Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Gifts and supplies for the musician
SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
Ad (Piano Sing)
How to Make Your Piano Sing
Who's Online
118 registered (AZ_Astro, Anne'sson, 661-Pete, anotherscott, 38 invisible), 1321 Guests and 13 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Pianos
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#893665 - 05/16/02 08:15 AM Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


An interesting couple of weeks, very revealing and troubling about Bush2's handling of the Presidency.

1. It is now clear that Enron (and likely other energy companies) was knee deep in scamming California during the electricity crisis -- that it was a manufactured crisis all along. Of course, as this was going on, First Buddy Kenny Lay had an office in the White House handpicking the people he wanted Bush2 to rubberstamp for pivotal positions dealing with enery and procurement in then-new Administration. This was also the time Bush2 was publicly saying that the problem was caused by California and the Feds could do nothing (which opinion changed as soon as the political heat rose a couple of months later).

De facto President Cheney was also lecturing California on its energy comsumption which, per capita, was one of the lowest in the US, demanding that we need to drill for more oil and undertaking in secret the preparation of an energy plan which gives short shrift to conservation and alternative sources and proposes that the only way to have enough energy is to drill more and give more tax breaks to, of all people, companies just like Enron!

It makes one want to say, "Hmmmm......"

2. Now, of course, is the revelation that Bush2 knew about a planned terrorist attack involving the hijacking of airplanes as early as a month before the attack of 911. The White House says they figured it would be just a typical hijacking (like this is no big thing in itself!) and the finger pointing has begun focusing on everyone but the man who should have demanded that all precautions be taken.

And this is the man we have leading us to war -- a war with no clear definition, with no clear enemy, with no clear strategy and with no known end point -- a war which he claims demands more control over the US population and the loss of civil liberties? A war which is seeing the deployment of American troops in countries far and wide around the world -- this week Columbia being announced as the latest to receive our "largesse" at the hands of Bush2?

Ohmygod!

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#893666 - 05/16/02 08:23 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Thank you George, for providing an echo chamber for Terry McAuliffe and the DNC.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893667 - 05/16/02 08:27 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
Thank you George, for providing an echo chamber for Terry McAuliffe and the DNC.[/b]
Nice, knee-jerk dismissal, JBryan. One can sweep these revelations under the rug so easily that way -- questioning the judgement of a President defined as nothing more than a political attack.

Or one can realize they raise troubling questions and seek answers to these questions, wherever they lead.

Your choice.

Top
#893668 - 05/16/02 09:21 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
I choose the first one however you care to characterize it. These are not "revelations". The first is a politically motivated attack with no basis in fact and the second is about an "indication" that the white house received that Osama bin Laden may be up to something and it "may" involve highjacking an American airliner. You are really stretching if you want to make a case out of this (just like your first point). This will be my only response to this tripe.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893669 - 05/16/02 12:52 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
I choose the first one however you care to characterize it. These are not "revelations". The first is a politically motivated attack with no basis in fact and the second is about an "indication" that the white house received that Osama bin Laden may be up to something and it "may" involve highjacking an American airliner. You are really stretching if you want to make a case out of this (just like your first point). This will be my only response to this tripe.[/b]
Let us take a look "this tripe" if you will, to see if it is all just political attacks.

Issue 1
It is commonly know that Bush2 and Ken Lay were very close friends, had been for years, and that there were considerable contributions over the years to Bush2's various political campaigns by Enron. Indeed, records show that Enron was by far the largest contributor over the years to Bush2. Nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does raise questions of what level of political influence and access Enron was buying.

We also know that Ken Lay had an office on the White House during the first few months of the Administration to help with the transition and identify potential appointtees. No one denies this -- they simply say the Bush2 made his own decisions.

We know that during this time, California was experiencing severe electricity supply problems and was being billed astronomical rates. We also know that the profits of the energy producers at this same time had increased between 400%-600% from the previous year and their records show this can be traced to the cost of electricity in California and the West.

We know that Bush2 made many public comments saying there was nothing the Feds could do to resolve California's problems, that it was the result of the market working and the result of the way California had set up its consumer rate structure.

We know that Bush2 appointed members to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), all of whom had ties to the energy industry and that this Commission said it could not do anything to help the situation in California, because it was all market based.

We know that Cheney made several public comments claiming that California was on its own, that conservation was not a remedy (even as California reduced its already low per capita energy consumption by 20% through conservation during the crisis) and Cheney said this was all market driven and that price caps would not solve the problem.

We know that as last summer approached, there was growing concern that the problems in California would spread to the MidWest and the Northeast. We know that as Congress began to clamor for something to be done, FERC changed its mind and said there was something they could do, after all -- place price caps on the wholesale cost of electricity -- which is what California had been requesting for several months.

We know that the market for electricity immediately settled down and prices began to lower -- until today the price of electricity in California is lower than it was before the crisis -- and that the energy companies continue to show adequate and reasonable profits.

We have learned in the past two weeks from internal Enron documents that they purposely manipulated the flow of electricity to and from California during the crisis -- and the memos even explain how they did this.

Now, let's assume the best here -- that Bush2 and Cheney were hoodwinked and did not know what was going on.

If we have a President who avoids taking action to resolve a massive economic crisis in the State which is one of the most pivotal to the economy of the United States as a whole and he does this because he is not fully informed -- even as others were telling him there was far more to this story than he seemed to acknowledge -- the question must be raised about how Bush2 handles the gathering of information and advice when he makes major policy decisions.

Is his lack of gaining adequate information or of questioning the information he is receiving when others tell him to the way he runs his Administration? Is this how he makes decisions? If so, what are the implications of this?

(I might point out that we are also finding that several statements by Bush2 setting the stage for the way he envisions and is conducting his war on terrorism have also been shown to be either false or inadequate -- such as the claims he made that Iraq was involved, which others questioned a the time. The Feds themselves now say that there is and never has been any evidence of this; only assumptions. Why did Bush2 not question this information before he committed diplomatically and publicly created problems in the highly tense Middle East by claiming Iraq was involved and we had proof? What is the basis of information he is getting, and how well is it analyzed, as he deploys American troops to this war? Is there more of the same inability to get proper advice and lack of questioning of his sources?)

Issue 2
We now know that the FBI and the CIA had advised Bush2 well in advance of 911 of the possible involvement of Bin Laden in planning plane hijackings in the US.

We know that he was also advised that men with connections with Bin Laden were taking flight lessons at various flight schools.

We know that Bush2's management style is similar to that of a CEO providing broad policy direction but keeping hands off of the details of implementation allowing his subordinates exercise a lot of authority.

So, let us again assume the best -- Bush2 got the information and directed his staff to take appropriate actions.

They obviously did not take appropriate actions. 911 happened.

This raises the question of Bush2's management style and if it is an adequate and appropriate style to maintain the safety of the US and to properly ensure that other policy initiatives suc as the war are being handled correctly.

Or does his hands-off style of management leave too many loopholes which leaves the US vulnerable? How can we be assured that the placement of troops in all of these countries that Bush2 has ordered will be handled in such a way that these troops will not be placed inappropriately in harms way and and that greater US involvement in localized strife and in worldwide military actions do not come about simply because Bush2's management style gives too much authority to his subordinates and does not maintain adequate executive oversight?

Esoteric analysis on what most would assume are not the big issues? Yep, no doubt. But it is these types of things that cause problems -- witness the attack of 911 which would not have taken place if Bush2 had made sure that his directives (assuming the best case scenario that he gave directives) had been carried out. His management style may likely have led to the biggest attack on the US since WWII. Hence, his management style is an important consideration for the safety and security of this country.

JBryan, you can call this all tripe of you'd like. But there are serious questions here and they are well worth investigating. Bush2 is leading us into a war -- a very serious endeavor wth potentially massive consequences. Given his track record, one has to ask if he is the one we want to trust to do this -- or if we should be putting the brakes on him because he has a record which does not bode well for the future?




We

Top
#893670 - 05/16/02 03:56 PM Re: Ohmygod!
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
Time magazine reported in December, 1998 that Osama bin Laden planned to retaliate against the U.S. with strikes in New York and/or Washington. The FBI had done some exercises in October of that year for the same reason. Similar reports continued. The ones to 43 just continued the pattern, but I'm sure that the politicians will make every bit of hay from it they can whether there is any truth to their accusations.
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#893671 - 05/16/02 07:25 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:
And this is the man we have leading us to war -- a war with no clear definition, with no clear enemy, with no clear strategy and with no known end point -- a war which he claims demands more control over the US population and the loss of civil liberties? A war which is seeing the deployment of American troops in countries far and wide around the world --
[/b]
Has anyone else noticed a chilling parallel between the coming attack on Iraq and the Crusades?
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#893672 - 05/16/02 09:10 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Has anyone else noticed a chilling parallel between the coming attack on Iraq and the Crusades?[/b]
Bush2 did refer to the War on Terrorism as a Crusade several times right after 9/11 before the Moslems reacted and someone told him that using that term was not a real good idea. But perhaps, in his mind, it was more than just a poor choice of words.

Of course, there are those who think that there are few poor choices of words, just slip ups that reveal what someone really thinks.

Top
#893673 - 05/16/02 09:11 PM Re: Ohmygod!
PianoMuse Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/04/01
Posts: 902
Loc: Philly, PA
Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. You can't put the weight of the world on a man's shoulders and excpect him to notice every flaw, to never mess up...people are devious, people are kind, people are angry...there is nothing you can do to stop this. Nothing, throughout the folds of time, has ever come along to predict what exactly each person will do next, what will happen that will change history forever. So, i think before finger pointing and scapegoating is done, there needs to be an inward reflection of ourselves, and realizing that everyone in the world is just as human as we.
_________________________
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music." ~Rachmaninoff

Top
#893674 - 05/16/02 09:29 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Bernard Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/01
Posts: 3857
Loc: North Groton, NH
 Quote:
...there needs to be an inward reflection of ourselves, and realizing that everyone in the world is just as human as we.
Would that the Republics had heeded these type of words when Bill Clinton was in office!
_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Top
#893675 - 05/16/02 09:32 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:

Of course, there are those who think that there are few poor choices of words, just slip ups that reveal what someone really thinks.[/b]
Sort of like these poor choices of words George?:

-"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"
-"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is"
-"Just lie, Jennifer. If you don't tell them, they won't know. I'm going to lie, so you lie too"
-I feel your pain"

There is nothing at all similar to an attack on Iraq and the crusades. The crusades were wrong. The people being hunted and killed during the crusades weren't the bad guys, it was the ones doing the hunting that were the bad guys. We are the ones being hunted this time. You have it backwards when you imply that if we attack Iraq we are comparable to the crusaders. It is the terrorists who are the crusaders in this one. This time however, the innocent victims of their crusade to wipe out western civilization have the ability to fight back. That's just what we're going to do.

The crusaders had a mission to force everyone to conform to their religious views, and if they didn't you would be killed as a heretic. The Arabs have a mission to force everyone to conform to their religious views, and if you don't you will be killed as a heretic. *That's* the comparison, not us fighting back. And to pick on George Bush because he used the word "crusade", and to promote the half truths and twisted partisan political statements that started this thread, is the epitome of simple minded partisan politics. But I didn't really expect anything else from you George.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893676 - 05/16/02 10:14 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JohnC Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/10/02
Posts: 1672
Loc: Lower Left Coast
Gerorge,

Your last name isn't Stepanopholus is it????? \:D \:D \:D
_________________________
There are few joys in life greater than the absence of pain.

Top
#893677 - 05/16/02 10:51 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by PianoMuse:
Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. [/b]
Just so.

