Shine On You Crazy Diamond
Dear George,
I didn't really want to mention this, but, OK, this lands on your desk on August 6, 2001. Quote:
"The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat." --to the press pool, April 11, 2004, Fort Hood, Texas ...of course you keep stammering to make sure you qualify yourself so it can't be construed as an outright lie, wrinkling your brow in that cute of-course-I'm-more-enlightened-than-you-I'm-the-fucking-president way you have, and go on to say: "There was not a time and place of an attack. It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to." ...and he dives, executing a difficult triple-gainer and barely making a splash, scoring a row of 10s... ...you didn't really say that there was no indication of a terrorist threat and that you knew bin Laden was a terrorist threat in the same breath. No. It only seems that way to those who cannot see the emperor's new clothes. You simply reminded us that your priorities are beyond the scope of mere mortal comprehension, and that those silly little things that flutter across your desk are as trifling as the newspapers you also never read. Now beyond the spectacle of your Zen Mastery, I don't see that you necessarily had anything to apologize for anyway, we can all see the document is "vague" ...because it's not clairvoyant. We can't blame you for not acting when there's nothing actionable, like a date or a flight number. But you could have chosen to say "Yes, the document indicated a possible terrorist threat but it was hard to know what to do about the information." No one would've thought twice about it. Hell, we all know in August you were already drawing up battle plans for war with Iraq, you had a lot on your plate. But no, better to glisten even if it's with pure slime. Slippery George the Golden Weasel, the man who knew better by not knowing at all. Intelligence failure indeed... I don't care if it was written in orange Crayon in four inch high letters on a brown paper sack, it indicated a possible terrorist threat. "The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat." What is your tongue connected to? Why would you even bother to say that? It'd be truly laughable except that it makes me more suspicious of you than I ever wanted to be. You're supposed to be all about our security per your very own unbelievably redundant droning, but you just keep making me more and more paranoid with all this ultrasophisticated reverse psychology shit. It concerns me that someone close to you can't impress upon you that it might be in your best interest to shut the hell up, or at least get your meds adjusted before they let you speak. Yet I was truly willing to let this go, I wasn't even going to mention it. But then, a day later, in the photo-op for Mubarak visiting your ranch, you say: "There was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.'" --Press conference, April 12, 2004, Crawford, Texas ...and I mean this is after you slept. Let's review. Quote:
Then, your big Prime Time Press Conference. By now you've obviously had time to chisel this crude gem into pure brilliance: "...the briefing contained 'nothing new' in terms of disclosing that Osama bin Laden hoped to attack the United States." --April 13, 2004, Washington ...nothing new. Breathtaking. This indicates that in your peculiar brand of ominiscience, you not only already knew all about an imminent terrorist threat, but you also didn't know there was one... Apparently this is achieved by knowing it so well that you cease to know it, which is both like really really knowing it and not knowing it all at the same time... Gotta hand it to you, you did a superb job of making the memo itself seem completely irrelevant there... Just between me and you though, next time you're campaigning for the trust and support of the American people through a critical period, you might want to toy with the idea that we have a collective grasp of reality. It's not even a question of "would you buy a used car from this man" when you can clearly see the guy is trying to sell you half a stuffed goat. And dude, you've got to stop with the whole sarcastic sneering thing. You're getting a little better, but you've really gotta keep practicing those eyebrow relaxation techniques and try to shake it completely. I know you think it's all Charleton Heston but it really just comes off The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Love, Ramona |
as long as we're still playing the blame game, we should at least have some fun with it. feel free to choose your own personal favorite.
let's blame Clinton! Clinton-Clinton bo binton bo nanna fanna fo finton fee fi mo minton.........Clinton. of course, if you get tired of playing, perhaps the following article from Time magazine 05/27/2002 might interest you. or not. ...an Agent Speaks Out Against the Blame Game Quote:
|
god ramona yer so unfair!. sure bush knew somebody wanted to attack washington, and sure bush knew somebody wanted to attack new york city, and sure bush knew that that somebody was osama bin laden, but bush didn't know the day. at least he says he didn't. meanwhile, on a bucolic ranch in texas, far far away from either of those awful places, our man had important ranch type matters to attend to immediately, not in the distant foggy future like five weeks from then. i heard wood needed chopping and horses needed watering and a million other things needed doing that only a god fearing rancher can accomplish. so give the guy a break. ok, i mean a load of people got squashed when those buildiings came down and ok maybe he could have prevented it if he really paid attention but come on, how many horses thrived on his ranch during the 5 week period between august 6th and september 11th? it was really hot, remember? they could've all gotten sick but they didn't! nobody ever talks about that do they? no. and you wanna know why? because people are really mean, that's why.
- js. |
It's just semantics....Bush was dumb in his (their?) choice of words....but a democrat focus on 911 is a trap they should not fall into. Regardless of how badly Bush fucks up basic sentence structures, most reasonable folk will accept that shit like 911 is usually impossible to predict. There is plenty of other stuff to bring him down, but 911 will always work in his favor, they should leave it alone.
|
Quote:
that being said, Bush could have scored some points last night by accepting responsibility for this catastrophic event, by virtue of the fact that it happened on his watch. i recall Reagan accepting responsibility for the terrorist bombing deaths of 241 Marines in Beruit in the 80's, and he looked good doing it. it's the stand-up thing to do:att: |
Reagan didn't do a damn thing except look good. He didn't retaliate against the attackers and in fact he withdrew the troops and let things get worse.
