh please, give me a break Exclamation
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:18 pm
Bill's right, though.
It is a president of true character who takes reponsibility knowing that the buch does stop there. Bush rarely takes reponsibility for anything.
It doesn't seem to be something he was ever taught to do in life, judging by his many failures in business and personally, and he has one of those mothers all the other mothers hate, who denies that he has ever done anything wrong. Or so it seems to be the case.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:39 pm
We know too little about the circumstances yet (if we ever will) of the Saudi flights to draw any particular or specific conclusion other than the general ones such as money and connections facilitate influence. That's not to say there isn't a real story here, there may well be, and I hope attention stays on the Carlyle Group.

As regards the seven minutes, the footage is truly damning, regardless of whatever that principal (whoever she is) might contend.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:44 pm
Piffka wrote:


It seemed a victory that the film was finally allowed to be shown in America...


I have no doubt it did seem a victory to you Piffka, but it was never in doubt that this film would be shown in America.

Of course it is part of Moore's schtick's to create a mirage of oppressive censorship. He knows his faithful fans eat that sort of crap up. For all he is, he is a very talented man, and one of his prime talents is marketing.

Moore is a money maker. Disney passed on this film, but despite all of Moore's histrionics about taking the film to public parks if he had to, he knew full well that another distributer would show up, and quickly.

By the way, did it ever occur to you that the people that have been going to see this film were, by and large, all predisposed to thinking the worst about Bush and this adminstration?

Now, if you had seen Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer leaving the theatre in tears, your observations might be illuminating.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:06 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

You must be a much more careful and insightful reader of my words than I am, since I am unable to detect any deviation or contradiction. Since you don't provide any support for your assertion, however, I guess I'll have to remain unenlightened.


Apparently I am. You have been arguing that action is preferable to inaction, not that appropriate action is preferable to inappropriate inaction. Who could argue with the latter? Might as well assert that appropriate inaction is preferable to inappropriate action. Hell, an appropriate carrot is preferable to an inappropriate turnip.

joe wrote:
It is true that I do not know exactly what Bush should have done in those seven minutes. In the same vein, I also do not know what a nuclear plant technician should do in the first seven minutes after learning of a potential core meltdown. Nor do I know precisely what an airplane pilot should do in the first seven minutes after learning of an engine failure. Likewise, I do not know what a city fire chief should do in the first seven minutes after learning of a commercial airliner striking a skyscraper. I would expect, however, that the people in these situations would rely upon their training, their intelligence, and their gut instincts to react in a way that is appropriate, given the circumstances. Furthermore, I would expect that, in all of those cases, the correct response is to do something in preference to doing nothing.


Once again you offer a specious argument. In each of the examples given it is quite easy to conjecture as to what these individuals would specifically do (you overestimate your ignorance), and each of these situations clearly demand action and not simply the appearence of action. Each of these situations require an immediate response from the person cited.

What is the immediate response required of a president when a terrorist flies a plane into the WTC? Take the nation to Defcon 2? Declare martial law? Call the fire department?

joe wrote:
In any event, after seven minutes elapsed it is evident that the president did finally do something. The question then, is: if acting after the lapse of seven minutes was appropriate, was the seven minutes of inaction appropriate?


A reasonable question, but not rhetorical as you would have it.

I've not seen the film yet, but apparently it can't answer your question anymore than can you.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:07 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
Well, let's see if I can answer some of your concerns Piff.

" Are the people who died the enemy? "

I bet a lot of those who died were the enemy. But of course, it would not advance Moore's agenda to show them, just the civilians. Well guess what? Civilians and innocents die in every war. So are you ready to condemn WWII and Pres. Roosevelt for those deaths of civilians? How about Truman and Korean civilian deaths? Do you accuse Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon for civilians killed in Vietnam? Maybe you do. If so, then at least you are consistent and I would presume you do not believe that any war is just. Or is it just this one?

"Are we safer? "

Probably more so than had we done nothing other than shake our collective fingers and try to shame terrorists and/or Saddam into stopping the killing of these innocents you are now so concerned about.

"Who has gained wealth? "

Well, this one I have no answer for. Do you? Provide figures as to who has gained wealth. Figures for every company and individual who has profitted. I bet there are many more than you care to admit and most will surprisingly have no ties to the current admin.

"Is this what being American is about?"

Yes it is what we are about. Making the world "safe for democracy" and all that. We can argue all our lives about whether we should be the world's policeman, but like it or not, it seems to be the job we have taken on for the last 75 years or so. It may be a thankless job, but somebody has to do it less we find ourselves faced with another Hitler, Stalin, etc.


I know you may not agree with my sentiments, but here they are. Moore has every right to make a film to espouse his views. Just as Rush Limbaugh has every right to spout his on radio. Some people on both sides will embrace as gospel everything they say or film. And that is too bad for them.


What he said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 02:09:34