However:

Don't think for a minute that I will not hold the next President's feet to the fire just as I do with Mr. Bush. Doesn't matter who it is, or what party he (she?) hails from.

They are politicians, every one. Gotta have 'em, but don't turn your back on 'em.
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#893678 - 05/17/02 01:55 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by PianoMuse:
Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. You can't put the weight of the world on a man's shoulders and excpect him to notice every flaw, to never mess up...people are devious, people are kind, people are angry...there is nothing you can do to stop this. Nothing, throughout the folds of time, has ever come along to predict what exactly each person will do next, what will happen that will change history forever. So, i think before finger pointing and scapegoating is done, there needs to be an inward reflection of ourselves, and realizing that everyone in the world is just as human as we.[/b]
All well and good, but we are the ones who elect these men and so we are the ones who need to evaluate if they are doing a good job. If we do not evaluate them -- which includes pointing out mistakes in their judgement, decisions and policies -- then we are not doing our job as voters.

Bush2 may be a very nice guy. In fact, from all that I have read and heard, I suspect he is one helluva a fun guy to be with. But he is the President the Supreme Court selected and therefore we have a duty to review and judge his job as the President. If we only do this during the campaign when all the candidates are putting out wonderful comments about themselves and negative comments about their opponents, we are not doing our job. We must watch them as they do their job -- it is the only way to truly evaluate if they are the proper one for that job.

Top
#893679 - 05/17/02 02:02 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Hey George - in your partisan glee at the prospects that you'd finally found something to smear Bush with (some of your Democrat Bozos even went so far to say it was "bigger than Watergate"), you have grabbed onto the party line just a little too quickly and as a result - you have stepped in the same doggie poo as the party first/nation second politicians you have put your faith in.

It seems that your clueless Democrat heroes are stepping all over each other as they try to run away from the mess they've made by trying to play politics at the expense of the nation. It seems that both the Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as many other senators and congressmen of both parties, were given the reports on terror you have tried to smear Bush with 24 hours after he got them!! It turns out that not only did the Democrats in Congress get the same intelligence briefing Bush got word for word, they got it straight from the White House. And they did nothing with the information either. The reason? There was nothing specific in it, it referred to overseas activity, not here, and it wasn't a warning at all, but simply analytical data that something *could* happen. So now your Democrat buddies are running around claiming they get a pass because they aren't terrorist experts.

As soon as I feel like it's worth the effort, I'll show you why your other example is just as flawed, and that it was Bill Clinton who enabled Lay and Enron, not GW Bush.

Would you like some BBQ sauce for that crow you've got to eat? ;\)
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893680 - 05/17/02 08:30 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Let me just say at the outset that I have some real differences with the Bush Administration. From my point of view they have caved in to the left on just about every issue from education to agriculture to tax policy to campaign finance reform and on and on. I realize that they are probably engaging in an election year strategy that involves neutralizing the issues on which Democrats run. But, in the process, they are advancing their opponent's agenda if only by half steps. I also am not entirely comfortable with the way that the Justice Department "wish list" first proposed by Bill Clinton and rejected by Congress to deal with terrorism has now been almost entirely enacted. There are some provisions of this piece of legislation that I find alarming.

That being said, I am astonished (although I should not be) at the complete 180 that the left has taken for obvious political reasons. They circle like sharks at even the slightest puff of smoke or innuendo in a frenetic effort to hang something, ANYTHING, on President Bush, each time coming up with a handfull of just that, smoke. Yet when confronted by real, obvious, and thoroughly documented cases of misfeasance and MALfeasance by the former occupant of the White House their response was always some version of "everybody does it".

Now, I am not certain of our friend George's disposition toward the Clinton Administration. For all I know he could have been just as shocked by Bill Clinton's behavior as any of us so-called "Clinton haters". All I can say, George is what you have listed above is a lot of vague innuendo and supposition leading to certain "impressions" and "appearances" that amount to nothing. Just a big handful of smoke and no evidence of any fire. You are repeating verbatim the political rantings of the very people I described in the previous paragraph. You should not allow yourself to become associated with their breathtaking hypocrisy.

I really do not have the time or inclination to, point by point, pick this nonsense apart although it would not be a very difficult task. All I can say to you out of frustration and with tongue deeply embedded in cheek is that "everybody does it" and we should all just "move on".
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893681 - 05/17/02 09:49 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Interesting.

Even if Congessional committee were informed, they are not the ones who run the Executive Branch. They can do nothing with the information -- only the Executive Branch can.

Do you think 911 might have been more easily prevented if, say, the airlines and airports had been put on a heightened alert status? If the people at Logan in Boston had been told that for several months there had been increasing reports of potential hijacking and they should implement higher security measures, would they have possibly stopped the terrorists from getting through?

And what would have happened if the Administration went public completely with this, especially the reports of possible attacks on New York and Washington -- apparently the reports with this explicit, that they named the target cities? Is it possible that the terrorists would have stepped back because they expected increased security and vigilance, and therefore could not succeed?

No one knows for sure, of course. But what we do know is that with no warning at all, no one could take any measures at all.

So, why was there no warning issued even to the airports and airlines? Obviously, a mistake in judgement -- a mistake that caused the loss of 3000 lives, the start of a war, curtailment of civil liberties, billions of dollars being spent on security machines and devices, millions of people being inconvenienced, a massive downturn in the economy for a few months, national and worldwide angst, fear in the hearts of the American people, etc. etc.

You can call the criticism simply political all you want. You can claim that this is just the opposition gleefully attacking a supposedly popular president for political gain and therefore should be ignored. And you can all pick apart my comments all you want, saying that specific comments are innuendo, misinterpretations or whatever. Take them apart point by point if you'd like. Play the semantics game all you want. Point the finger at previous administrations if you want, raising the dirt of the past.

None of this negates the fact this was a horrible mistake in judgement by the Bush2 Administration of massive proportions. This is serious stuff, very serious, because the consequences have been and continue to be so massive.

Yes, there are those who will make political hay out of this. That is part of the game that Bush2 plays in. He would do the same.

But there are others, far more serious people, who see this for what it is and recognize people must be held accountable, that we must understand what went wrong and why so it does not happen again. And if this tarnishes or even destroys the image of Bush2, then so be it. But because it does tarnish him does not make the criticism and questioning and investigations simply political. It is what keeps this country strong. To stop the investigationsbecause of the political damage it may do to Bush2 would be wrong -- THAT would be playing politics.

Our government officials should be held accountable for their mistakes in judgement. Some we accept, some we don't.

The question we all have to ask opurselves is whether this mistake on the part of the Bush2 Administration is one we accept, sweep under the rug and live with the consequences as if Bush2 simply garbled some more words or if we think this type of mistake is simply unacceptable.

To me, the impact of this mistake is NOT acceptable. A President is chosen to make decisions -- and when he makes ones which create such a catastrophe, I have no trouble pointing that out, blaming him for it and using it to evaluate whether he is a good President for this country or not. He is elected to make decisions and give direction to keep this country safe -- that is his most basic job. And when he bungles his most basic job of keeping this country safe to this extent, his ability and acceptability to govern must be questioned.

Top
#893682 - 05/17/02 10:13 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
George your hindsight is, of course, 20/20. You are second guessing what is a judgment call which could have deleterious consequences either way it was made. Keeping airports on a "heightened alert status" for an indefinite and unknown period of time is not an option. In hindsight it is easy to say that if airports were more secure this tragedy would not have happened but that is only armed with the knowledge of what happened. Not with the supposition of what might happen. And nobody could have, in their wildest dreams, imagined that four aircraft would be hijacked simultaneously by terrorists determined to pilot these aircraft into buildings. NO specific warning of an event like that was even close to being perceived.

This is all politically motivated and very unseemly. Also, to describe the Intelligence Committees of Congress as being completely impotent in the face of, what you describe as, dire warnings is disingenuous and you know it. When did Democrats in Congress ever just sit on their hands because a matter might be an issue for the Executive Branch. That is a lot of hooey and that is why they are, now, headed for the tall grass.

The fact is, the warnings that were issued were not specific enough in nature to mobilize a general alert and to do so would have very likely not have stopped this particular, unforeseen, type of attack. You may believe that you have caught the Bush Administration in a case of serious misfeasance but, you will end up with a whole lot of nothing.

With regard to your assertion that there was a warning that an attack may occur against Washington or New York, that warning came out in Time Magazine (Picked up by Guess who in December of 1998. And guess who was President then (Hint: It was not GWB).
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893683 - 05/17/02 10:29 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Actually, this guy does a much better job than I in describing your breathless account of what Bush could have or should have done.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893684 - 05/17/02 10:43 AM Re: Ohmygod!
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
George

Even after everything that has happened since 9/11 you are shouting that your rights are being violated by airport security.

I can imagine how you would have reacted before 9/11 if they would have implemented some of the security based on rumors.

lb

Top
#893685 - 05/17/02 11:23 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:
Interesting.

Do you think 911 might have been more easily prevented if, say, the airlines and airports had been put on a heightened alert status? If the people at Logan in Boston had been told that for several months there had been increasing reports of potential hijacking and they should implement higher security measures, would they have possibly stopped the terrorists from getting through?
[/b]
Listen to yourself, George. "Several months".....the report you are having such a fit over was received near the end of August. You are talking about a period of about 3 weeks, not several months. Secondly, the FAA *was* advised, as was other necessary agencies, including the House Intelligence Committee - with its several democrat members. The problem was the information was not specific, in spite of what you seem to choose to believe, which comes up next.

 Quote:

And what would have happened if the Administration went public completely with this, especially the reports of possible attacks on New York and Washington -- apparently the reports with this explicit, that they named the target cities?[/b]
You need to get your news from somewhere other than that which is provided to you by the Communist News Network. The report did not give specific cities, in fact it led them to believe the danger was in overseas cities, not here. And 24 hours after Bush got it, the House intelligence committee got it. If the report was so specific, why didn't some of your democrat buddies catch it? It apparently was so vague they didn't even remember they had seen the report until *after* they had made fools of themselves by running around claiming they had uncovered "the next watergate" - a direct quote. And even then, no one had any way of knowing that the hijackers would use the planes as missiles. They thought it would be a plane hijacked overseas with demands to be taken to some other overseas location, or for ransom. Not missiles.

 Quote:

No one knows for sure, of course. But what we do know is that with no warning at all, no one could take any measures at all. [/b]
No, we don't know that. What we *do* know is that this was a daily briefing, it was mostly analytical in nature, did not lead anyone including the House Intelligence Committee or anyone at the FAA, the various senators and congressmen who were told about it, or the FBI or CIA who also knew about it, to think the hijackings would occur on our soil, or that they would be used as missiles. You simply have your facts wrong. I'll tell you why, but you won't like it.......you're relying on left-friendly media who are looking for things to bash the right with, instead of looking for facts, and you're doing it because it fits your own predisposed views. Try widening your sources of information, and opening your mind.

 Quote:

So, why was there no warning issued even to the airports and airlines? Obviously, a mistake in judgement -- a mistake that caused the loss of 3000 lives, the start of a war, curtailment of civil liberties, billions of dollars being spent on security machines and devices, millions of people being inconvenienced, a massive downturn in the economy for a few months, national and worldwide angst, fear in the hearts of the American people, etc. etc.[/b]
Last time I checked George, the FAA *was* the one you notified if you wanted the airlines and airports to be aware of something. That was done. But again, the information was not of the kind to make them think an attack would occur on US soil. It led them to believe it would occur overseas, but even that was vague.