I'd rather have some response instead of slick talking. |
Quote:
Almost never will a Government or government figure accept responsibility for either 9/11 or any other attack or disaster regardless of the scope or reasoning for it happening. It would open the government up to huge Lawsuits by every tom, dick, and harry. The Government has and always will be virtually immune to lawsuits unless there is a scapegoat. |
Unreal
Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated Warnings Reports Preceded August 2001 Memo Dana Priest By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real." "Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with [Director of Central Intelligence George J.] Tenet," the commission staff said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr13.html |
Why is it I have to register to read one sided news stories all the time:RE:
Without registering I will comment: This issue is like beating a dead horse:ND: No one administration is at fault and if any holds the main blame I would say it is the Clinton Admin. Clinton saw just as many signs if not more and suffered more attacks by terrorists and did less. Not to mention his lowered budget for intelligence gathering. If Bush would have acted on vague sporadic intelligence for example: tightening airport security, and investigating immigrants etc. people would of screamed about invasion of privacy and civil rights violations. Plain and simple sometimes the things we cherrish the most bite back and haunt us. Everyone was at fault it's just life:eke: |
HUH?
1 Attachment(s)
There's not one single solitary scrap of an intent to blame anyone for any event in the known world in my above post. I even rather implicitly suggested that I do not blame George for a failure to act on this document. The fact that you could read it and think, "oh, Ramona's blaming George for 911," seems completely absurd to me.
But I realize it's not absurd in your minds if it enables you to completely sidestep the actual point, a point which would be much harder for you to excuse if you weren't so like George and could actually admit the point existed. The man said that the memo did not indicate a terrorist threat. That's not semantics. That's not poor sentence structure. It's a contradiction of evidence which, if we were in a court of law, could be called perjury. It's a contradiction of evidence which, if we were in the funny papers--and it seems sometimes we are--would get Dennis The Menace sentenced to sit in the corner to think about what he'd done. Of course poor Dennis didn't realize he had chocolate on his face when he denied getting into the cookie jar, but if he watched video playback of his denial and still insisted on denying it, his mother might consider reform school or drug therapy instead of a simple time out. Agreeing with George, as I do, that the blame for any given terrorist act can really only be assigned to the people that perpetrated it, I have to ask who is "playing the Blame Game" here? I'm not sure of the rules, but I'd assume the Blame Game would entail something like standing around in a circle and tossing the Blame Ball around and trying not to be the one holding it when the Blame Bell rings. I'd imagine the people who are really good at the game would be those skilled at one or more of a few different conceivable methods of play, involving either somehow getting their opponents to hold the ball most often or successfully deflecting the ball from themselves most often. Perhaps simply refusing to catch the ball or getting control of the bell might be options too. I'd guess someone who would bring up the Clinton administration (under which this document was produced) in a thread about catching George Bush having a blatant prime-time Dennis The Menace moment might be playing the Blame Game far more skillfully than I ever could. Still, carry on. I'm not one to bicker about holding to a topic. We can't control that the points we mean to make often remind people of something entirely different. |
Re: HUH?
Quote:
That was one thing I did say about the point you're making...that it's just semantics. And I really think this post has everything to do with semantics. se·man·tics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form. The operative words are "indication" and "threat" and their interpretation. George says there was no new information. He already knew that stuff in the memo. If he already knew, how could the memo possibly be the indicator of a threat? It wasn't. It didn't indicate anything to old George. Not if he already knew that stuff. It is clear that the memo warned of a terrorist threat. Yet George says "The memo was no indication of a terrorist threat". I can accept that, particularly with his qualification and use of the word 'indication'. It's not a great choice of words and it could be clearer, but his intended meaning is clear enough. And when intended meaning is clear enough, the rest is just semantics. |
The Blame Game part was largely a response to daddydirt of course. To Fantom, lol, I'm quite aware of the definition of semantics, thanks.
I suppose I'll concede your point that the word "indication" is one that would be suitable to use in the event that one wanted to be totally unclear about what one was saying while skewing one's language to look superficially as if one was either totally stupid or trying, vainly, to lie one's ass off. You say the memo "warned" but that it's acceptable that George says it "didn't indicate" a terrorist threat. Now, "terrorist threat" is a species of event, not a specific event. So can you come up with another example of how a thing can warn of a species of event without indicating that species of event? If he thinks that saying the memo was insignificant is somehow more reassuring than the alternative, I have to question how he would interpret all future intelligence. Is he essentially telling us that he didn't put much stock in American intelligence agencies? That would be concerning because as we all know, intelligence is lost on an audience without the quotient to comprehend it. Perhaps he feels these little scraps of paper are the equivalent of National Enquirer headlines--and for all I know perhaps they are mixed in with warnings about batboys and double-headed alien babies... still, it seems he might concede that in retrospect, this one turned out to have a striking likeness to subsequent events. Whatever the case, it leaves me with very little confidence in the man's discernment--not that he failed to discern the gravity of the warning then--but that he still fails to acknowledge that it should have had any gravity now. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and anyone would concede that... ...except, apparently, George, whose semantic approach seems in denial of that very aphorism. I agree that this all may seem superficial and trivial too, but once you start giving someone this kind of semantic license what's next? Political Dadaism? Actually, that would be refreshing at this point, at least we wouldn't have to sit around and wonder what the fuckers mean by their intentionally incomprehensible ululation.... :spin: |
Quote:
|
i have been overtaken by an expulsion of air from the lungs resulting in sounds ranging from an explosive guffaw to a muffled titter and usually accompanied by movements of the mouth or facial muscles and a lighting up of the eyes ...:rofl3:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
passin' gas ? |
:AP:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)