Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Ohmygod!

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!

Thank you George, for providing an echo chamber for Terry McAuliffe and the DNC.

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.

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.

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

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.

Has anyone else noticed a chilling parallel between the coming attack on Iraq and the Crusades?

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.

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.

Would that the Republics had heeded these type of words when Bill Clinton was in office!

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.

Gerorge,

Your last name isn't Stepanopholus is it?????

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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).

Actually, this guy does a much better job than I in describing your breathless account of what Bush could have or should have done.

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