As to the rest of this statement - give me a break. It is now a known fact that the recession started nearly a year before Bush took office. Yes, 9/11 added to things, but that wasn't the cause of it. Think back, George. Any economist will tell you that by the time people are talking about a recession, it's nearly over. And the left started talking about a recession the minute Bush declared his candidacy. They blamed the "slowdown" on the prospect of "another Bush" possibly getting in the White House. When he won the primary, they blamed "the slowdown" on that. When it got near election time, they claimed Bush was *causing* the recession by talking about it (even though they had been talking about it for months as they used it against Bush and Republicans in general) and when he won the election they decided that they too would talk about it, even though they had previously claimed that talking about it was causing it - but they now wanted to claim it was caused by Bush. Now, you want to claim the recession was "caused" by 9/11. When will you Democrats ever figure out that the recession began brewing 2 years before, and hit full steam during the last 6-9 months of Clinton's term?

 Quote:

You can call the criticism simply political all you want. You can claim that this is just the opposition gleefully attacking a supposedly popular president for political gain and therefore should be ignored. And you can all pick apart my comments all you want, saying that specific comments are innuendo, misinterpretations or whatever.[/b]
OK. But by the way..... your bias is showing. Bush isn't a "supposedly" popular president. He's *definitely* a popular president. And that just kills you democrats. It also grates your nerves when you read how the majority of people, when asked, now say they don't like Algore.

 Quote:

None of this negates the fact this was a horrible mistake in judgement by the Bush2 Administration of massive proportions. [/b]
No, the horrible mistake was when the democrats decided to use it for their own political gain. It has caused them to look like the fools they are, and is bringing to light the real facts, which is that 1>it was a purely analytical report of vague possibilities with no specific locations or methods mentioned, but that even the proper agencies including the democrats in the House intelligence committee considered to be more likely to occur overseas, and 2>some of the very ones who had been given the report and obviously did nothing with it either were the first ones to jump on the bandwagon as they gleefully talked about "the next watergate". Your democrats have shown themselves to be exactly what many of us on the right say they are - purely interested in their own political future, and willing to sacrifice the good of the nation to insure their political futures.

 Quote:

But there are others, far more serious people, who see this for what it is and recognize people must be held accountable, that we must understand what went wrong and why so it does not happen again. And if this tarnishes or even destroys the image of Bush2, then so be it. But because it does tarnish him does not make the criticism and questioning and investigations simply political. It is what keeps this country strong. To stop the investigationsbecause of the political damage it may do to Bush2 would be wrong -- THAT would be playing politics.

Our government officials should be held accountable for their mistakes in judgement. Some we accept, some we don't.

The question we all have to ask opurselves is whether this mistake on the part of the Bush2 Administration is one we accept, sweep under the rug and live with the consequences as if Bush2 simply garbled some more words or if we think this type of mistake is simply unacceptable. [/b]
I see....would these supposed "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when, after the same kind of advance warning as we are talking about here, Clinton did nothing in 1993 and the WTC was attacked the first time? Would these "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when a few year later another report of this same kind was given to Clinton saying terrorists were planning to attack ships in harbors, and he did nothing, and (I forget the name of the ship right now) one was blown up while in dock overseas in a location that yet another report of this same type as we are talking about warned him that this port was a prime possibility for one of these attacks? There are a few more I could give you George, but these two make the point.

Also, I assume you were in complete agreement that Clinton should have been impeached, then tried for treason, since you are so firm in your opinion that our leaders should be held accountable for their lapses in judgment. I am assuming of course that you would categorize decisions made with full knowledge of harming the country to be included in this standard as well. Now we can talk about the purposeful selling out our national security to China, the purposeful decimation of our military, and the purposeful selling out our rights to the UN.

 Quote:

To me, the impact of this mistake is NOT acceptable. [/b]
Was the impact of the above mentioned mistakes acceptable, however? I mean.....it *was* a democrat who made them after all, so I guess we shouldn't be mentioning them.....we should understand that the man was just too busy getting a Lewinsky to be bothered with having to make decisions like this......

 Quote:

A President is chosen to make decisions -- and when he makes ones which create such a catastrophe, I have no trouble pointing that out, blaming him for it and using it to evaluate whether he is a good President for this country or not. He is elected to make decisions and give direction to keep this country safe -- that is his most basic job. And when he bungles his most basic job of keeping this country safe to this extent, his ability and acceptability to govern must be questioned.[/b]
So where is your outrage toward Herr Clinton? When he bombed an aspirin factory to take attention away from his impeachment woes that resulted from his lying under oath, when he sat on his hands (or Monica's face) instead of addressing the reports he was getting about terrorists blowing up the WTC, the reports of terrorists planning to blow up a ship in port, and on and on and on......where was your outrage?

It is hypocritical to fail to address these issues, or make excuses for them, while you sit in righteous judgment over the little puff of smoke you just got fed by the rabid Socialist party we used to fondly refer to as the Democratic Party.

As I see it, those who leaned toward the Democratic party and who have an open mind ought to be having serious questions right about now concerning their past favorable views of the political left. This entire episode has shown just how willing they are to sacrifice the good of the nation for political advantage.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893686 - 05/17/02 01:08 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


OK, I'll give in. It was just a mistake in judgement. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure the right questions were asked. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure his appointees followed through on what was done. Bush2 should not be faulted for not having aides who had the understanding of the significance of the warnings. Bush2 should not be faulted for having aides who did not interpret the information correctly.

No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack him for mistakes in judgement. After all, he was only in charge.

Along these lines, I'm also going to overlook the terrible impacts decisions of the Catholic Bishops have had. I am not going to criticize them for not getting the proper information about the nature of the sexual abuser or for not having assistants to advise them of the seriousness and the pain or to having seen the pattern and taken care of it. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

And I am not going to attack the Enron executives for destroying the pensions of 100o's of people, for having destroyed a company and and an accounting firm leaving 1000's unemployed. I am not going to attackm for them for not listening to people around them that what they were doing was dangerous and questionable and possibly illegal. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

In fact, I am not going to criticize any top manager for any failure in his organization, no matter how catastrophic the consequences, simply because he made decisions that were wrong, based on incomplete information, or did not see the need to ask other questions or demand more information, or did not take actions which would have prevented the consequences. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Quite clearly, the person in charge should not be held responsible for what his organization does --even if he was briefed on what was happening. It is not his reposnibility to ask the right questions, to make sure he gets as much information as possible and then to follow through to make sure his directives are followed. After all, this is just a mistake in judgement and no matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Top
#893687 - 05/17/02 01:25 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Who says that Bush made a mistake in judgment? I am not prepared to concede that.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893688 - 05/17/02 02:10 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Actually, the first time the prospect was raised about Al Quede using airplanes was in 1995, by the Phillipine government, after a raid on Ramsi Yousef's former hideout.

It was again raised in a U.S. government memo in 1999.

The intelligence referred to in this latest Democrat-generated political attack was disseminated within 24 hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee. John Edwards, Democartic hopeful from North Carolina, has admitted such, after an initial statement that he knew nothing about it.

I never could stomach Free Willy Clinton. He is the typical sleazy Southern political operative, and why so many people did not immediately see through the smoke and mirrors is beyond me. Reminded me a lot of Edwin Edwards, former Governor of Louisiana, who is desperately fighting to stay out of the Federal Penitentiary for the rest of his life.

But with even my nadir opinion of Clinton, does one honestly believe the President of the United States would not take action if he had concrete information about a terrorist act that would take the lives of over three thousand Americans? If one would believe that of Bush, yet not of Clinton, it shows a hatred that blinds one to the truth, no matter where the truth comes from.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893689 - 05/17/02 03:37 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:

But with even my nadir opinion of Clinton, does one honestly believe the President of the United States would not take action if he had concrete information about a terrorist act that would take the lives of over three thousand Americans? If one would believe that of Bush, yet not of Clinton, it shows a hatred that blinds one to the truth, no matter where the truth comes from.[/b]
Agreed. I do not think, nor do I know of anyone who thinks, that Bush2 knew about the attack and chose to do nothing about it. (This is an interesting defense by the Bush2 Admin, since no one has accused him of this)

The issue people are raising is one of whether he did what he needed to do so that he could make a good decision.

Of course, as everyone on here has said, we cannot question a decision now, after all these months after the action (or lack thereof) occured). Using 20/20 hindsight is not fair. Of course, I am not sure when one questions a decision except after one knows what it is and one has seen the consequences of that decision -- but I guess smarter people than I can determine whether a decision was good or not at some other point rather than after its effects are known.

But, as JBryan says, we need not concede that Bush made a mistake in judgement. No matter the alternatives he could have had (and for all we know were presented to him) and what other options he could have exercised to get more information or consider alternatives, I guess I will have to concede that he made the best decision he could based on the information he had and his understanding of what the right thing to do was.

Which is also what the Bishops did and what Enron Execs did and what other leaders of organizations do. Truly, I doubt anyone sets out to make a bad decision or make a mistake in judgement.

And if after time passes it becomes clear that an alternative course of action might have resulted in a better, perhaps MUCH better, outcome, we cannot criticize the decision with 20/20 hindsight because it is not fair to question a decision after it is made and we have suffered from it.

So, whether or not the decision maker asks the right questions, his appointees are the best ones to interpret the information properly, he forces the organization he heads to get him the information he needs -- we can't hold HIM responsible just because he's in charge.

No, JBryan is right, this is not a mistake in judgement -- he did the best he could do what what he had. And so does everyone else. I cannot be critical of Bush2 in this matter. The way he handled this resulted in just a small attack and a small war and small incursions into our civil rights and the people who lost someone should not be that upset -- after all, people die every day.

No need to be critical of him just because of the effects that might have been avoided had the White House handled this differently. Or to be critical of the Bishops because they could have handled it differently. or Enron Execs or anyone else. They all made the decisions they made and the effects of their decisions should not have any bearing on whether a situation was handled properly, a good decision was made or there was a mistake in judgement.

Top
#893690 - 05/17/02 03:40 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Of course, I am also wondering why the question of whether Bush2 handled this well has anything to do with Bill Clinton. But I guess it must -- because so many of you keep bringing that up.

Top
#893691 - 05/17/02 04:09 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
No need to be critical of him just because of the effects that might have been avoided had the White House handled this differently. Or to be critical of the Bishops because they could have handled it differently. or Enron Execs or anyone else. They all made the decisions they made and the effects of their decisions should not have any bearing on whether a situation was handled properly, a good decision was made or there was a mistake in judgement. [/b]
There is really no comparison between the decisions Bush made and these other cases you cite and if you can't see that then this discussion is pointless. Clearly there is an attempt here to hold Bush responsible for these attacks and I find it actually despicable. Unless you can show me evidence that he willfully ignored clear evidence of an impending attack then all of your clever locutions fall under their own weight.

To say that he is responsible simply because he is in charge misses the point by a country mile since what he should be accountable for is any mistakes made by him or anyone under his control. No such mistakes have been shown to have been made.

Therefore, in absence of any evidence that he did not do all that could be reasonably expected of him to do given the information available then what exactly is he to be held accountable for? This whole discussion gets sillier and sillier as you retreat into ever more indefensible accusations. Maybe you should quit while you are ahead.

By the way, the discussion about Bill Clinton may be irrelevant in terms of the present situation but it is instructive to note the reactions of those now tossing accusations about to the real evidence that Clinton did ignore clear warnings and loss of life resulted. It's that little hypocrisy thing you see.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893692 - 05/17/02 04:23 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
We keep bringing it up George, because you can't seem to see how biased you are and we're trying to show you. You usually try to present yourself as being in the middle of the road, the one who wants to argue the great "grey area". But you bit the big one this time by picking up the latest turd the left dropped, and you got caught factually challenged. Given the quite large amount of facts which prove your statement wrong, and the absolute lack of proof to support your statement, you had to concede to the facts. But even when you do you do so by conceding with sarcastic remarks and comparisons.

