Shoot first, ask later...then lie: Bush rulebook

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

But not necessarily in that order.

Quote:

LONDON -- Pressure is growing on British police chief Sir Ian Blair after it emerged he had tried to delay an independent investigation into the police killing of a Brazilian man mistaken for a suicide bomber.

Lawyers for the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times on an underground train following the July 21 bomb attempts in London, accused the police of lying about events after leaked documents disputed their original account

Source

Bush and Blair don't seem to have a clue, an exit strategy, or a moral foundation, but they seem to have shcked out the same book "how to Fight Terror".
shoot first, field questions later, and lie if you need to make your previous answers more plausible.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 570 • Replies: 10

No top replies

The leaked documents. Now I'm a fan of leaked documents, I reckon a good leak can be very helpful. But I always ask what the motive is.

I understand that the leaker has been located and has been suspended.

The leak came from the newly created independent authority tasked with investigating the police.

This authority has leaked. What chance a fair go for anyone being investigated by this body if it leaks?

It now has zero credibility. They'll have to disband it and try again to create a body that can investigate independently and ethically. This one can't.

As for the shooting itself, it would be useful to wait for the inquiry to conclude. I mean it's quite natural for the media to jump to conclusions on a leak of specific documents, they need the headlines. But when all the information comes out, all presented in a proper and full context, we'll all be better informed.

At the moment all we can do is speculate.

0 Replies

This has been bugging me since i first saw this thread. Whether or not the information about the shooting of the gentleman in the tube station is true, the attempt to then tie that into an allegation of perverication by Bush is, in the most charitable construction, a stretch. I rather think this sort of thing plays into the hands of conservatives who want to rant about Bush haters. I personally believe that Bush has, on many occasions, either lied, or retailed a falsehood because he hadn't bothered to verify his story before he opened his mouth. This incident, however, cannot be said to have any bearing on the Shrub's truthfulness.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This has been bugging me since i first saw this thread. Whether or not the information about the shooting of the gentleman in the tube station is true, the attempt to then tie that into an allegation of perverication by Bush is, in the most charitable construction, a stretch. I rather think this sort of thing plays into the hands of conservatives who want to rant about Bush haters. I personally believe that Bush has, on many occasions, either lied, or retailed a falsehood because he hadn't bothered to verify his story before he opened his mouth. This incident, however, cannot be said to have any bearing on the Shrub's truthfulness.

There is certainly enough fodder within these fora to last the conservatives a lifetime. This highly unread thread is likely not the one they will reference in future defenses of the left's hatred of all things Bush.
Regardless, it was the headline that bothered you, and ultimately brought you in.
I spent a some the day watching digital recreations of the event on TV and I was overcome by the parallels within the governing ranks of Britain and the US. Both leaders are languishing in dwindling support from the masses, their policies and post-war plans criticized, and their pre-war contentions dismissed a pure rubbish. I just found a certain irony in the fact that two patently misguided leaders seem to find it not only reasonable, but also "morally" prudent to sprinkle rose blossoms over the dung which they have themselves spread.

I in no way intended to indict Bush as culpable for the tragedy, simply a player in the same match of lies, deceit, coverups and testosterone induced machismo. And you're right, this has nothing to do with Bush's truthfulness...just an illustration of how teammates often need to play the same game in order to succeed.
Shoot first, ask questions later...sort out the details with a smooth and suave Rovian slant.

0 Replies

All these threads looking at different aspects of this incident will eventually coalesce. But having different threads looking at different asepcts is actually helpful - well it is for me.

I have no time for Bush and I'm not that keen on Blair (either Tony or Ian). And I've no time for a conspiracy theory in this incident.

I keep reading in various threads where there is a shoot to kill authorisation. Unless legislation was changed in the last few weeks in Britain there can be no shoot to kill authorisation. This is a cockup if anything.

Tony Blair and his government will hang the cops out to dry on this one. They will do everything they can to separate themselves from whatever the outcome is. That's a politician's instinct when something like this happens. And to an extent I can understand that.

The government doesn't control the police in the UK. Tony Blair or his Home Secretary can't given order to Ian Blair on operational matters. Ian Blair can't order any of his police officers to arrest anyone let alone shoot them.

