9/11 Panel Complains Some Agencies Are Slowing Inquiry (New York Times - registration required) One must be careful to not allow themselves to be consumed by irony, though the need of the (rogue) Bush administration to have monitors present at interviews with its agents certainly strikes an ironic chord. However, there is a more important issue. At some point the administration should sit down with Congress and the nation and explain themselves. Security is important, we understand, but isn't that the point? (A note from the President: While the administration recognizes the essential value of security concerns, and while the administration has taken measures to ensure security, the administration feels at this time that it would pose a security risk to release certain details of security issues to the commission entrusted with examining and improving security.) It has the appearance of a mourner after some human disaster: Why? Why? I did my part. Why? But how is keeping a faulty process hidden from the public and unaddressed going to fix the problem? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nope. Nope. Sarcasm. Thankfully. But it does seem to sum up their position, IMO. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was just going to point that out [you bastard]. I wonder...will it ever be proven succinctly that at the very least the government knew enough about 9/11 before it happened, but neglected to take action because they could gain a great deal from such an event occuring...I wonder...
terribly sorry. I could delete the post so you could point it out if you like. I think that will be very very difficult. I do however think that history will look on bush as someone who capitalized on a tragedy in order to start wars of aggression to better his political career and put money in the hands of his buddies, and as the worst president in the countries history.
To end on an ellipsis (thanks TiassaPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) All of our presidents have been bad. All of them. Some have been better than others (Clinton, in spite of his shortcomings, Roosevelt, even though initially he kinda screwed up...). I read a little about Mckinley, who was president just before the turn of the century, and he pulled a lot of the same sh*t that George is pulling right now. Their Iraq was Spain and Cuba. Quite a few parallels, really. Maybe I'm not the only one who reads history...
Re: To end on an ellipsis (thanks TiassaPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) No argument here, but I think Bush has managed to surpass them.
Well ... you know .... I was smiling about that very irony at some point. I hadn't realized at the time ... well, you know. It just slipped by me when I wrote the note. But I'm trying to be a little sympathetic toward the administration; it's not working. I understand that gathering the data is a monumental undertaking, but if this is what it takes now, what realistic chance did we stand on 9/11? Could it be that the administration does not want to admit that on that day of infamy, we simply got our asses beat? Bin Laden is quietly getting his way in little bits and pieces; let's see how much of the farm we send him. More realistically, I think it's probably a matter of priorities. For instance, back when the Iraqi invasion was a gleam in Dubya's publicly-exposed loins, I watched Charlie Rose interview Vicente Fox last year (5.10.2002). Fox, while being very dignified about the issue, pointed out that after 9/11 a number of the US's foreign-policy needs had been put on hold. Certain countries like Mexico, he pointed out, could not wait forever; the Mexicans had invested in the American War on Drugs and could not hold out forever, for instance. And while I won't blame the Bush administration for Fox's recent political woes, we can see how our priorities vis a vis terrorism have complicated other situations elsewhere. And, frankly, I think that's what the problem is here. Bush wants to be a President of action. Much action, as few words as strategically possible, for heaven's sake. But 9/11 is over, and the administration has treated the incident as if it now has 3,000 dead horses to beat. The focus has allegedly been on prevention, but in order to prevent an event, we need to know a bit about how it happens, and in this the various executive extensions (DoJ, DHS, DoD) need to set the priority of participating in the investigation a little bit higher. And so I urge the administration to consider its priorities. Yes, we know security is important, but if we do not attend to other priorities as well, security will not only remain problematic, but most likely grow exponentially more difficult over time. You are our President, Mr. Bush. Do the right thing. Light a fire under some asses and get this show moving forward. Do it for us. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa Why have you added "I personally blame the French"? What's the link with your poll or your thread? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I hit other. I argue that bush and everyone knew 9/11 was going to happen, and let it for some reason..or they might have made it happen themselves. Yes, conspiracy theory. Yes, i'm probably crazy. I might have read 1984 too many times, but with our spy network and spy satellites that can resolve to a meter and everything else we have inthe world, one would think we'd have seen 9/11 coming! Plus, there was that FBI agent who made a report saying something would happen 2 weeks before it did, but his report was ignored...
Nothing important, SG-N Doesn't mean anything, SG-N. It's just a quiet taunt at all the American Francophobes who might still be sore at the French for not getting on their knees and servicing our President. Understand, I'm subject to a number of cultural prejudices about the French which are only reinforced by limited direct contact, including "snotty attitude" and "where's the deodorant, dude?" Then again, I'm going to see Phish next weekend, so eveni if those stereotypes turned out to be 100% true, I would have no real grounds for human complaint. Of course, I haven't hung out with French nationals in over ten years .... At any rate, despite the stupid Peugot commercials of old ("The bedroom isn't the only place the French excel ....") and a host of old jokes rehashed by The Simpsons, I find it ridiculous (e.g. "worth of ridicule") that Americans should be so frightened by the fact that the French, like most people, are capable of thinking for themselves when they choose to. I find American Francophobia something worth holding over the Francophobes heads; it's disgraceful, it's stupid, and I'm always happy to grind that kind of paranoia under my heel. It is one of my more sadistic aspects; I'll dangle the angry stupid from a hook like a worm. In short, it's my way of saying, "So who wants to blame other people for our own problems?" And, in short, it's also the chuckle value that comes from knowing some people do still fume and foam at the French. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: Changed "Francophile" to "Francophobe". Whoops. My bad.
Sorry, I should have understood! (I need holidays Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) sometime right... strange idea! (may comes from the WW2 when there were no more soaps, LOL) I don't know this commercial because it would have no effect in France. Never hears a joke about us in the Simpsons (they would change some sentences! :bugeyePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, that's off-topic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