I think that's what is referred to as a "yellow dog democrat" - right or wrong, sing the democrat song.

The democratic party is dysfunctional - they do all kinds of stupid things, then accuse other people of doing them and demanding an investigation.

I almost wish Bush would get caught getting a Lewinsky so I could listen to Tom Daschle of the Obstructionist wing of the Socialist party as he twisted into contortions trying to figure out how to have Bush impeached without looking like a bigger fool than he already does.

Here's one for you to work on George. With Clinton raking in millions now, tell me how the left justifies the fact that not only did Clinton not make the slightest attempt to give any financial help to those who were ruined providing him with alibies, he now won't pay his attorneys. And has anyone else noticed that now that he doesn't have to use that fake lip biting pose he so often used when giving public speeches, now every time the camera hits him he looks like a gas station attendant from Mudskip Alabama attending his annual Moose Lodge convention?
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893693 - 05/17/02 04:35 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Mat D. Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 512
Loc: Sterling Heights, Michigan
In a time of war (indeed we are at war) I find it appalling and downright un-American to read some of the things the George is spitting out.

The Dems are doing everything they can to destroy a descent man, Bush (no I don't agree w/all everything he does) and at the same time putting our national security at risk...Sadam H. is probably laughing his ugly ass off!!!!

I would like to have heard the Dems complaints if Bush would have instituted new strict security measures based on evidence that could as well have been propaganda for the enemy---what was Bush to do----these guys get reports like this every week...do we cripple ourselves based on info that is not specific or neccessarily credible in any way---in that scenerio the terrorist wins.

I'm, not laughing and I think George and the like ought think about how fortunate they are to be living in this country.

Top
#893694 - 05/17/02 05:04 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
The reason Clinton is germaine is because of the original allegation put forth by the originator of this thread. The idea is put forth quite bluntly that George W. Bush did not act properly on information he supposedly had in his possession prior to the attacks.

It is now glaringly clear that this same information had been available for years. Neither Bush nor Clinton, felt that the threat was credible enough to warrant massive federal intervention.

If one wants to argue that Bush's information would have been better had not Congress hamstrung the HUMINT function of all the intelligence agencies, or that Torrecelli's gutting of the CIA's policy of hiring unsavory characters to spy on their compadres, or that the CIA and FBI do not talk to each other about terrorism ( a leftover from the Carter administration), then we may find common ground.

Other than that, the argument that Bush dropped the ball on 911, is trying desperately to make chicken salad out of chicken ****.

Have a nice weekend! \:\)
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893695 - 05/17/02 05:05 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Mat D.:
In a time of war (indeed we are at war) I find it appalling and downright un-American to read some of the things the George is spitting out.

The Dems are doing everything they can to destroy a descent man, Bush (no I don't agree w/all everything he does) and at the same time putting our national security at risk...Sadam H. is probably laughing his ugly ass off!!!!

I would like to have heard the Dems complaints if Bush would have instituted new strict security measures based on evidence that could as well have been propaganda for the enemy---what was Bush to do----these guys get reports like this every week...do we cripple ourselves based on info that is not specific or neccessarily credible in any way---in that scenerio the terrorist wins.

I'm, not laughing and I think George and the like ought think about how fortunate they are to be living in this country.[/b]
Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me.

Now, explain to me again what is wrong with a dictatorship that does not allow freedom of speech to criticize the government over major policies?

Or perhaps, as long as our government goes to war, there is no difference between the US and a such a dictatorship on free speech issues.

I think many of you do not understand the issue here. The issue is whether or not Bush2's White House is capable of making fully informed decisions on major issues of primary import to the US -- and whether it made a fully informed decision in this case.

It is becoming clear that there was a lot of information available to the White House that it either did not seek to get, because 1) it was not given to the White House by others under the control of the White House, 2) was given but no one in the White House was capable of putting it together or 3) that the White House had all the necessary information but did not analzye it properly.

Whichever way this falls, it brings into question the decision making process of the White House -- which includes the gathering of information to make that decision.

I do not believe Bush2 chose to make a bad decision. I just think that it is now clear his decision to take the few, minor actions he took were inadequate. Because they were inadequate, 911 occurred and all of the fallout has come.

No doubt, had Mr. Bush been given other information, he might have taken other actions. But he was not given the information (apparently) -- by the very same people who work for him under people he, himself, appointed.

Who then is to be held responsible? Some middle level manager in the FBI? Or the man who runs things. Who is responsble for setting up the structure by which the President analyzes alternatives and makes decisions? The President himself is!

No, JBryan I do not see a difference between Buish2 in this regards and the Bishops or the Enron Execs. If the Manager runs a flawed decision making operation which leads to flawed decisions by him -- the executive must be held responsible because HE is the one who set up that process.

George Bush is not an evil man. But it appears, at the very least, that he did not set up a structure which ensured he would get the information he needs to have to make decisions about something as basic to his job as the security of the US.

If he failed this time, how can we be sure he will not fail again? And, do we really want to have a man with a failed decision making process to be making decisions about a war which, as everyone agrees, is a wide open process not defined and with no specific end in sight -- and no way to know when the end is coming? And do we want a man with a flawed decision making process making many other important decisions for us?

Top
#893696 - 05/17/02 05:22 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
And I thought I was going to walk away from this one....

George, you are not so ignorant, as to not understand how government works. Government has an organizational memory, they are called federal employees. These guys are there year in, year out, doing all of the dirty little jobs of any organization. The same type of briefings have been churned out for Presidents and their staffs for more than 100 years. The nameless guys behind the desks at the FBI, CIA, NSA, interpret their data and report it up the line. It doesn't matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Your problem is that you are uncomfortable with Bush's decision making process. Not the American people. After 911, he has been judged by the people of the United States and has been shown to have "the right stuff". Consequently, Al Gore, nor any of other Democratic Presidential hopefuls, have the chance of a snowball in hades of defeating Bush in 2004.

And that's what is really scaring the Hell out of you, isn't it George? :p :p :p
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893697 - 05/17/02 05:24 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
No, JBryan I do not see a difference between Buish2 in this regards and the Bishops or the Enron Execs. If the Manager runs a flawed decision making operation which leads to flawed decisions by him -- the executive must be held responsible because HE is the one who set up that process.[/b]
I had hoped to avoid doing this but since you choose to remain obtuse I will take you by your hand and show you what I think you see already.

When you refer to the decisions made by these Bishops and the Enron managers the question is WHY did they make the decisions they made. What was motivating them in their decision making process. The answer, of course, is that they made these decisions in order to cover their ass. Or, in the case of Enron, it was a combination of that and an attempt to defraud investors.

Comparing these decisions with those made by Bush (they might actually more properly be compared with those made by Clinton) is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue, drawing parallels between what was clear malfeasance and what, so far, has not even been shown to be a mistake or error in judgment. You keep insisting that he be held responsible for the results of errors of his subordinates but show me what errors were made that resulted in these terrorist attacks being allowed to happen. And try to do it without resorting to vague generalities about information not being handled correctly. That does not show how any action taken differently would have averted 9/11.

This is going nowhere and your obtuseness only increases with each post.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893698 - 05/17/02 06:35 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Read this link George. It seems that 1999 was when a briefing was written with the most specific details of slamming planes into buildings. It describes what happened on 9/11 almost like it was written after the fact.

Now who was president in 1999, George? Do you recall the airline industry and the military being put on high alert in 1999? Do you remember a public announcement by Bubba Clinton warning everyone like you claim Bush should have done? And do you have any evidence to indicate that Bubba Clinton set anything in motion to begin a defense against terrorists?

Oh!! Here's another one George! It seems that in addition to being warned in such detail in 1999, Clinton was also warned in just as much detail in 1994, but he had it hushed up and details removed!! Seems like if Bush should be getting as much heat as your democrat buddies are giving him, then Clinton should be brought up on treason since he not only knew the details as far back as 1994, but he had more details, and he altered them and hid them from Congress. That is, if you're willing to hold him to the same standards you have set out for Bush.

It would be hypocritical for you to not admit straight out that it was in fact Bill Clinton and the Democratic party who failed to act and, if you want to blame someone for 9/11, that Bill Clintoid is responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893699 - 05/17/02 08:38 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Jolly

You are right. I am uncomfortable with Bush2's decision making process. Thank you for being one of the few who understands the issue I am trying to make.

I do not agree with you that the American people are comfortable with it. Yes, his popularity is high, but there has been no real debate in this country since last September. It began on domestic issues in March and that was when his popularity began to fall -- and has fallen by 15-20%, not a good sign, even if it remains high. Now the debate is going to begin on his handling of 9/11. Once the people have heard the debate and taken it in and digested it, let's see if they remain comfortable.

JBryan,

I agree with you that the most recent decisions of the Bishop's has been to save their asses. However, I don't believe this has been the case over the last 20 years. I think for most of this time they did what they thought was best for the organization they were heading up. Their decision making process was flawed because they did not think it through and get all of the input they needed and because their priorities were all screwed up. They are now being attacked, and have gone to a defensive mode, because of the terrible impact these flawed decision making processes had. And they should be held accountable, even if they thought they were doing what was best at the time.

From all that has come out in the past two days, it sounds as if there was a lot of information out there that the Bush2 team should have known about but, according to them, they did not. As Bush2 himself said today, had he known this was going to happen, he would have done anything needed to prvent it. I believe him. I think any President would do that.

Given all of the information out there, then, why was he not informed of the immediacy of the threat. Sen Feinstein says she was trying in vain to get the Bush2 team to react to what she was informed of on the Intelligence Committee -- that an attack was imminent. If she was concerned about this based on what she knew, why did Bush2's apparatus not see what she saw?

Or was the information there but misunderstood? Or just what? This represents a major concern about his decision making apparatus. And since his actions or lack thereof may have contributed to catastrophic events and changes, one has to ask if one can support a leader's whose processes are that flawed.

Larry,

I have not blamed Bush2 or anyone for what happened on 9/11. The most I have said is that a different reaction by Bush2 might have kept it form happening. I have simply raised the question about whether what we now know about his decision making processes show his decisions about 9/11 and any possible prevention actions to be inadequate. Why do you then defend Bush2 with nothing more than attacks on Bill Clinton?

I accept the fact that there was a lot of information that came out during the Clinton Administration. I also recall all of the work Clinton did to forestall attacks on the US by Al; Quaeda during the Millenium celebrations. Obviously someone at that point was gathering enough information and presenting it to the President to forestall these attacks -- including his making sure people were arrested when they were trying to cross the Canadian border.

Could/should Clinton have done more? Probably. But if this information was there under Clinton, it was still there under Bush2. Since I assume that Bush2 would have acted more foreceully before 9/11 if he understood the immediacy of the threat -- it appears that the Bush2 decision making process failed.

Even the Administration agreed today that they did not have all of the information that was there under Clinton. Why not? Who in the process failed to bring this all to Bush2's attention? His process obviously did not work. He did not have the information he needed to make an informed decision. He needs to be held accountable for this failure in the process just as the Bishops are being held accountable for their failed processes.

How can we now trust that it is any better, if the major example we have to point to showing how it works is so flawed and the results of these flaws have been so horrendous?