The IPCC has destroyed itself over this leak, it just hasn't realised it yet. It has exposed itself as a poltical player and not an independent authority as its title and role suggests. The IPCC has handed Tony Blair a political problem he can't walk away from like he can from the actual shooting
itself.

The involvement of the Army in this incident is also going to be a problem Tony Blair can't brush off. The Army, unlike the police, are subject to direct political control.

The shooting was a cockup. The rest of it is less clear.

0 Replies

You know, I hold the Canadian government in similar esteem, where lying is justified and frequent from the top down, and largely regarded as the accepted and acceptable status quo.. The US and Britain are no different.
At least the Hare Krishna's had the balls to say, "you know what, we molested our children and we apologize."
These administrations regard fallability as weakness and weakness as defeat and capitulation to thine eternal enemy.
Quite frankly, I'd like to hear something legit from either man. At least BTK could even do that....a diagnosed sociopath nonetheless.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

You know, I hold the Canadian government in similar esteem, where lying is justified and frequent from the top down, and largely regarded as the accepted and acceptable status quo.. The US and Britain are no different.
At least the Hare Krishna's had the balls to say, "you know what, we molested our children and we apologize."
These administrations regard fallability as weakness and weakness as defeat and capitulation to thine eternal enemy.
Quite frankly, I'd like to hear something legit from either man. At least BTK could even do that....a diagnosed sociopath nonetheless.

Tell me one "lie" you'd like to hear Bush admit, and I have to tell you that an opinion which later turns out to have been wrong, is not, to me, a lie.
By the way, after 12 years of playing footsie with Saddam Hussein, your thread title seems to me almost metaphysically inappropriate. Not appropriate for the Brazlian man either, since they begged him to stop. Fleeing from police in the subway, immediately following a bombing, strikes me as kind of stupid.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Not appropriate for the Brazlian man either, since they begged him to stop. Fleeing from police in the subway, immediately following a bombing, strikes me as kind of stupid.

And now someone else shows up with a goofy statement convenient to his ideology. If you had been closely following the developments in this case, you would know that Mr. Menezes was not fleeing the police, and no one begged him to do anything. The first he knew that anyone was "after him," was seconds before he died when he was grabbed from behind, and bullets pumped into his head a moment later. Try to keep up, Brandon.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Not appropriate for the Brazlian man either, since they begged him to stop. Fleeing from police in the subway, immediately following a bombing, strikes me as kind of stupid.

And now someone else shows up with a goofy statement convenient to his ideology. If you had been closely following the developments in this case, you would know that Mr. Menezes was not fleeing the police, and no one begged him to do anything. The first he knew that anyone was "after him," was seconds before he died when he was grabbed from behind, and bullets pumped into his head a moment later. Try to keep up, Brandon.

No. That's wrong too. Casual accusations to fit a particular ideological bent aren't worthy. That's the terminal mistake the IPCC has made in this case. It will finish them. We "know" nothing - we repeat what we have heard/read/made up. Fair game here but let's be accurate about it, we "know" nothing.

Damnit I sound like Sergeant Schulze Very Happy

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Not appropriate for the Brazlian man either, since they begged him to stop. Fleeing from police in the subway, immediately following a bombing, strikes me as kind of stupid.

Just in case, you look at the International News' in your paper and/or here on A2K: this certainly is wrong, and has been discussed in the UK [summary by the BBC from Wednesday, more recent links on that page] and on A2K

Walter Hinteler wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I'll find info on the Beeb's website, I assume? 'Tis general knowledge?

It is general knowledge and here's a link to the BBC.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

No. That's wrong too. Casual accusations to fit a particular ideological bent aren't worthy. That's the terminal mistake the IPCC has made in this case. It will finish them. We "know" nothing - we repeat what we have heard/read/made up. Fair game here but let's be accurate about it, we "know" nothing.

Damnit I sound like Sergeant Schulze

I acknowledge your correction on what we may or may not know. The leaked information is that the man was not fleeing police, and that he seemed unaware of their presence until they actually physically put hands on him. None of which alters the fact of Brandon's habit of indulging descriptions of events which are convenient to how he would like to portray reality.

0 Replies

Shoot first, ask later...then lie: Bush rulebook

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know