Top
#893700 - 05/17/02 09:02 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
George, you have twisted this thing up like a pretzel in order to find some way, any way that President Bush should be held accountable for 911 and the best of your arguments really boil down to "it happened on his watch". You still have not provided us with any examples of any specific information (aside from opportunistic comments from Dianne Feinstein which are also nonspecific) that should have led him to believe that an attack was imminent and the nature of that attack. Is Dianne Feinstein attempting to say that she had specific information of an imminent attack and she was trying desperately to get the Bush administration to listen? Please. That doesn't pass the giggle test except it is no laughing matter when Democrats, desparate for an election issue, attempt to undermine the leadership abilities of the man who is prosecuting a war. Shameful stuff. What do we really know at this point? We have reports of information that something may have been afoot but nothing concrete. It is clear that he did issue alerts internally but given the nature of the information in hand, what else could he have done. What exactly was he supposed to have done differently than what he did. Answer that question and stop with the tomfoolery about managers being responsible for poor decisions. WHAT poor decisions.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893701 - 05/17/02 10:59 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Here are the comments from Dianne Feinstein which, in part, includes the following:

"In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the issue is too important to our nation to engage in the kind of politics Mr. Fleischer is practicing. I, for one, do not believe that any of our nation's leadership had specific information last summer to know when and what kind of attack to anticipate[/b]."

"What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack. My work on the Intelligence Committee and as chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee had given me a sense of foreboding for some time. I had no specific data leading to a possible attack[/b]." (emphasis mine)

The rest of this document appears to be some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen. These people are really disgusting in their opportunism, once again, in their attempts to cast vague aspersions (for political reasons) while simultaneously decrying the other side's partisanship. Whatever Sen. Feinstein may have said or felt months before 911 can always be made to, now after the fact, appear prophetic when, in fact, these sorts of comments are handed out to the media by legislators on a regular basis up to the present.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893702 - 05/17/02 11:25 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Try this one, George. It seems that the democrats have opened a can of worms that is about to eat them alive. This is an article about a man who is daring the democrats to subpeona him to testify in their investigation on "who knew what when".

Click here

What do you bet the democrats will be too chicken to take him up on his offer?
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893703 - 05/18/02 12:15 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Mat D. Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 512
Loc: Sterling Heights, Michigan
George,

you said:" Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me."

#1--I never called you a traitor (another misinterpretation of the written word) #2--you don't know me so how can you say I didn't dissappoint you (that's a ridiculous statement) #3---you have every right to express your opinion, in fact, I encourage you to continue; you are making my case that you should thank God you can live in a country where everyone has the right to say what they believe....but because you believe it, it doesn't make it so..

I hope you can find some happiness somewhere, obviously you haven't found it here.

Top
#893704 - 05/18/02 10:09 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


JBryant, thanks for the quotes from Senator Feinstein. You may think she was being opportunistic, but the ONLY reason she said anything was because the White House itself brought he rinto this debate by using her as an example that the Congress had information as well.

So, since the White House wants to compare their knowledge with her's, let's take a look at how her decision making worked compared to theirs.

In her interview of July on CNN she specifically stated that, given the information she had received as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was very concerned that Osama Bin Laden would launch a major terrorist attack on US soil within the next 2-3 months.

Now, if she was briefed and came to this conclusion, and then tried to get the White House to follow up on this, why did not the White House also come to this conclusion, or at least consider it a possibility and take some sort of action?

You have dismissed Senator Feinstein's discussion of how she tried to get the White House to take this seriously as "some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen."

Keep in mind, this is all she could do -- try to get thw White House to take things more seriously. Senator Feinstein is not in the position to order any sort of thorough and quick analysis of information that was received. The White House is.

This is where it appears the decision making process broke down. If a senator, two months before the attack, is warning that an attack is imminent, why didn't the White House interpret things the same way? And if they did interpret it that way, why didn't the President or someone in the White House demand that all intelligence gathering agencies immediately coordinate to get to the bottom of the warnings they had then? If they had, they likely would have "connected the dots", to use the phrase the media is using.

No, the President did not know an attack was going to occur. And, based on their public statements, no one in the White House could even imagine that an airplane would be used as a missile. THIS is exactly the problem.

Others, with less access to information and far less ability to gather information DID anticipate the attack and DID see the possibility of airplanes being used as missiles. This information was available -- in government documents no less!

It is becoming very clear that the decision making apparatus in the White House, under Bush2, did not work properly to gather the available information and interpret it in such a way as to allow the President to do what he should have and would have done if he had the proper information and the proper interpretation of that information.

Senator Feinstein interpreted it differently. The FBI had information about airplanes as missles. Such plots, of flying planes into landmarks around the world, had been made public. And yet, the White House says it had no information to lead them to think an attack was imminent enough to take specific action or says no one conceived of a plane being used this way. Why not? Others did!

The result of this is all that has befallen this country and the world since 9/11. The result of this failure by the White House is catastrophic -- we are at war, no less, because proper information was not gathered and the President was not given policy options which could have possibly prevented this from happening.

IN its most important test, this White House has shown itself to be incompetent in its most basic responsibility, ensuring the security of the homeland. What they have done since does not erase the fact that what they did then (or failed to do) was incompetent and has had massive, negative, effects.

As I said earlier, you can play semantics all you want to, take apart phrases and show them to not be complete, question other's motivations, point the finger at previous administrations...do and say whatever you want.

It still comes down to the fact that others, with far less information and far less ability to gather information, saw things more accurately than the Bush2 White House. It is a fair and proper area of investigation to ask why this is so and to criticize, if not condemn, the White House for this mistake in judgement.

Top
#893705 - 05/18/02 10:27 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:

It still comes down to the fact that others, with far less information and far less ability to gather information, saw things more accurately than the Bush2 White House. It is a fair and proper area of investigation to ask why this is so and to criticize, if not condemn, the White House for this mistake in judgement.[/b]
George, that is the most convoluted, twisted up interpretation of the facts that anyone could possibly hope to come up with. Trying to reason with you is hopeless, because you aren't applying any logic or reasoning. Even trying to explain why isn't worth the effort, because it will do no good.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893706 - 05/18/02 10:42 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
Now, if she was briefed and came to this conclusion, and then tried to get the White House to follow up on this, why did not the White House also come to this conclusion, or at least consider it a possibility and take some sort of action?[/b]
Again I ask you, WHAT ACTION. I have asked you this several times and you keep ducking it only to say that the Administration should have handled its information better. The fact that there was information available that terrorists were considering using airplanes as human bombs does not mean that the Administration had any precise knowledge of when and where an attack would occur or how they would thwart such an attack without this knowledge. It is easy to "connect dots" after the fact but with the information in hand at the time it is a much different matter. You seem to be saying that the Administration is responsible for 911 because if they had acted differently on available information then it would not have happened. There is no indication that that is the case.

 Quote:
If a senator, two months before the attack, is warning that an attack is imminent, why didn't the White House interpret things the same way? [/b]
Again from Sen. Feinstein herself:

I had no specific data leading to a possible attack.[/b]

Why do you keep insisting that Sen. Feinstein had information that the Administration did not or that, armed with her (now self-serving) analysis, an attack could have been averted.

Larry is right. It is hopeless trying to reason with you. You and other Democrats are determined to hang 911 around Bush's neck for political reasons and I am convinced that the majority of the people will see through it. You will not be any more successful with this than you were with any of your other red herrings. However, it is useless for me to try and convince you. In the words of Thomas Payne: "Time makes more converts than reason".
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893707 - 05/18/02 11:12 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Fascinating how all of you want to find a document that reads: "Mr. President, on the morning of September 11, 2001, Al Quaeda will hijack several airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and several Washington landmarks." And it such a document is not there, you say that he did not have specific information and therefore cannot be held aco****able. I would argue that it is the President's job to get specific information if it is out there. And, in this case, we know it was.

What we do know is that at least Senator Feinstein was given information that led her to anticipate an imminent attack and try to get the White House to react to it. Of course she had no specific information. No one else did either. That's the problem! The infrormation was available, the White House did not pursue getting it. (And THAT is a misjudgement -- to not pursue it) The question is...why not? The information was there. Why didn't the White House pursue information gathering.

THAT JBryant is one decision that was made -- NOT to pursue information gathering to the extent they got proper information. NOT to have interpreted the same, and probably more information, than Sentaor Feinstein had in a more accurate way.

And if they had it, what could they have done, JBryant?

The advisories sent out by the FAA to the airplies never mentioned the possibility of an imminent attackon American soil. They were all general in nature and spoke of attacks in other countries. This was a decision NOT to send out more specific advisories. In the past such advisories were sent, but no decision was made to get more information on this and hence no specific advisory could be sent.

No advisories were sent to the airports. And yet, in previous years, airports were advised and, at times, security was stepped up. This was a decision -- to not advise the airports and order an increase in security.

Had the White House pursued the information they had in the same way Senator Feinstein was trying to urge them to pursue it, there were MANY actions would could have been taken. Do I know them all? Of course not.

You see, JBryant, you want to get a list of very specific actions which could have been taken so that you can take each one apart and show that they would not necessarily have prevented it. Perhaps not.

But the fact remains, this White House made a decision -- or failed to make one -- about whether or not to pursue with great intensity and immediacy, an investigation as to exactly what was going on -- why were these warnings coming in, what did the intelligence community know, what were possible actions that Al Quaeda might take?

Had they reacted in the same way as senator Feinstein, they would have been presented with all sorts of options for actions to take. Then they could have made decisions based on that. But they never even got that far!

As I said earlier, no one knows for sure if this could have been prevented -- but it certainly seems like it would have been more possible to prevent it if the White House had taken a very different course of actions in July and August. They didn't. And because they didn't, they failed to protect the United States from attack.

Now, why criticizing the White House for not taking adequate action to obtain and analyze information -- the information that was already available! -- is considered partisan politics, I don't know. But apparently, many of you feel that a citizen cannot look at how a President has handled a job and criticize him for what appears to be a failure unless it is partisan in nature. Others, of course, equate criticizing the President with criticizing America.

So be it. Nothing I can do if you feel my only concern is to score political points or to attack the foundations of this country.

Top
#893708 - 05/18/02 12:00 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
Fascinating how all of you want to find a document that reads: "Mr. President, on the morning of September 11, 2001, Al Quaeda will hijack several airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and several Washington landmarks." And it such a document is not there, you say that he did not have specific information and therefore cannot be held aco****able.[/b]
Don't be silly George. That is not what I meant and you know it.

 Quote:
I would argue that it is the President's job to get specific information if it is out there. And, in this case, we know it was.[/b]
Information specific to this attack that would have enabled us to avert it? We know no such thing.

 Quote:
What we do know is that at least Senator Feinstein was given information that led her to anticipate an imminent attack[/b]
Again you misstate the facts. All she said was this:

What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack.[/b]

Quit saying that she knew or even thought that an attack was "imminent".

 Quote:
As I said earlier, no one knows for sure if this could have been prevented -- but it certainly seems like it would have been more possible to prevent it if the White House had taken a very different course of actions in July and August.[/b]
You could say that about practically anything bad that has happened throughout history. This seems like a rather cheap way, with the gift of hindsight, to hold someone responsible for what we all know was a totally unforeseen event.

 Quote:
Now, why criticizing the White House for not taking adequate action to obtain and analyze information -- the information that was already available! -- is considered partisan politics, I don't know. But apparently, many you feel that a citizen cannot look at how a President has handled a job and criticize him for what appears to be a failure unless it is partisan in nature. Others, of course, equate criticizing the President with criticizing America.

So be it. Nothing I can do if you feel my only concern is to score political points or to attack the foundations of this country. [/b]
Sorry George. Before this thread started I may have given you the benefit of the doubt on this but you have shown yourself to be so impervious to logic or reason and so dogged in your pursuit of Bush that you could only be looking at this issue as a Democrat and not simply as an American. I do not denegate your patriotism or your love of country in any way but I believe you to be blinded to the facts by your dislike of Bush and your zeal to seize on even the slightest indication that he may have made a mistake.

I believe that Democrat politicians are placing politics and power before country and for that they will pay the price. I want to make it plain to Democrats in general that I do not place them in the same category. Most I know are willing to let the facts come out before they stampede to a conclusion that Bush is responsible for 911. I believe when all the facts do come out that he will be vindicated.

It's been fun George but I have other things I need to do and I have spent way too much of my time on this fools errand as it is. By the way, check the spelling of my name. Unless you are deliberately trying to aggravate me in which case nice try.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893709 - 05/18/02 06:20 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JohnC Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/10/02
Posts: 1672
Loc: Lower Left Coast
The Democratic party has for years (certainly since 1992) put partisan politics ahead of the country. The party is bankrupt of ideas and has for the most part campaigned on trying to smear most of their opponents.

One of their MO's is to throw as much spagetti against the wall and hope some of it will stick. Ken Starr was well liked and viewed as a very fair arbiter by people of both parties until the smear campaign against him started. The attempt to smear Kathleen Harris in Florida was out of the same play book. Need I mention the women of the Clinton legacy? Seldom will you find facts to substantiate the charges made. You *will* find hyperbole to the nth degree. Such as the Clinton Gore mantra that Republicans want to starve children, kill old people, and poison the air and water. Yeah right.

When Democrats throw this stuff out there, their intent is two fold. If at all possible, they hope some one can prove it. (Seldom happens.) The other is to talk about it and engage the subject as long as possible so that those who will not think for themselves will hear it repeated enough times that they start to believe it. This is what our friend George is currently doing here.

I personally find no benefit in engaging in these "Have you stopped beating your wife" arguments with those who would use this as political strategy.

Now I'm not saying this is the belief of all registered Democrats. But I am saying it is the way of the party leaders, and many of the followers eat it right up.

And yes, the Republican party has plenty of their own faults and I don't much care for them either. But they have never shown the testasterone the Democrats have in trying to make political hay out of everything. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

But, George, I still like ya'! ;\)
_________________________
There are few joys in life greater than the absence of pain.

Top
#893710 - 05/19/02 01:46 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Friday Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/05/01
Posts: 405
Loc: South Bay, CA
I think that the implication was that since the President knew, then the airlines should have been put on notice.

But these "analyses" are things that college students write up all the time. (Anybody out there do graduate work on foreign affars?) I'm sure that the White House recieves hundreds of these warnings; which ones are they to act on?
_________________________
Shoe!

F.

Top
#893711 - 05/19/02 02:32 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Friday Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/05/01
Posts: 405
Loc: South Bay, CA
I forgot something:

Who knows how far up the chain reports get; the intellegence report the FBI and CIA made was in 1999. Do you want to guess what was more important than Osama in 1999? Me, I think it was Y2K. And I'm not talking about the computers.
_________________________
Shoe!

F.

Top
#893712 - 05/19/02 02:28 PM Re: Ohmygod!
iainhp Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 803
Loc: San Diego
Jumping into this one late and I don't have the enrgy to wade through all the posts.

I agree with much of George's first statement (that's a first!). Enron was knee deep in California's artificial electricity crisis and the Feds let it happen. The experiments that we perform in our lab are very power hungry. They are also potentially dangerous should the power suddenly go off in the middle of an experiment. So, as ops manager I checked Cal ISO every day, knew where we were in the blackout rotation, etc... The strange thing was that the system would run quite happily at 30 something odd GWatts of demand, the problems occurred when the sytem was not peaking, but when demand was down in the high 20's of GWatts. Right now the system is showing available resources as 34 GWatts yet we haven't added any major power plants in the last year (well maybe a couple of small ones). FERC found nothing unusual about this. Indirectly Bush is involved as he can only make decisions based on the information given him by those working for him. Lay isn't around now and FERC is fessin' up that there were some improprieties going on. Enron wasn't the only company involved. Enron is going out of business, yet the California utility customer is left owing gazillions of dollars - who'w going to get this money?

The lesson from this - California needs to become the most power hungry state in the union. That way when we reach crisis level it won't hurt to turn off a few things. We are fast going the same way with water. The water districts keep putting the screws to us - the city allows building to go on unabated but adds no extra water capacity (or sewage). We're just told to reduce consumption and they put the rates up to enforce this. At some point we will not be able to reduce consumption anymore without a major impact. Course at that point it will take years to bring more water supply on line. And that's from a California Democratic government.

Sorry George, don't agree with you second statement about the hijackings. We have now been informed that another round of attacks are on the way. There are no specifics. Should the country be locked down to prevent this? If so, for how long? And against what? Then the terrorists win. The rules have changed and we are now all potentially combatants, like it or not. I've booked my vacation to Europe for this summer.

Top
#893713 - 05/19/02 03:52 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Sorry Iain, I'm not buying the victim status for California energy consumers. California's problems began when the California Legislature decided to "deregulate", and I use that word advisedly, the energy industry at the producer level while, at the same time, capping prices at the consumer level. Anyone familiar with econ 101 can tell you that is a recipe for shortages. Also, a part of the Legislature's "deregulation" included forbidding distributers to also be producers. Producers could charge any price the market would bear while distributers had to sell to consumers at a capped price leaving the distributors to eat the difference. This, coupled with the fact that California has added no new generating capacity in the last ten years left California at the mercy of out of state producers who were beyond the control of the California Assembly. Distributers lost their shirts, consumers (because of the capped prices) never had any incentive to conserve, and tax payers ultimately had to pick up the costs. I don't doubt that there were some bad players at the producer level who took advantage of the situation and I would even stipulate that Enron was probably the worst of them. But California's energy problems can be laid directly at the doorstep of California's political leaders. No other state experienced any of these problems while dealing with many of the same producers and Enron by itself or in concert with other energy companies could not have brought about California's energy woes.

Edit: Rereading your post, maybe you weren't trying to make that point (that California was a victim of greedy energy companies). Sorry if I misinterpreted. Or did I?
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893714 - 05/20/02 11:31 AM Re: Ohmygod!
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:
Agreed. I do not think, nor do I know of anyone who thinks, that Bush2 knew about the attack and chose to do nothing about it. [/b]
Two words: Cynthia McKinney
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#893715 - 05/20/02 01:36 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
 Quote:
Originally posted by DT:

Two words: Cynthia McKinney[/b]
The most racist, bigotted, and stupid member of Congress.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#893716 - 05/20/02 02:01 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
A Democrat that even the other Democrats wish would go away.

"It's time for her to go" - Al Gore
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893717 - 05/20/02 04:38 PM Re: Ohmygod!
iainhp Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 803
Loc: San Diego
JBryan - was trying to make a few points! There were many problems with deregulation and price gouging in California. George indicated Bush was involved and I was agreeing. But as you pointed out Gray Davis's buddies fared no better (in the deregualtion process and dealing with the aftermath). It's politics that is the problem! Maybe a Dictatorship would be better!

However I do not believe there was ever a shortage of electricity. It is strange that the state has not come close to a shortage since last summer and we still have not added any new generating facilities. Why? If you look at the electrical infrastructure for the western US you will notice a grid of transmission facilities under the loose coordination of the WSCC (Western Systems Coordinating Council). The purpose of this is to share power. The system includes border regions of Canada and Mexico. When it is frigid in the north and mild in the south, power can be shifted northward to take up demand. When it is mild in the north and cooking in the deserts, power can be shifted southward. Power peaks in the midwest are shifted in time by one to two hours - while we are still at work, others are home cooking dinner (there's a peak around 6.00 pm when everyone starts cooking and watching TV).

For all this to work requires a respectable transmission system. If I understand what Enron (and others) did they max'd out the system using fuzzy math, ie they artificially shifted power from A to B then back to A via a separate route (this of course was on paper, as the power will go by the most direct route). By using large enough numbers they persuaded the system operators that certain transmission lines were max'd out and thus no more power could be transmitted through them. There was more power available in the west, just no way to move it (supposedly). This then allowed Enron to charge whatever price it wanted. It wasn't a free market, it was a monopoly. Howeve, I don't know that they broke any laws and you have to give them credit for pushing the rules to the max (rules by and large set up by politicians).

Top
#893718 - 05/20/02 04:56 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Iain,

You make some interesting points. I don't know why there are no shortages now, I had assumed that demand was lower but I don't know that for a fact. That is some fancy footwork by Enron that you describe but it is certainly in character with a lot of the other schemes associated with them. As for involvement by Bush, I haven't seen any evidence of it but if any comes to light, well, let the chips fall where they may.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893719 - 05/20/02 11:40 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by iainhp:

However I do not believe there was ever a shortage of electricity. It is strange that the state has not come close to a shortage since last summer and we still have not added any new generating facilities. [/b]
Actually, there were a couple of new generating facilities brought on line in the last year. These facilities were complete or nearly complete and were sitting idle waiting for one bureaucratic approval or another. The "crisis" put the bureaucrats on the hotseat and the permits were issued. There are a couple more generators that are being upgraded, having obtained permits that they never could have gotten otherwise.

Now that the prices have gone up, there does not seem to be a problem. This may have something to do with the fact that the suspiciously large percentage of generators that were shut down for "maintenance" (simultanelously, and during a time of peak demand) all now seem to run just fine. Interesting that the requests for bids sent out to do this "maintenance" did not contain the normal penalty clauses for failure to complete on time.

It may also have to do with the spotlight now placed on the suppliers. Enron may very well have played a part in it, although if they did I doubt they were alone. The power supplier in San Diego (can't remember the name) almost certainly played a part, as they were the first to spike rates when they could, sometimes by as much as 300%.

Then there is of course, the peculiar wording in the deregulation agreement that capped the retail sale price of power but not the wholesale price. That particular provision appears to have been voided. Too, the provisions that allowed Edison to dump poor investments and old crummy generating plants at ratepayer expense have pretty much been exercised so they should calm down a bit as well.

Which brings us to what to do about it. Our governor, Mr. Davis, is a consumate politician, but not much of a businessman. Having transferred a 9+ billion dollar surplus from the State coffers to the energy companies (the result of some poorly conceived and hastily written contracts for long term power supply), he is now faced with the unpleasant task of hiking taxes - substantially. Not something the man-who-would-be-president wants to do.

Being the plu-perfect politician that he is, you can bet he is doing everything in his power to try to get some of these contracts rescinded - as well he should. The Enron debaucle may be just the "out" he needed to do it. I don't care how he does it, but I hope he pulls it off.

I'll worry about his presidency when the time comes. Meantime, he seems pretty well ensconced as govenor of California. The ultra right wing guy the Republicans put up - elected thanks in part to a hefty campaign contribution from none other than The Hon. Gov. Gray Davis himself (to be sure the more moderate Rebublican candidate did not get the nomination) does not have a prayer. Not in California, not any time soon.

Should be an interesting summer.
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#893720 - 05/21/02 09:14 AM Re: Ohmygod!
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
Isn't amazing that after hearing for all these months how dumb and inept President Bush is, he is now accused of knowing too much and of being a devious manipulator?
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#893721 - 05/22/02 04:28 AM Re: Ohmygod!
B. Alden Offline
Full Member

Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 69

Top
#893722 - 05/22/02 08:30 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
Never less, Bush clearly didn't have a good grasp of foreign affairs while running for election, thus he was probably not incredibly attune to possible terrorist threats.[/b]
The facts as we know them now are that not only was Bush attuned to terrorist attacks before 911 but that his administration devoted a great deal of effort and concern towards the "noise" that was indicating the possibility of an attack all through June, July, and August. It is just a tragic fact of life that one cannot protect 360 degrees 24 hours a day. That is why the best strategy against terrorism is to attack them and not just to prepare for their attacks.

 Quote:
On the other side, Clinton did know more about foreign policy and certainly had heard warnings, I'm sure, but there was such fervent bickering in the government during his stay that action on many issues was deadlocked and brushed under the carpet due to the march of the Lewinsky affair --- to the discredit of all involved, IMO.[/b]
The Clinton foreign policy throughout his two terms can only be characterized as feckless, aimless, and totally reactive. There never were any clear long term goals (unless you count turning our sovreignty over to the UN). In the end, his foreign policy seemed to be aimed totally at his own self-aggrandizement. It's also curious how the strategy from the left going forward is to blame Clinton's failings on Lewinsky instead of the other way round. Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted individual and the real tragedy of Clinton is the utter waste of such potential.

 Quote:
The last time my aunt took a plane (she has the sweetest face/disposition in the world – priests confess to her), she was patted down, had to remove her belt and shoes, all of her luggage was opened, and she was asked to drink the bottled water in her valise to prove that it wasn't an explosive. On the other hand, when I flied right before Christmas, I didn't garner a second look through three layovers, though I'm a young male with dark hair and an accent, I had a one-way ticket, traveled alone, and happened to be in a bad mood that day with a ****-off expression and dark circles under my eyes - go figure. I also read that Ray Charles, the famous, semi-feeble blind American in his late seventies, was given a full body search by airport security. That's absolutely absurd. There are lots of similar stories - 65-year old ladies with their grandkids and bags full of Disneyworld souvenirs getting full frisks and the like -- the inconvenience is absolutely fine, but the method of profiling seems ludicrous. [/b]
What profiling? Profiling is not allowed, remember? Not "PC". This, of course, is the determination made by Norman Mineta (Democrat) Secretary of Transportation appointed by Bush as a (misguided, I believe) sop to the left. Screening is now done totally at random. That is why your sweet aunt and not yourself was screened. The last time I flew the determination was based solely on a number stamped on your boarding card. Brainless? Yes. But who started us down this anti-profiling road. There were some real abuses in the past when profiling was used inappropriately but now we find ourselves in a situation where even your sweet aunt and Ray Charles are singled out for searches.

 Quote:
Basically, what George is saying in many places is "Does Bush's administration work efficiently and to the best of America's benefit? Would it be in the position to prevent another attack? How much confidence are you willing to put in Bush's method of government and his administrators?" Important questions to consider.[/b]
I agree that we should always consider these important questions but that is not the point George was making. If you read his original post you will see that his point was that the Bush Administration is A) corrupt and B) incompetent. It is only after he is flushed out by the facts that he begins to retreat to a more moderate position.

I believe an investigation of the ways in which our intelligence services work and interact with one another is in order and I am not in total agreement with all of the security measures in place. In the end, the responsibility falls On Bush and Bush alone but outright attacks on his leadership in advance of any of the relevant facts is, in my view, totally irresponsible in times like these.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893723 - 05/22/02 11:19 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Ah, the stupid American. Probably so caught up in trying to figure out how to properly fill out a butterfly ballot, that they completely missed the events of 911. Or the action by the administration that followed afterwards.

Yes, those ignorant Americans. Too caught up in creating and maintaining the world's greatest nation to properly examine their own political leaders. how silly of us!

I'm sorry to burst your bubble of elitic smugness, but the American people tend to be a little sharper than you think. Witness the Democratic party turning on a political dime just this past weekend. After throwing baseless charges to the wind for almost a week, you could see the political horns start to shrink on Friday and by Sunday they were mere nubs. The reason that the pols turned down the volume on the anti-Bush political noise is that the American people recognized it for exactly what it was - unfounded propaganda. The American people know that party affiliation should not be a factor in international affairs or in war. And yes, we are involved in a war, a different and new kind of war, and the American people also recognize that fact.

And lastly, the American people are smart enough to figure out that no political administration, either Democrat or Republican, can intercept every threat, or provide complete public safety from any deranged person or terrorist organization.

Whenever a politician starts to consider his constituents dumb and ignorant, is usually the day he can start planning his retirement, for his position just became temporary.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893724 - 05/22/02 12:38 PM Re: Ohmygod!
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
"There are lots of similar stories - 65-year old ladies with their grandkids and bags full of Disneyworld souvenirs getting full frisks and the like -- the inconvenience is absolutely fine, but the method of profiling seems ludicrous."

I was under the impression the last time I flew (a couple of weeks ago) that the searching was completely random - ie: that a number came up and that particular person in line was the one that got searched. I don't think its got anything to do with profiling.

Top
#893725 - 05/22/02 02:13 PM Re: Ohmygod!
.rvaga* Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 2046
Loc: Portland, Oregon
I've heard it stated many times, that we should all drive more fuel efficient cars, and that development of hybrid cars, fuel-cell, etc. would be in our national interest.

I don't understand what effect improved gas milage has on terrorism.

Top
#893726 - 05/22/02 03:01 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
None, of course, it's a red herring. The reason why we don't confront the Saudis at this point is not because we need their oil (they need our petro dollars more) it's because it is not necessary to do so. They (the Saudi government) are not developing terror weapons to use against us even though they are openly sponsoring terrorism. It is much better to take down the really bad (and more directly dangerous to ourselves) apples first. The house of Saud should develop an entirely new perspective with a change of government in, say, Iraq.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893727 - 05/23/02 04:20 AM Re: Ohmygod!
B. Alden Offline
Full Member

Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 69

Top
#893728 - 05/23/02 08:30 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
I don't know, who? And anyway, who cares who started it? I'm not really interested in dwelling on blaming, but would like to see someone currently with an alternative proposal to the computer-based airport system, be it from a Democrat or Republican. [/b]
That's right. whenever policies that flow from the left turn out to be ill-conceived, we are never supposed to remember who conceived of them in the first place.

 Quote:
Yes, exactly - it's completely random and computer-based, which is the problem! I have nothing against Middle Easterner's at all - please don't accuse me of being racist. But it makes no sense to let a computer randomly choose - the Swedish, the blind musicians, the American ladies over 70 -- are not the terrorists. There needs to be profiling based on where the threat is centered, and this shouldn't be insulting to Middle Eastern people . If it were the British who attacked, I would be quite willing to be searched every time - it just makes sense.[/b]
I agree with every word of this. The problem is that, though there are no end of suggestions on how to conduct airport security from Democrats and Republicans. In order to be implemented they must get the blessing of Norman Mineta who is, yes, a Democrat and very enamored of the whole anti-profiling cause. I am irritated with the Bush administration for not standing up to this PC nonsense. But while we are arguing about which way to go let us not forget how it was that we got here in the first place.

 Quote:
I wasn't blaming the problems on Lewinsky-the-person, but was rather referring to Lewinsky-the-scandal. Does the majority of America look to the president as a moral leader nowadays? None of the young people do whom I know. Obviously Clinton shouldn't have lied in court, and he said many stupid things........but was the severity of his adultery that started it all really worthy of such a scandal? It certainly wasted potential, not just that of Clinton, but of everyone.[/b]
I was referring to Lewinsky-the-scandal. Why on earth would you think otherwise. No I don't think America is looking for a president to be a moral leader in the Billy Graham sense (another straw man, by the way) but I think the American people would like for their president to be moral. I grow weary of being told that Clinton should not have been impeached for adultery or lying in court or saying stupid things. He was impeached because he lied in court (crime called perjury) and suborned the perjury of others. We may not expect our president to be a Billy Graham but we do insist that he, at minimum, obey the law.

 Quote:
Revenues derived from the sale of oil by the members of the OPEC cartel directly and indirectly finance middle-Eastern terrorism. In some cases, direct-oil revenues go straight to terrorist programs either because the terrorism-supporting government itself owns the oil deposits or because it collects taxes based on oil revenues.[/b]
This is fairly obvious. However, are we to assume that your strategy to fight these terrorists is to squeeze off the oil revenue to Saudi Arabia? That this is to be accomplished solely through conservation? (heaven forbid that we should produce our own oil) Let's just say that hybrid cars, which are currently in production by the way, are either mandated (foolish) or made acceptable enough to the American consumer to be more desirable than current technology automobiles (wishful thinking). Just how long would it take to get enough of these hybrid cars on the road at the current rate of automobile replacement to really put the squeeze on the Saudis. Ten years? Twenty years? In the meantime we just sit back and (try to) secure ourselves against one terrorist attack after another. I am assuming that you are ruling out any military options. nothing that you have posted thus far even hints at any support for the use of military power.

Even if we could, after a very painful process, entirely wean ourselves from Saudi oil we would very likely impoverish the Saudis and wreck our own economy (upon which we will be told not to bring up the subject of who got us there) and there sits Sadam Hussein in an even better position than before. If you are not ruling out military action against Iraq then why bother with the Saudis. With the really bad 'uns gone in the middle east the Saudis will surely "get religion" anyway.

I recall back before the Gulf War that we were being implored by those on the left not to use military action against Iraq and to "give sanctions time to work". Now, of course, what we hear today from those same people is what a mistake we made in leaving Hussein in power. We are not supposed to remember the fact that it was like pulling teeth to get them to go along with doing anything at all. But let's not bring up how we got here.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893729 - 05/23/02 01:35 PM Re: Ohmygod!
iainhp Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 803
Loc: San Diego
 Quote:
I've heard it stated many times, that we should all drive more fuel efficient cars, and that development of hybrid cars, fuel-cell, etc. would be in our national interest.
It might be in our national interest to pursue this, but why always the fixation on automobiles? In California there was a move to tax SUVs because of their gas consumption. I just saw an add for a little 2 seater Mercedes sports car. It gets (quoted) 15mpg city, 20 highway. That's what half the SUVs achieve. Then all the comments on the disdain in Germany for American gas mileage. Does anyone really think a Mercedes driving at 90 mph is achieving good gas mileage? (not trying to pick on Mercedes, they're all the same). Half the people driving Hondas aren't getting the quoted gas mileage - they keep the pedal floored from the light. I have no desire to sit in some hybrid car for 6 hours in 110 degrees while driving to Vegas if I don't have to. Hybrid cars have their place but they shouldn't be legislated on everyone as all oure needs are different.

Electric cars have to be recharged. Power stations might be more efficient at using oil, but they are still burning oil, gas and coal. Don't preach that you are reducing the countries oil reliance because you have an electric car. The difference ain't that great and now you're producing the problem of disposal of spent batteries (lot's of nasty metals).

I live in a 1,350 sq foot townhouse and it's more than adequate for a family of four. Why is there not a move to tax large houses. They take an abudance of energy to heat in the winter and cool in the summer? What about houses with 16 foot ceilings. Anything over 10 feet should be taxed because all the heat sits up there in the winter, wasted. Not to mention all the extra trees that had to be used to frame the "too large a house" and the energy it took to transport the extra building materials. What about all the extra paint it takes to paint it.

What about boats. They aren't called plaesure craft for nothing. Hauling them from house to water takes energy. They burn fuel worse than cars. And the 2 stroke engines are dumping oil into the water. Would the world be any worse off if there were no jet skis?

Another pet peeve is the amount of wrapping material used in the US. If you buy a DVD it is double wrapped in plastic with a large cardboard carrier in between. CDs are often wrapped in a similar fashion. Stuff is way overwrapped - what a waste of material (and energy to manufacture them) and the landfills are filling to capacity.

As I've said before, this country lacks a long term energy plan (and don't preach Al Gore - the Clinton era had no plan either). If we really want to get rid of the oil problem we need to find other ways to generate electricity. Do this well enough and we can produce cheap alcohol for auto fuel (Brazil had a pilot program in this but the alcohol was too expensive to make). For a while the US was a world leader in electricity produced by wind. It no longer comes close. There are no incentives because there is no plan. Frankly the politicans won't get around to making a plan until they are slapped in the face with a real problem. At that point it will be too late. What it needs is some strong leadership from industry to quietly start working together towards a common goal. You know, invest in some good old fashioned R&D that might make some money down the road.

Top
#893730 - 05/23/02 02:09 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
When one uses words such as "uninformed" and broad statements about people being unable to intelligently make a decision, you are swinging a dead cat in the middle of a crowded room. Do not be surprised when someone (me) sees this as less than flattering. You received exactly the response you were seeking.

Now I'll make a broad sweeping statement - I've forgotten more about politics than you'll ever know.

My experience has been a lifetime spent in the most political state of the union. A lifetime spent working in, and observing political campaigns. I've known bad politicians, mediocre politicians, good politicians and master politicians. My job currently entails dealing with politicians at the local and state level every day. And yes, you will see some members of my family on Capitol Hill any given day.

So when I say that the American people will not countenance being treated as dumb or stupid, I base it on more than a Cambridge paper. I base it on the knowledge of what it takes to deliver a vote on Election day. People will tolerate lies if they believe they were done in the best interest of the people. They will tolerate graft or corruption, if they feel that "their" guy was stealing for them, or if they thought it was the only way a worthy goal could be accomplished. Heck, I know of a parish that re-elected a Sheriff, while he was serving a jail term for malfeasance in office! But what they will not tolerate is elitism or the appearance of it. They do not want, and will not support someone who pulls the wool over their eyes for personal agrandizement. Yes, politics is an ego trip. But the politician can never forget who is the master. Remember Nixon?
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893731 - 05/23/02 03:44 PM Re: Ohmygod!
.rvaga* Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 2046
Loc: Portland, Oregon
Well, I may be a rather dumb American, but I do know a good American invention when I see it!

Instead of swinging dead cats, try one of these:
[IMG]http://attach.prospero.com/strictlyace750/general/docs/6106B334-5403-4FE8-A6DE-2F29CB4A44EF/tabbytote.jpg?urlcreated=37399.6509953704&check=94B749CA88BDFBA7223D642A7C162654[/I MG]

If the above image does not work, just ignore my attempt at sick humor.

Top
#893732 - 05/23/02 04:07 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Rvaga,

There is a space between the I and the M in your final [/IMG]. remove that and it may work.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893733 - 05/24/02 06:15 AM Re: Ohmygod!
B. Alden Offline
Full Member

Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 69

Top
#893734 - 05/24/02 08:36 AM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
There are both Democrats and Republicans who adhere to the politically correct line that is counter to intelligent profiling, and to insinuate that it's solely a Democratic position is being as party-biased as George was accused of being.[/b]
To say that Democrats and Republicans support this policy misses the point. It is a policy that comes from the left (I know of no ideological Conservatives who support it). Many Republican politicians as politicians are basically spineless and will jump on any bandwagon that will ensure their favorable coverage by the press and their continued reelection. It is interesting to note that if you are a Democrat politician you better have your left wing (dare I say it, Liberal) bona fides in good order unless you enjoy considerable popular support or want to find yourself serving on the Capitol Grounds Landscaping Committee. Republicans tolerate much more ideological diversity among their ranks than do Democrats.

 Quote:
If you read what I said closely, you'll see that I was contesting the response to the actual adulterous acts. I know he committed perjury, and as I said, that was wrong and stupid - I've never defended it. But why was he put into a position where his sexual conduct was the business of the court in the first place? In relation to all of the world problems that need to be addressed, making a gigantic mountain out of adultery, which in comparison seems like such a minor thing, does not appear to be entirely worthwhile. If Bush were having an affair with an intern right now, I wouldn't care a bit as long as his performance as president remains unaffected.
[/b]
Once again, adultery is not the issue. Perjury and subornation of perjury (not only did he do it but he tried to get others to do it as well) are crimes for which, if committed by you or I, would land us in jeopardy of serving time in jail. The President of the United States as the man who swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed should actually be held to a higher standard. To say that he is too busy and important a man to be held responsible for his acts turns the concept of accountable government on its ear. How this matter ended up in court in the first place is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled that it should be so and that is really the end of it whether we like it or not.

If Bush were to be found to be committing adultery, I would find it disappointing and if he were carrying on with one of the staff in the White House (I would be fired for that, BTW) even more so. But this in and of itself is not an impeachable offense. Committing felonies should be.

 Quote:
By "in production," do you mean that they aren't available? If so, that's not correct - they're quite available now. I don't see how it's wishful thinking to say that they're acceptable - hybrids are acceptable, and will become more so. Nothing should be mandated, as that would just cause rebellion - but sometime in the future, if people don't start to do something soon, there might have to be mandates on things currently taken for granted. I've read that if oil consumption remains at the current rate, the reserves will be gone in as little as 45 years. Some report 60-90 years. I find it curious that as an engineer you appear to be so against the hybrid idea - care to elaborate?
[/b]
By "in procduction", I meant they are available. My point is that they are not exactly catching fire with the American public. They have their downsides and, for the foreseeable future, their disadvantages will weigh heavily against their advantages in the minds of the consumers. I am not against hybrid cars. I am against the left finding every crisis to be an imperative to advance their agenda no matter how tangentially that agenda impacts the actual crisis at hand. You say you want to, instead of using military action to fight terrorists (I still detect no support from you on this), cut off the money we send to the Middle East as an alternative. I am saying that that plan will not work. Conservation is all well and good but, by itself, is not a panacea. I am all for reducing our dependence on Middle East oil but that is not a solution to the problem at hand. That is, dealing with the current problem of terrorism against us and terrorist groups out to destroy us.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893735 - 05/24/02 09:53 AM Re: Ohmygod!
playerpiano9 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 89
Loc: Belmont, CA
In reading this thread, it seems that all of you have fallen into the trap. You all espouse an agenda that demands that others either agree with you, do what you think they should do or whatever. Both major parties pass laws and write regulations doing this as well. It is not just the liberals, as asserted above, but the so-called conservatives too. Both have agendas and both agendas are meant to enslave us. And each of you have simply spouted the party line of one of the two major parties, even if some of you are better wordsmiths at covering it up. This is why the US is losing its heritage of freedom, because even intelligent and gifted people like you have actually been drawn into doing this as well.
_________________________
Jim
It All Started with FDR

Top
#893736 - 05/24/02 10:49 AM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Dear B.Alden,

I started working in political campaigns when I was 16 years old, nailing up signs, passing out literature, running errands. I have been politically active ever since.

My current job precludes many activities that I use to engage in, but as I stated, it does involve dealing with many politicians on a daily basis. Including a few weeks ago with John Breaux, D-Louisiana. My brother-in-law lobbied intensely on Capitol Hill for the Farm Bill (which he and I disagree on). I have relatives that hold political office in everything from statewide office to water board. I have been approached to run for public office and have turned the opportunity down. And while I will agree whole-heartedly, not to have a better grasp on large nation-wide macro-political issues than the next guy, at a more basic level I do have expertise.

The only statements challenging anyone's intellect have been made by you, however, I am perfectly willing to take you on your word about the substance of your own.

Does common ground exist about reforms needed for post-911? Yes, I think it does, particularly in regards to intelligence gathering, grading and dispersal. And I am more than willing to discuss what we as a people need to change in order to bring about a safer country.

But as I stated, if you walk into the discussion swinging a dead cat, don't be surprised if your persuasive powers fall on deaf ears.

Have a nice day. \:\)
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893737 - 05/24/02 11:46 AM Re: Ohmygod!
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Jolly

B.Aldens profile indicates that they are a student. Don't you know that students are all knowing. There knowledge dosn't come from confusing experience, they got it from a book.
\:\) \:\) \:\)

lb

Top
#893738 - 05/24/02 12:13 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


I have been traveling for a week (love those Attorney Generalissimo Ashcroft security arrangements!) so I have not been able to keep up. Interesting where this has gone since I left.

So, since you all think that Bush2 could not be expected to order an quick and thorough analysis of all information the CIA and FBI had last summer of a possible imminent attack, do you think he will take any action now?

With all of the information that is now coming out, especially with the letter from the FBI attorney about the FBI's incompetence that was reported yesterday and her detailing the continuing FBI coverup, will Bush2 fire those responsible? Will he take decisive action to change the top management and entire culture of the FBI? Maybe to even try to make sure that information gathere din the field offices is listened to?

Or will he simply ask for a study and delegate this, like he did last summer which, you all argue, was about all he could have done last summmer?

I expect the latter unless and until he sees a blatant personal political advantage to doing otherwise.

Top
#893739 - 05/24/02 12:33 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Hello George, nice to have you back.

The FBI has major problems. Waco, Ruby Ridge and now this. Free was notorious for not running a very tight ship, and I do not envy the job of his successor, Moeller. To outside eyes, it appears that a communication problem exists between the upper echelons and the field agents.

The CIA also has problems, especially in the area of HUMINT. We no longer have an adequate network of human spies where we need them. Although you can't have someone infiltrated into every organization, some is better than none.

Some have called for merging of all intelligence forces. I disagree. I think the FBI should concern itself with it's primary mission, acting as the criminal investigation arm of the Justice Department. I do think that the NSA and the CIA could do a better job if their capabilities were merged under one director. The new agency would be tasked with providing intelligence, domestic or foreign.

Good decisions are based upon good intelligence, no matter which political party occupies the White House.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#893740 - 05/24/02 01:20 PM Re: Ohmygod!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
I think Bush will have all in the FBI and CIA shot and replaced with the all-knowing types that can be found in any newsroom or ivy league graduate school. :p \:D
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#893741 - 05/24/02 10:18 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Bill G. Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/12/01
Posts: 171
Loc: New York
George W. Bush was out walking when he saw Moses. "Hey, Moses! STOP!!" he yelled. But Moses walked on, ignoring him. After a few blocks, Bush caught up with him. "Moses, why didn't you stop and talk to me?" asked Bush. "Well," Moses replied, "the last time I talked to a Bush, I wandered the desert for 40 years."

Top
#893742 - 05/24/02 11:42 PM Re: Ohmygod!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Bill G.:
George W. Bush was out walking when he saw Moses. "Hey, Moses! STOP!!" he yelled. But Moses walked on, ignoring him. After a few blocks, Bush caught up with him. "Moses, why didn't you stop and talk to me?" asked Bush. "Well," Moses replied, "the last time I talked to a Bush, I wandered the desert for 40 years."[/b]
LOL!!! VERY good!

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

What's Hot!!
Christmas Header
Christmas Lights at Piano World Headquarters in Maine 2014
-------------------
The December Free Piano Newsletter
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
Sheet Music Plus (125)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Bottom of hammer hitting top of damper on upright
by JoeThePro
Yesterday at 10:09 PM
Getting better
by Kekewak
Yesterday at 07:35 PM
Pearl River vs. Samick
by Zekk
Yesterday at 03:41 PM
Kawai vs. Yamaha: what to choose
by SeeSharp
Yesterday at 02:19 PM
Disklavier Pro Alternatives? C5X Value for money?
by bryan77
Yesterday at 01:15 PM
Forum Stats
77391 Members
42 Forums
160049 Topics
2350407 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
Gift Ideas for Music Lovers!
Find the Perfect Gift for the Music Lovers on your List!
Visit our online store today.

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission