Yet more deaths on Bush's back

[Slider]

Clinton got a blow job. I'm just getting that out of the way, so you can focus on the fact that the three fatal mine accidents in the last month fall squarely on yet another incompetent, corrupt decision to sell out to industry by the Bush administration. Thanks to the gutting of federal safety standards, 16 miners have died since January 2.

Disagree? Bring it on.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/01/wva_governor_asks_for_halt_in_coal_production_for_ safety_checks/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/01/wva_governor_asks_for_halt_in_coal_production_for_ safety_checks/)

Slider

[kernel crash]

"A miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support popped loose, said Caryn Gresham, a spokeswoman for the state Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training.

The second fatality occurred at a surface mine when a bulldozer struck a gas line, sparking a fire and killing the operator, said Dirk Filpott, a spokesman for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration."

I guess Bush was driving the bulldozer that struck the gas line ??? And rumor has it that Bush pushed the wall on the other miner. Yeah, that's it. Now I see the connection ::)

[catbbq]

I thought Clinton lied about getting a blow job while under oath. If he can decide what laws to obey and which to disregard, why should Bush be different?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hey, why stop there?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/02/death_toll_at_8_in_ex_postal_workers_rampage/

This is clearly Bush's fault. It was obviously the federal budget deficit that disturbed this woman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4615812.stm
Again, Bush's fault. Indonesia is a largely muslim country. Bush is a anti-Muslim racist. He probably sent the chickens.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097361/
Ditto.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060128/asp/foreign/story_5774817.asp
Baby dies. Europe having a cold winter. Global warming! Easy call... Bush's fault.


I could go on all day.

[Slider]

I couldn't find the data on the carnage that resulted from the Clinton BJ. Got that info?

Slider

Stats from a Knight Ridder story:

The number of major fines over $10,000 has dropped by nearly 10 percent since 2001. The dollar amount of those penalties, when adjusted for inflation, has plummeted 43 percent to a median of $27,584.

Fewer than half of the fines levied between 2001 and 2003 - about $3 million - have been paid.

The budget and staff for the enforcement office also have declined, forcing the agency to make do with about 100 fewer coal-mine-enforcement personnel, a cut of about 9 percent.
In serious criminal cases, the number of guilty pleas and convictions have fallen 54.8 percent since 2001. In the first four years of the Bush administration, the federal government averaged 3.5 criminal convictions a year; in the four years before that, the average was 7.75 per year.

Officials at the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Labor did not respond by Friday evening to an e-mailed list of 13 questions or to a request for an interview. The requests were made at midweek.

Davitt McAteer, who headed the mine-safety agency during the Clinton administration, said it had become a "paper tiger."
"The numbers indicate that they haven't had as much in the area of enforcement," said McAteer, now a vice president at Wheeling Jesuit University. "It suggests that the whole system is kind of bogging down."

McAteer said that without the stick of high fines, mandated payments of those penalties, and consistent follow-up inspections, companies had little incentive to repair safety problems.

The mine-safety agency touts on its Web site statistics showing the agency's "overall record of increased enforcement against mine operators during this Administration."

Those statistics show that in 2005, the agency issued 4 percent more violation notices for all mines than it did in 2000 and that the number of coal-mine violations issued increased by 18 percent. The agency also touted a 13 percent increase in "significant and substantial" violations.

But those numbers hide the fact that most of the fines were so small that they were meaningless to big mining companies, said Dennis O'Dell, a health and safety administrator for the United Mine Workers of America union.

"It's not enough to scare the companies to take care of business," O'Dell said. "A $55 fine for a coal company means nothing when they're making millions upon millions of dollars."
Earnie Williams, 65, was killed when a chunk of frozen coal slurry rocketed out of a clogged pipe, ricocheted and hit him in the head. The company, ICG, was faulted for not having procedures for unclogging frozen pipes and was fined $440.

"The $440 fine charged to the company is a ridiculous figure to compare to someone's life or to deter the company from future unsafe practices," Williams' daughter, Karla Smith of Hindman, Ky., wrote in an e-mail to Knight Ridder. "How does anyone expect ICG to correct hazardous and potentially deadly practices when a pocket-change fine is issued after such an occurrence?"

David Gooch, president of Coal Operators and Associates in Pikeville, Ky., which has 200 members, said the size of the fines had nothing to do with who was in power in Washington.
"It doesn't have anything to do with who's the president because, actually, the people who are doing those fines are apolitical," Gooch said. "They're employees that are covered by the federal civil service, and their own union, by the way, so they compute the fines the way they come out."

Mining industry officials defended the Bush administration and pointed to recent years of record low deaths and injuries in mining as the most important numbers.

For coal mining, 2005 and 2002 were record low years for fatalities. Twenty-two people were killed last year in coal-mining incidents - down from 47 in 1995. There were 27 fatalities in 2002. The number of workers killed in all mines hit consecutive record lows of 56 and 55 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, but increased slightly to 57 in 2005.

"Within the last five years, the number of fatalities have been cut in half," said National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston. "From our perspective, that's where we ought to be focused. It is what is happening to the absolute number of injuries - and the rate of injuries - that has gone down. Mining is no longer the most dangerous industry in the United States."

Regardless of who does the inspections, former agency officials say the marching orders on enforcement changed with the Bush administration.

"Right off the bat, when they came in, they said we want to focus more on partnerships, alliances, working together with industry," said Celeste Montforton, who was special assistant to the safety agency's chief for six years through December 2001. "They did feel there was too much of a focus on enforcement."

Tony Oppegard, a Lexington, Ky., lawyer who was a top mine-safety agency official during the Clinton administration and later general counsel for the Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals, said there were problems with that philosophy.
"The philosophy is all coal operators are good guys and if you just tell them what to do, they'll be more than willing to do it and they'll do a good job," he said. "We know from history that's not true. Not all coal operators are good guys. There are some outlaws out there. And when you have an outlaw operator, you need to use your enforcement tools."

In 2001, the mine-safety agency had 1,181 coal-mine-enforcement workers. This year, the agency had about 1,080. And President Bush has proposed a further cut to 1,043 in the current fiscal budget.

Cutbacks in enforcement officials mean that specialists who could concentrate on the most pressing safety issues - ventilation and roof cave-ins - have been pressed into service for the routine and mandatory inspections, former officials say.
An even bigger worry, McAteer noted, is the lack of timely follow-up inspections. The problem was highlighted by a 2003 Government Accountability Office study that found that 48 percent of all citations - including the most serious ones - were not followed up by the mandated deadline.

"It is a very severe problem," McAteer said. "In human terms, if you don't follow that up, you can send all the enforcement people you want... . There's less incentive to fix" the problem.

[catbbq]

I couldn't find the data on the carnage that resulted from the Clinton BJ. Got that info?



Not from his BJ. I don't think there was much carnage from that. However his complete lack of ethics and disregard for the truth sure did grease up the slipper slope Bush is skating down now.

[TrailBate]

I couldn't find the data on the carnage that resulted from the Clinton BJ. Got that info?



Not from his BJ. I don't think there was much carnage from that. However his complete lack of ethics and disregard for the truth sure did grease up the slipper slope Bush is skating down now.




OMG! The reason Bush is a traitor and a war criminal is because Clinton got a BJ!!! Now I've seen everything.

What's more important, Having Clinton testify under oath about who blew him, or have Bush testify under oath about pre-war intelligence, the CIA leak, the illegal prisons, the illegal spying, the torture, etc?

Just the fact that republicans made Clinton testify under oath about a blow job is pathetic.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I couldn't find the data on the carnage that resulted from the Clinton BJ. Got that info?




http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=news&refid=017

[FriedRys]

David Gooch, president of Coal Operators and Associates in Pikeville, Ky., which has 200 members, said the size of the fines had nothing to do with who was in power in Washington.
"It doesn't have anything to do with who's the president because, actually, the people who are doing those fines are apolitical," Gooch said. "They're employees that are covered by the federal civil service, and their own union, by the way, so they compute the fines the way they come out."

Mining industry officials defended the Bush administration and pointed to recent years of record low deaths and injuries in mining as the most important numbers.

For coal mining, 2005 and 2002 were record low years for fatalities. Twenty-two people were killed last year in coal-mining incidents - down from 47 in 1995. There were 27 fatalities in 2002. The number of workers killed in all mines hit consecutive record lows of 56 and 55 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, but increased slightly to 57 in 2005.

"Within the last five years, the number of fatalities have been cut in half," said National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston. "From our perspective, that's where we ought to be focused. It is what is happening to the absolute number of injuries - and the rate of injuries - that has gone down. Mining is no longer the most dangerous industry in the United States."

God damn Bush and his record low numbers of fatalities and declining rate of injuries. And the bastard stole the distinction of 'most dangerous industry in the U.S.' from those poor men. >:(

[catbbq]

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazo0X0YuanBnfGx vYWQ9TDAsaHR0cDovL3pvb20uY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvbS8wLzkyM jU5MTBfem9vbS5qcGd8fHNjYWxlPUwwLDE3MCwxNzAsV2hpdGV 8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxMMCxBZGQsMTU0LDEyNHxjcD1yZXN1b HQsYmxhbmt8c2NhbGU9cmVzdWx0LDAsNDgwLFdoaXRlfGxvYWQ 9c2FtcGxlLGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY2FmZXByZXNzLmNvbS9jb250Z W50L2dsb2JhbC9pbWcvc2FtcGxlX2NydW5jaF9vdmVybGF5Lmd pZnxzY2FsZT1zYW1wbGUsMCw0ODAsV2hpdGV8Y29tcG9zZT1yZ XN1bHQsc2FtcGxlLEFkZCwwLDB8Y29tcHJlc3Npb249OTV8

[Slider]

I couldn't find the data on the carnage that resulted from the Clinton BJ. Got that info?




http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=news&refid=017


First of all, you're saying this is a bad thing? ???

But if you want to point a finger, try all those abstinence idiots who have no clue what direction the culture is taking. Tell kids intercourse is bad, and they'll find other options. Prepare them properly, and they have a chance to make a sound deciion on their health and self respect.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

First of all, you're saying this is a bad thing? ???

But if you want to point a finger, try all those abstinence idiots who have no clue what direction the culture is taking. Tell kids intercourse is bad, and they'll find other options. Prepare them properly, and they have a chance to make a sound deciion on their health and self respect.

Slider


You think it's a good thing that more teens are having unprotected sex? I guess you see no problem with the spread of STD's, which are easily transmittable from oral sex.

And why is teaching abstinence a bad thing? ??? Oh that's right, the liberals' definition of sex education: Okay kiddies, here's how to do it. And here are some condoms. Have fun!

[slapheadmofo]

David Gooch, president of Coal Operators and Associates in Pikeville, Ky., which has 200 members, said the size of the fines had nothing to do with who was in power in Washington.
"It doesn't have anything to do with who's the president because, actually, the people who are doing those fines are apolitical," Gooch said. "They're employees that are covered by the federal civil service, and their own union, by the way, so they compute the fines the way they come out."

Mining industry officials defended the Bush administration and pointed to recent years of record low deaths and injuries in mining as the most important numbers.

For coal mining, 2005 and 2002 were record low years for fatalities. Twenty-two people were killed last year in coal-mining incidents - down from 47 in 1995. There were 27 fatalities in 2002. The number of workers killed in all mines hit consecutive record lows of 56 and 55 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, but increased slightly to 57 in 2005.

"Within the last five years, the number of fatalities have been cut in half," said National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston. "From our perspective, that's where we ought to be focused. It is what is happening to the absolute number of injuries - and the rate of injuries - that has gone down. Mining is no longer the most dangerous industry in the United States."

God damn Bush and his record low numbers of fatalities and declining rate of injuries. And the bastard stole the distinction of 'most dangerous industry in the U.S.' from those poor men. >:(
.

I thought I told you to keep your facts to yourself.
Don't you know if anything good happens it's purely by accident, but if anything goes wrong (tsunamis, hurricanes, gravity and physics keep conspiring against the human race, etc etc) it's a willful act of destruction driven solely by a single human being? Hasn't this crap been repeated enough times so you believe it yet?

[Slider]

You think it's a good thing that more teens are having unprotected sex? I guess you see no problem with the spread of STD's, which are easily transmittable from oral sex.

And why is teaching abstinence a bad thing? ??? Oh that's right, the liberals' definition of sex education: Okay kiddies, here's how to do it. And here are some condoms. Have fun!


Unprotected is the problem, not the sex. Unprepared is the problem, not the sex. Teaching abstinence at the expense of a rational education in the issues is the sole cause. It ain't the liberals, but the morons who wouldn't know a real world issue or its solution if it ran them over.

This is directly equatable to the Bush mine thing. If you back off the inspections and the penalties, which is what happened, industry is going to be lax in protecting the safety of the workers. If you don't think that backing off is a direct result of signals, policy and direct communications from the administration, you're living in the same sort of dream world that makes people think you can make kids abstain because you tell them to.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

But - back to reality- mining got safer over the past few years.

I know, silly facts thowing a monkeywrench into the rhetoric. I hate when that happens - quick, someone spin up some BS before we go too far down the path of common sense.

[catbbq]

But - back to reality- mining got safer over the past few years.

I know, silly facts thowing a monkeywrench into the rhetoric. I hate when that happens - quick, someone spin up some BS before we go too far down the path of common sense.


But all Clinton did was get a blow job!

[rigidhack]

Maybe from the point of view of the conservative Republican, the BJ caused immense carnage. A rigid "right to life" standpoint and a complete disregard for the rights of the woman might lead to the conclusion that that stained dress was evidence of MILLIONS of dead (future) kids.

OH THE CALAMITY!

Flame me, or have a sense of humor. You will be judged according to your response and it will go down on your permanent record.

[Slider]

But - back to reality- mining got safer over the past few years.

I know, silly facts thowing a monkeywrench into the rhetoric. I hate when that happens - quick, someone spin up some BS before we go too far down the path of common sense.


What fact, the one where Carol Raulston of the National Mining Association says deaths have been cut in half? ********. Following a downward trend for many decades, the decline in the number of deaths hit a plateau roughly at the time that it took for the effect of Bush's policies to show their influence. Here are the recent totals:

Year - metal- nonmetal - total

1994 - 40 - 45 - [85]
1995 - 53 - 47 - [100]
1996 - 47 - 39 - [86]
1997 - 61 - 30 - [91]
1998 - 51 - 29 - [80]
1999 - 55 - 35 - [90]
2000 - 47 - 33 - [80]
2001 - 30 - 42 - [72]
2002 - 42 - 27 - [69]
2003 - 26 - 30 - [56]
2004 - 27 - 28 - [55]
2005 - 35 - 22 - [57]

Now, in the last two weeks, we've had 16 deaths. Where do you suppose 2006 will fit into the trendline? Why do you suppose there's a sudden, dramatic rise?

If you stop enforcing the standards, pure momentum from previous efforts will keep things safe for a while. Once the idea gets out that it is a free-for-all, things change. You don't go in right away and install a gas line under a heavily traveled route, but might not be so careful when the time comes for you to need that line. The downward effect is cumulative, and you may get lucky for a spell. At some point, all hell breaks loose. Like last week.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

I heard GW monopolized all the good looking chicks back in the day (mainly using date rape drugs, not through any personal merits, of course), thus forcing Slick Willie to choose a wife from among the wild animals in the forest. Many years of hardships while enduring the act of making the beast of two backs with "Hillary" (as he called it) inevitebly led to Willie being unable to control his urges when given the opportunity to get his paws (among other things) on actual human subjects, unattractive as they may have been. You see, it all leads back to Bush. Naturally.

[slapheadmofo]

Yeah, what does the National Mining Association know about mining anyway? Not as much as Slider of course...

Is 16 deaths at one time a trend, or an anomoly? Hmmm....

[jerseygirl]

After reading some of these quotes it's pretty easy to see who hasn't had a decent hummer lately.

[TrailBate]

I think they're have been so many mining accidents because the miners are fantasizing about getting bj's, instead of concentrating on safety, thanks to Clinton.

[Slider]

Yeah, what does the National Mining Association know about mining anyway? Not as much as Slider of course...

Is 16 deaths at one time a trend, or an anomoly? Hmmm....


There an industry group, fer chrissakes. You think they got a spin to offer? You want facts, look at facts, not spin.

BTW - those 16 deaths were in three separate incidents, not one.

Slider

[catbbq]

Yeah, what does the National Mining Association know about mining anyway? Not as much as Slider of course...

Is 16 deaths at one time a trend, or an anomoly? Hmmm....


There an industry group, fer chrissakes. You think they got a spin to offer? You want facts, look at facts, not spin.

BTW - those 16 deaths were in three separate incidents, not one.

Slider


Everyone involved belongs to some faction that has an opinion one way or the other for chrissakes.

[Slider]

Everyone involved belongs to some faction that has an opinion one way or the other for chrissakes.


Exactly. What slant do you suppose the industry association brings, if not to protect profits?

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Exactly. And what slant to you suppose the rabid anti-Bush zealot faction brings? Oh, I forgot, ya'll are above all that right? Just that much smahhter than everyone else.

Riiigghhhht... ;D

[Slider]

Exactly. And what slant to you suppose the rabid anti-Bush zealot faction brings? Oh, I forgot, ya'll are above all that right? Just that much smahhter than everyone else.

Riiigghhhht... ;D


If your boy is an effing sleazeball, blame the folks who point it out. If you can't use logic, toss some smear around. Seen that before.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Not my boy. You've just made that assumption because you're one of the aforementioned zealots and think that anyone who doesn't spend hours every day obsessing on how Bush has singlehandedly brought the country to the brink of destruction must be in bed with him.

Trip on a crack in the sidewalk? Bush budget cuts (or whatever) are the reason the sidewalk hasn't been fixed yet, so he's directly responsible for your stubbed toe right? Not the fact that you should watch where the hell your walking, nope, it all goes RIGHT TO THE TOP ::) That's the kind of crap I see hear all the time. How can you not realize how ridiculous it is to blame the president 'cause some guy drove into a gas pipe. Get a grip will ya?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Back to the typical Slider - and liberal - tactic: Ignoring reason and whining about "smear" when the debate starts slipping away from them. Don't you know that they don't like it when you point out their bias?

This is just like Katrina/New Orleans and global warming. The libs want to blame Bush, and by extension, Republicans, for all of the bad in the world. Nevermind the simple logic in knowing that as long as mining continues, there will be deaths. The danger is inherent in the job, period. Give me all of the technology you want. If you tell me there were 50 death in US mining last year, most people will say, "That's all?"
When was President I-Only-Got-A-Stupid-Blowjob in office? Let's see:

Clinton in Office

1994 - 40 - 45 - [85]
1995 - 53 - 47 - [100]
1996 - 47 - 39 - [86]
1997 - 61 - 30 - [91]
1998 - 51 - 29 - [80]
1999 - 55 - 35 - [90]

Total mining deaths: 532

Bush in Office:

2000 - 47 - 33 - [80]
2001 - 30 - 42 - [72]
2002 - 42 - 27 - [69]
2003 - 26 - 30 - [56]
2004 - 27 - 28 - [55]
2005 - 35 - 22 - [57]

Total Deaths: 389

Wait... can't really blame Bush for 2000 can we? To be fair, we'll cut 2000 between the two. Total score Clinton 572 Bush 349

Don't you hate it when your own "facts" are used against you?

[Slider]

Never mentioned any sidewalks. Was much more specific. Unlike you.

Slider

This was addressing slaphead's post, not Cheeze. I'll get to that.

[slapheadmofo]

Okay then, sorry the sidewalk allegory got past you somehow, how about:

How can you not realize that it's ridiculous to blame the president 'cause some guy drove into a gas pipe?

That's pretty specific isn't it?

[Slider]

slaphead,

Do you think it is possible that the gas line would have been placed differently, or secured better, or the fellow driving the machine trained better, if inspections, prosecutions and fines hadn't been slashed by Bush?

As for Cheeze, you mistake me for a Clinton defender. The man is not making, enforcing or influencing policy in any way. I only mentioned him because the Bush apologists are so obsessed with him that, to this day, they can't have a policy discussion without making reference to the fellow. Clinton is your hangup, not mine.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Do I think every accident can be traced directly to the Oval Office, specially in a notoriously dangerous industry? No.

Repeat after me: NOT EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. ::)

True story - once back when I drove a forklift, I hit a gas pipe that fed a heater in the warehouse where I worked and broke it. Luckily we got the the gas shut off and everyone out quickly; no harm done. Could have been turned out really badly though. I just happened to lift a crate a little too high. You're saying that whoever was president at that time was directly responsible for that? Ridiculous. I wasn't paying attention to what was above me because I was in a rush; 100% my fault. I don't say "Well the reason I was in a rush because I was late to work because the traffic was bad because the state didn't have money to widen the road because the president slashed the funding so it's really all his fault".

What people like yourself are doing is playing some bastardized version of 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon'and it's plain old silly.

[Mr_Cheeze]

slaphead,

Do you think it is possible that the gas line would have been placed differently, or secured better, or the fellow driving the machine trained better, if inspections, prosecutions and fines hadn't been slashed by Bush?

As for Cheeze, you mistake me for a Clinton defender. The man is not making, enforcing or influencing policy in any way. I only mentioned him because the Bush apologists are so obsessed with him that, to this day, they can't have a policy discussion without making reference to the fellow. Clinton is your hangup, not mine.

Slider


So then I guess I can assume that you blame the former President for the mining tragedies during his tenure every bit as much - hell even more so considering the data, if it's true - as you blame Bush for the current death tolls. My real point is that you can't blame either of them.

[Slider]

As a result of the recent accidents, there's a huge clamor for new safety laws. Once they are in place, the accident rate will drop. Can we make the connection that the new laws contributed to the reduction in accidents?

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Sure, and if/when that happens will you post a thread titled "George Bush Saves Miners Lives"? :D

[Slider]

No, but when he guts the new laws, or decides to interpret them to mean he can do what he wants despite them, I'll definitely post about it.

Here's the problem: Finding anything good, useful or productive that he's accomplished is almost impossible. On the other hand the list of evil, sleazy, and outright illegal things grows every day. Just because you would prefer to ignore it does not mean it will go away.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, you've gone from outright blaming Bush for the mining deaths to projecting future blame upon more deaths "when he guts the new laws". Now I must decide whether this is progress. :-\

[Slider]

Truth is, the man's track record speaks for itself. I just like to to help it pronounce the words correctly. ;D

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

I'm working on a flowchart right now that will show GWB is already directly responsible any future shark attacks along the eastern seaboard. Not sure if what angle to concentrate on - budget cuts resulting in lack of lifeguards/shark nets, global warming changing the oceans temps and bringing the sharks farther north, depletion of the sharks natural food sources...help me out will ya Slider? I need some professional input here.

[FriedRys]

Once they are in place, the accident rate will drop. Can we make the connection that the new laws contributed to the reduction in accidents?
How can you possibly make the connection that laws that are not in place yet, contributed to the decline in accidents over the last 5 years?

[Slider]

I get the picture.

Bush is not responsible for the US deaths in Iraq.
Our inane environmental policies have nothing to do with global warming.
Illegal wiretaps have nothing to do with erosion of civil liberties
Outing undercover CIA agents have nothing to do with treason
Tasking the future Atty Gen'l to justify torture has nothing to do with any torture policies that result

and, issue du jour

Curtailing mine safety inspection has nothing to do with a spike in accidents.

I got it. My bad.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Can someone update this thread to tie Bush in to the lightning strike that set off the explosion please?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Silly, silly person, the alleged lightening strike comes from the mining company's internal investigation, calling into question the credibility factor.

However, even if the lightening strike did happen, it was probably due to a storm which resulted from a climate affected by global warming, which, as we know, is the fault of Bush and the Republicans.

Six degrees of separation, baby. Bush is to blame for everything in the world!

[Slider]

Can someone update this thread to tie Bush in to the lightning strike that set off the explosion please?



Well, depsite his delusional behavior, Bush is not God, or even on the right side. So, sorry to tell you, he couldn't have caused the lightning. He could, however, have enforced the law and penalties for past violations, which may well have saved the miners lives.

Note that there was no attempt by the Bush adminstration to collect the penalties mentioned in the last paragraph.

Slider

From http://www.answers.com/topic/2006-sago-mine-disaster

Serious and substantial" violations in prior inspections
In 2005, the mine was cited by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 208 times for violating regulations, up from 68 in 2004. Of those, 96 were considered significant and substantial. [12] Additionally, West Virginia's Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training issued 144 citations over that year, up from 74 the previous year.

Some of those citations were for violations that could have been factors in the accident, such as failure to control methane and coal-dust accumulation, failure to properly shore up shafts against collapse and overall deficiencies in emergency planning.

Ken Ward, Jr., in a January 3, 2006 story in the Charleston Gazette, "Sago mine has history of roof falls", writes that the most recent MSHA inspections, from early October to late December, resulted in 46 citations and three orders, 18 of which were “serious and substantial.” (S&S) Violations include failure to follow the approved roof control and mine ventilation plans and problems concerning emergency escapeways and required pre-shift safety examinations. From early July to late September, MSHA found 70 violations, 42 of which were S&S. MSHA found 52 violations from April to June, of which 31were S&S.

Ward explains, "These “S&S” violations are those that MSHA believes are likely to cause an accident that would seriously injure a miner."

Davitt McAteer, MSHA chief during the Clinton administration told Ward, "The numbers don’t sound good....[they are] sufficiently high that it should tip off management that there is something amiss here. For a small operation, that is a significant number of violations.” McAteer said the roof fall frequency “suggests that the roof is bad and that the support system is not meeting the needs of the roof.” [13]

On January 3, 2006, Tom Foreman interviewed Bruce Watzman of the National Mining Association, for Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN. According to the Association's website, it is "the voice of the American mining industry in Washington, D.C." and "only national trade organization that represents the interests of mining before Congress, the Administration, federal agencies, the judiciary and the media." [14]

Asked by Foreman, "And in making a quick review of these violations, you don't see anything there that leaps out at you as endangering miners' lives?" Watzman says no and when asked to explain, replies, "They could be paperwork errors, they could be reporting errors. A lot of violations, but many of which were not significant to really impact minor safety." [15]

McAteer, in contrast, told Christian Science Monitor reporters Mark Clayton and Amanda Paulson for their January 6, 2006 story, "Sago raises red flags for mine oversight", "If you have a widespread practice of S&S violations over an extended period of time like we have here, it suggests that you've got much more serious problems than just paperwork violations." [16]

Originally MSHA reported on its website that none of the violations were considered to be an "immediate risk of injury" and that all but three violations, related to shoring up the roof, were corrected by the time of the accident. The current posting, however, says, "Of the 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued in 2005, several involved significant violations that were the result of high negligence and MSHA ordered that mining cease in the affected area until the unsafe condition was addressed. However, less than half of the overall citations against Sago Mine in 2005 were for “significant and substantial” violations – and all but eight of the overall citations have been corrected by the operator. The eight remaining issues were being abated by the operator in compliance with the abatement provisions of the Mine Act.

"Mining operations at the Sago Mine more than doubled between 2004 and 2005, and the injury rate was significantly above the national average. This prompted MSHA to dramatically increase – by 84% – its on-site inspection and enforcement presence. As a result, MSHA also took significantly more enforcement actions – 208 in total – against Sago Mine in 2005, requiring the operator to quickly correct health and safety violations in accordance with federal Mine Act standards."

[slapheadmofo]

Thank you.

Now a quick and thoroughly unrealistic explanation of how the person in the white house somehow is personally and directly responsible for overseeing the collection of fines for each and every workplace violation taking place in every industry in all corners of the nation (and beyond) would be helpful.

[Slider]

Thank you.

Now a quick and thoroughly unrealistic explanation of how the person in the white house somehow is personally and directly responsible for overseeing the collection of fines for each and every workplace violation taking place in every industry in all corners of the nation (and beyond) would be helpful.


Seems like you don't understand the relationship of policy to the consequences that result from it.

If you are claiming that gutting enforcement has nothing to do with lax safety enforcement in the mines, then it would follow that Saddam was not responsible for the chemical attacks on the Kurds and bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11. I mean, they only made the policy, right?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Using that logic, then I suppose it would not be such a good idea to gut the Patriot Act, after all. Why, then Mr. President would be directly to blame for any acts of terrorism on our soil.

I know, you want to have it both ways. If only.

[Slider]

Using that logic, then I suppose it would not be such a good idea to gut the Patriot Act, after all. Why, then Mr. President would be directly to blame for any acts of terrorism on our soil.

I know, you want to have it both ways. If only.


What you are offering is not "logic" at all, but sophistry. The Patriot Act was trotted out in response to 9/11 in an effort to increase intelligence gathering regarding terrorist threats. But the Moussaoui trial has shown that we were not suffering a lack of intelligence data at all, just a bureaucratic maze, and a cover-my-ass mentality, that buried the crucial info. Our exposure to 9/11 had nothing to do with inadequate domestic surveillance.

But the failure of your analogy is even deeper than that. No one is saying we should do nothing regarding domestic intelligence. We just need to do the right, effective things, especially when the cost of the wrong things is a serious erosion of civil liberty. So the Patriot Act is simply misguided policy.

The Mine safety Act, on the other hand, makes great sense, but only if it is enforced.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Thank you.

Now a quick and thoroughly unrealistic explanation of how the person in the white house somehow is personally and directly responsible for overseeing the collection of fines for each and every workplace violation taking place in every industry in all corners of the nation (and beyond) would be helpful.


Seems like you don't understand the relationship of policy to the consequences that result from it.

If you are claiming that gutting enforcement has nothing to do with lax safety enforcement in the mines, then it would follow that Saddam was not responsible for the chemical attacks on the Kurds and bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11. I mean, they only made the policy, right?

Slider


This would be more like saying Saddam was responsible for some poor Iraqi's rickety donkey cart rolling over and killing him when it's wheel fell off because he didn't enforce safety inspections for donkey carts rigorously enough. Those things can be dangerous you know.

[Slider]

This would be more like saying Saddam was responsible for some poor Iraqi's rickety donkey cart rolling over and killing him when it's wheel fell off because he didn't enforce safety inspections for donkey carts rigorously enough. Those things can be dangerous you know.


The analogy is a little strained, but I think we can work with it if we assume that Iraq was a democracy, and there was a safety enforcement agency set up to stem the severe wheel-tossing problem among the country's carts, and their inspections and fines were effective in reducing the accident rate. If Saddam, wanting to suck up to the cart industry so he could get their political and financial support, then killed the safety agency, then your analogy works. And Saddam is clearly responsible for the resulting increase in tossed wheels.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

I knew it! First gassing innocent people, now this.
That murderous bastard. (Saddam that is) :D

[FriedRys]

I cut myself at work and I'm pretty sure it was because GWB bumped into me on his way to making a busdriver drive his bus full of elderly vacationers off a cliff. Whadaya say Slider? think I can sue?

[Slider]

I cut myself at work and I'm pretty sure it was because GWB bumped into me on his way to making a busdriver drive his bus full of elderly vacationers off a cliff. Whadaya say Slider? think I can sue?


By any chance, did that bus fall into a mine and kill several workers? Even if it had, I bet you'd say it wasn't Bush's fault.

Slider

[FriedRys]

I cut myself at work and I'm pretty sure it was because GWB bumped into me on his way to making a busdriver drive his bus full of elderly vacationers off a cliff. Whadaya say Slider? think I can sue?


By any chance, did that bus fall into a mine and kill several workers? Even if it had, I bet you'd say it wasn't Bush's fault.

Slider
BAHAHAHAHAHAA ;D ;D You crack me up man, I have never encountered anyone so utterly fixated on blaming a single person for all of the worlds woes. Get some perspective man, and try to relax.

[Slider]

BAHAHAHAHAHAA ;D ;D You crack me up man, I have never encountered anyone so utterly fixated on blaming a single person for all of the worlds woes. Get some perspective man, and try to relax.


I have been very, very specific about which woes Bush is responsible for and I have supported my claims every single time with evidence and reasoning.

People like you, who seem unable to link cause and effect, are the reason we have a budding fascist in the White House. And don't miss the fact that fascism is the aim. The man enforces and ignores laws as he chooses, and virtuallly every time it causes great harm to our country.

You preach about perspective, but your head is in the sand, and you can't see anything.

Slider

[FriedRys]

BAHAHAHAHAHAA ;D ;D You crack me up man, I have never encountered anyone so utterly fixated on blaming a single person for all of the worlds woes. Get some perspective man, and try to relax.


I have been very, very specific about which woes Bush is responsible for and I have supported my claims every single time with evidence and reasoning.

People like you, who seem unable to link cause and effect, are the reason we have a budding fascist in the White House. And don't miss the fact that fascism is the aim. The man enforces and ignores laws as he chooses, and virtuallly every time it causes great harm to our country.

You preach about perspective, but your head is in the sand, and you can't see anything.

Slider


I'm not concerned with America turning into a facist state until someone stars saying things along the lines of "President for Life". You have this idea in your head that he is an all powerful ruler able to do as he pleases with no recource. In a year and a half, your gonna have a chance to elect the guy who is going to reverse all the horrible things he's done. When he dissolves Congress and the House, abbolishes term limits and sends out his brownshirts, then I'll worry.

[Slider]

When he dissolves Congress and the House, abbolishes term limits and sends out his brownshirts, then I'll worry.


Bingo, that is the problem exactly. By then, it will be far too late.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I'm not concerned with America turning into a facist state until someone stars saying things along the lines of "President for Life". You have this idea in your head that he is an all powerful ruler able to do as he pleases with no recource. In a year and a half, your gonna have a chance to elect the guy who is going to reverse all the horrible things he's done. When he dissolves Congress and the House, abbolishes term limits and sends out his brownshirts, then I'll worry.


yes, why don't you wait until ATV's rip up your favorite singletrack before you do anything about ATV's?

Why don't you wait until you crack your head open on a rock before you wear a helmet?

Instead of putting out the fire in your frying pan, why don't you just wait until your whole house burns to the ground with everyone trapped inside?

Good idea.

[kernel crash]

"Bingo, that is the problem exactly. By then, it will be far too late."

Man, that is just pure paranoia talking. That is really quite a reach.

"Instead of putting out the fire in your frying pan, why don't you just wait until your whole house burns to the ground with everyone trapped inside?"

And this makes no sense either. A fire burning in front of you would be cause to react immediately. Whereby the Bush taking over the world scenerio sounds more like a script for South Park. And all this from a guy you think is a complete idiot, moron, dunce ect. It just doesn't add up.

[Slider]

Karl Rove is not a moron, neither is Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld, maybe. But they are all on the same team, assembled under Bush's leadership. Just to help you get it, that makes Bush responsible for the policy that results.

Here's yet another example of Bush making his own laws. If the simple weight of all the examples does not point out to you a significant threat to democray and liberty, then maybe you should re-read the story a few times.

Slider

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING


Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.

Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."

''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language" that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required."

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.

But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.

''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[TrailBate]

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

yeah, tell that to Jose Padilla.

[jakazz]

ok all u bush bashers out there,


WE ARE IN A WAR PEOPLE, dont you understand.....


people cry about 2-3000 dead, big deal, how many died in our other wars.

this is the first time we have been attacked on our own soil,

after the germans surrendered in ww2 over 3000 allied soldiers died from nazi insurgents, and do you know the ratio of allied soldiers to civilians, well it was overwhelmingly in our favor. occupation aint easy. remember the vc. i do..

[Slider]

Yeah, we're in a war. A war on stupidity. You should join us.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

ok all u bush bashers out there,


WE ARE IN A WAR PEOPLE, dont you understand.....


people cry about 2-3000 dead, big deal, how many died in our other wars.

this is the first time we have been attacked on our own soil,

after the germans surrendered in ww2 over 3000 allied soldiers died from nazi insurgents, and do you know the ratio of allied soldiers to civilians, well it was overwhelmingly in our favor. occupation aint easy. remember the vc. i do..


You're a late comer to this debate, dude. Let's bring you up to speed, ok?

9/11 happens. Evidence supposedly points to Osama Bin Laden and his evil corps of Al Qaeda soldiers.

We go into Afghanistan to look for Osama. Can't find him.

"Evidence" is manufactured to justify attacking Iraq. We go in looking for WMD. Shock and awe. The Patriot Act. Can't find those pesky WMD. People like you believe that they must have all been shipped to Syria, or something.

Well, only one thing left to do... time to change the reasoning behind entering Iraq. Um... Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Yea... that's the ticket.

Saddam is found in a spider hole. Whoop-dee-frickin-doo.

Certain segments of Iraq rebel against our occupation. Soldiers died and continue to die because George Bush wants to make lots of nice war profits for his defense corporations. We are fed a line of bull about how our troops being in Iraq is somehow a magnet for the gobs of Al Qaeda soldiers. The price of oil continues to surge. Our guys continue to die. And almost 70 percent of Americans disapprove of our President.

So, tell me why again that we should feel ok that only 2000 - 3000 soldiers have died for George Bush's manufactured war? Because WWII was so much worse?? Because Saddam was behind 9/11?????

Did I leave anything out, people?

[Slider]

Only a few small details, like treason, fascism, and pathological lying. We'll hear more about those during the impeachment trial.

Slider

[TrailBate]

That was beautiful Cheeze. It brought a tear to my eye. :'( ;D

[kernel crash]

"You're a late comer to this debate, dude. Let's bring you up to speed, ok?"

Better late than never. Well there are other viewpoints.

9/11 happens. Evidence points to Osama Bin Laden and his evil corps of Al Qaeda soldiers. Bush figures enough is enough. We need to take this to another level. Remember after the first world trade center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and other bombings of US embassies, the taliban has grown bolder because of a lack of an effective response from the previous administrations.

We go into Afghanistan to look for Osama. Can't find him. But totally set back Al Qaeda. Kill plenty. Disrupt their finances, communications and training.

Here’s where Bush starts to lose it. He gets caught up in the Neo Con vision of what the Middle East should look like. Take out Iraq. Install Democracy. Can Syria and Iran be far behind? If nothing else, won’t they now look over their shoulders and become a bit more cautious? Democracy equals stable oil flow from the Middle East. Ahh, the vision of peace in the Middle East. What an oxymoron.

"Evidence" appears to be cherry picked to justify attacking Iraq. We go in looking for WMD. Shock and awe. The Patriot Act. Can't find those pesky WMD. Time will tell if they have been shipped to Syria, or somewhere. But remember, Sadam was paying suicide bombers to attack and kill Israelis and was dicking around with NATO inspectors. And he was taking his shots at US planes in the no fly zone. Not to mention he has had and already used WMD in the past. So lets not pretend that Sadam was just another camel jockey.

Certain segments of Iraq rebel against our occupation. Soldiers died and continue to die because George Bush wants to somehow make this all work out so that the American soldiers didn’t die in vain. I don’t believe his motivation is war profits. He’s got enough money to take care of himself for the rest of his life. Yes the price of oil continues to surge. Oil companies have plenty of excuses to jack up prices. And they do. Record Profits.

Almost 70 percent of Americans disapprove of our President, for now. And for reasons more than the Middle East. The Harriet Myers fiasco. The port deal gone bad. The refusal to stand up for border security. The inability to say no to Vincente Fox. WTF is that all about. He’s a lame duck and everybody knows it. He did bring this on to himself. Let the feeding frenzy begin.

Did I leave anything out, people?

[TrailBate]

And now Bush is pulling the same tricks with Iran, almost word for word. I think Bush needs to answer questions about Iraq under oath, before being allowed to do a g.d. thing about Iran.

[TrailBate]

Did I leave anything out, people?



Has anyone mentioned the outing of a CIA agent for disagreeing with him?

[kernel crash]

"Did I leave anything out, people?

Has anyone mentioned the outing of a CIA agent for disagreeing with him?"

Do you have evidence of that? I didn't think so.

[Slider]

Any day now, Bush is gonna say "You can't impeach me. We're in three wars!"

Wait and see.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Bush is talking tough on Iran and that's all it is, talk. He knows he can't even begin to think of military action against Iran because of the ongoing situation in Iraq and the poll numbers back home. So instead float the nuclear option to bring Iran to the table. Will it work? Stay tuned.

[Slider]

Bush is talking tough on Iran and that's all it is, talk. He knows he can't even begin to think of military action against Iran because of the ongoing situation in Iraq and the poll numbers back home. So instead float the nuclear option to bring Iran to the table. Will it work? Stay tuned.



Good thing he's proven himself to be such a brilliant stragetist, or we might have to worry that he really doesn't have an effing clue.

Slider

[TrailBate]

"Did I leave anything out, people?

Has anyone mentioned the outing of a CIA agent for disagreeing with him?"

Do you have evidence of that? I didn't think so.




You mean, other than Fitzgerald's court filing that said he was outed on purpose, and "Scooter's" testimony that Bush authorized it? Hmm, guess not. ::)


>>>Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson. [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 29-30]

[kernel crash]

You keep saying the same thing with no proof. Fitzgerald and Scooter have never said that Bush ordered the outing of V Plame. In fact they have been very careful not to say that. This could all change tomorrow. But for now, stick with the facts.

[Slider]

I'd missed the Fitzgerald reference to the Plame thing, TrailBait. Thanks.

I don't see what evidence we could want, short of what would come out in an open trial, beyond the Special Prosecutor saying he can't conceive of any other alternative than that Plame's outing was intentional, and Bush instructed it to happen.

Maybe we want films?

Slider

"Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson. [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 29-30]"

[TrailBate]

You keep saying the same thing with no proof. Fitzgerald and Scooter have never said that Bush ordered the outing of V Plame.


Actually, Scooter's testimony says just that:

"A new wave of controversy over leaking began last week when prosecutors released court documents in which a former aide to Dick Cheney testified that the vice president told him in 2003 that President Bush approved the release of information in a classified intelligence report.

On Friday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president declassified information for release, which he has the authority to do.

Democratic critics of the administration have said the president approved leaking sensitive intelligence for political reasons, despite repeated public pronouncements that he would punish anyone in the administration found to have leaked classified information."

SO, either Bush declassified it, which means he lied to Fitzgerald when Bush said he had nothing to do with it. (that's perjury, in case you people obsessed with Clinton's bj didn't know).

OR, Bush did NOT declassify it, in which case he leaked it, which is treason.

[kernel crash]

CNN Flub: President Bush Authorized Valerie Plame Leak

CNN initially reported on Thursday that newly released court documents covering Scooter Libby's testimony showed that President Bush personally authorized the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name to the press.

Here's how CNN broke their bogus bombshell:

CNN's JIM CLANCY: "A major story breaking now out of Washington right now. According to court papers that were filed by prosecutors, I. Lewis Libby, Scooter Libby, who was a key man in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, has alleged that U.S. President George W. Bush was the man who authorized the leaking of the name of a CIA operative and the wife of a former ambassador.

"Now - that former CIA operator, Valerie Plame, was unmasked to journalists." [END EXCERPT]

In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

[TrailBate]

In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame -




Well then the Bush apologists have to get their story straight: Did Bush declassify Plame's identity, or didn't he? If he did not, then the leak was treason. If he did, then he lied to Fitzgerald.

Righties can't even get their defense straight......

[kernel crash]

Wash Post: Nothing Wrong with Bush 'Leak'

The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.

In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:

"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."

Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"
But as the Post notes: "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."

Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.

[TrailBate]

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."




Hmmm, this is in DIRECT disagreement with the ACTUAL COURT FILING from fitzgerald that I already posted here.

Maybe that's because you quoted an EDITORIAL, i.e., an OPINION.

Funny thing about this op-ed you quoted: It's also in direct disagreement with the front page story of the EXACT SAME NEWSPAPER:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html


Page 20 of Fitzgerald's court filing:

Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection.

[Slider]

OK, so lets decide which source has the best info. Would it be the Special Prosecutor who has, first hand, talked with ALL the principals, or Newsmax.

First hand info vs. Right Wing spin machine
Sworn government professional vs. propaganda funnel
Acknowledged "obsessive" in his search for the truth vs. obviously slanted web rag.

Really, you got to do a lot better than that before you can raise any serious objection to a direct statement from the Special Prosecutor:

"There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003."

"Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

He is saying it is really hard to see that the available evidence could suggest anything other than a plan to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, and the fact that Libby was not the only one in the Administration doing it points solely to the White House.

[TrailBate]

another ACTUAL ARTICLE for the same paper that the editorial was quoted above:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

gist of it: Bush over-exaggerated Al Zarqawi's role....(i.e., propaganda)

[kernel crash]

This is the link I was referring to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

"Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity."

"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium"

So spin on.

[Slider]

Spin? The quote from Fitzgerald is taken directly from his own filing. How is that even remotely connected to spin?

Slider

[TrailBate]

This is the link I was referring to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

"Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity."

"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium"

So spin on.




Spin is right. Dude, you quoted an EDITORIAL.. Do you understand what an editorial is?

Today on CNN.com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday that he had declassified intelligence documents in 2003 to help explain his administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

"I thought it was important for people to get a better sense of what I was saying in my speeches," Bush said, answering a question from an audience member at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. "And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence matters."

Bush said he had authorized the release of the documents because some Americans questioned his reasons for going to war.

"So I wanted people to see the truth," he said. "And I thought it made sense for people to see the truth."

[kernel crash]

Well it seems that people will see what they want in Fitzgerald statements. Lets just wait for another 3 years for him to release his final report. Meanwhile what's perfectly clear to me right now is that Fitzgerald, no matter how you want to spin it, has no clear evidence that George Bush outed Valerie Plame. He never said that. Also there seems to be evidence that Joe Wilson distorted his original report for his own political reason.

[kernel crash]

"Bush said he had authorized the release of the documents because some Americans questioned his reasons for going to war."

So DUDE, how does this statement indict Bush in outing Valerie Plame?

[TrailBate]

"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium"

So spin on.




the other thing is that it's now been accepted fact for years now that Iraq was NOT trying to get uranium from Africa. So who was twisting the truth?

[TrailBate]

Well it seems that Fitzgerald is all over the place right about now. Lets just wait for another 3 years for him to release his final report. Meanwhile what's perfectly clear to me right now is that Fitzgerald, no matter what side of his mouth he is talking out of, has no clear evidence that George Bush outed Valerie Plame. He never said that. Also there seems to be evidence that Joe Wilson distorted his original report for his own political reason.


wait a second. We're giving you direct quotes fom the court filing that includes evidence Bush authorized the outing of Plame. All you have is an op-ed piece. And somehow you have evidence Wilson "distorted" his own report for political reasons? Where is THIS evidence? Wilson said Iraq was not trying to get uranium from africa, this has proven to be true. What in god's name are you smoking, man?

[TrailBate]

"Bush said he had authorized the release of the documents because some Americans questioned his reasons for going to war."

So DUDE, how does this statement indict Bush in outing Valerie Plame?



1. what did Bush declassify, and when did he declassify it?

2. Can the president declassify info on his own without warning the people involved in the declassified info? (uh. no) Plame was sure surprised. Imagine thinking you are undercover, only to find out through a newspaper that, oops, you're not anymore! The CIA was sure surprised, which I imagine is why they called for an investigation.

3. Is it okay for Bush to declassify info, whenever he feels like it to help himself politically?

4. again. fer chrissakes. If bush declassified Plame's identity, he lied to fitzgerald. If he didn't, he's a traitor.

[Slider]

Spin is taking things out of context and otherwise obscuring the truth in order to support a position. Direct quotes from a filing are not spin, but unsupported references to that filing clearly are.

We don't have a direct quote from Fitzgerald about Bush’s role in outing Plame, only the Post's interpretation of it. So we have no way of seeing how it fits in with the direct quotes we do have, where Fitzgerald says clearly that all evidence points to Bush's complicity.

There are other problems with the Post opinion piece, including the whole premise that the President can declassify information with no formal procedure other than clicking his heels three times, or whatever they're claiming makes it OK. This is far from clear in the law, but the Post makes no reference to that. Worse, they make no effort to support their opinion.

The conclusion is a further attempt to obscure things. They say, in reference to the question of whether Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war, "It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision."

Bush's selective release of information is the problem, not the solution. He didn't release anything for public review. If he had, we wouldn't be here now. We might not even be in Iraq now. Instead, Bush leaked information to a few, select journalists. You suppose that came from a desire for a free and open discussion of the path to war? NFW.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Let's also not forget how "upset" George W was when the leak first happened, and how he said he'd fire anyone involved with it. Now it's, "oh, my bad. I declassified that. oops. forgot. sorry!"

Then people claim Wilson lied in his report, as if that is justification for leaking Plame's identity. Using this bull**** talking point is just an admission of guilt.

[catbbq]

I can't find any information about how and when documents are declassified. How has the link that describes that process? And blogs, CNN, and FOX don't count.

I seem to remember on NPR someone giving a time line of the facts. I thought Plame had been a desk jockey no longer undercover for a couple years when the leak occurred. Anyone got evidence one way or the other?

Assuming Bush is at fault either by lying or leaking, what harm was done? Has Plame been assassinated or have attempts been made on her life? At least with Cliton's bj, there was a dress ruined.

[TrailBate]

I can't find any information about how and when documents are declassified. How has the link that describes that process? And blogs, CNN, and FOX don't count.

I seem to remember on NPR someone giving a time line of the facts. I thought Plame had been a desk jockey no longer undercover for a couple years when the leak occurred. Anyone got evidence one way or the other?

Assuming Bush is at fault either by lying or leaking, what harm was done? Has Plame been assassinated or have attempts been made on her life? At least with Cliton's bj, there was a dress ruined.


last I read about the declassification process, you had to 1) get permission from the person/agency that classified it in the first place, and 2) warn anyone that might be affected.

I also read how certain overseas operations had to be shut down, since foreign people could link Plame with (formerly) undercover operations, and others associated with those operations. I remember seeing former (and possibly current) CIA agents on interviews saying this.

[kernel crash]

"We're giving you direct quotes fom the court filing that includes evidence Bush authorized the outing of Plame."

Your wrong. You keep trying to spin this same tired line. NOBODY but TrailBait has come out and said that its a done deal. Bush outed Valerie Plame. As of today, and this could change, Bush has not been proven to have done that. And I'm willing to bet he never will be.

[Slider]

Are we reading the same quote from Fitzgerald's filing? Tell me what this means to you:

"it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson."

Now, there's a hedge in there, maybe. It does not say "We have evidence..." But is does say there's no other explanation for all the facts that the Special Prosecutor has reviewed. He's heard testimony from all the key players. He knows a little more about it than, say, NewsMax. He says it seems very obvious that there was a campain to harm Wilson, by outing Plame, by Bush.

So you are the one who is wrong. The Special Prosecutor, who knows more than any of the rest of us, says Bush purposely outed Plame.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"So you are the one who is wrong. The Special Prosecutor, who knows more than any of the rest of us, says Bush purposely outed Plame."

This is the absolute last time I am going to play this game with you. Fitzgerald seems to indicate that all signs point to "someone" in this administration outing Valerie Plame for pay back against Wilson. I freakin understand that. He does not say that it was Bush. That has never been said except by you and Trail Bait and a few other move on dot org diehards. What is it you dont understand. We are all still innocent until proven guilty. Unless its Republicans or Bush or Cheney or Rove or... Over and out of here.

[BG]

" It does not say "We have evidence..."

Hmmm, so what happens when you don't have "evidence".
I know, in the brave new world we'll just put people away based solely on the prosecutor's opinion.
Nice
Let's see the evidence

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

"So you are the one who is wrong. The Special Prosecutor, who knows more than any of the rest of us, says Bush purposely outed Plame."

This is the absolute last time I am going to play this game with you. Fitzgerald seems to indicate that all signs point to "someone" in this administration outing Valerie Plame for pay back against Wilson. I freakin understand that. He does not say that it was Bush. That has never been said except by you and Trail Bait and a few other move on dot org diehards. What is it you dont understand. We are all still innocent until proven guilty. Unless its Republicans or Bush or Cheney or Rove or... Over and out of here.


These guys will never admit to partisan bias. This is why I've pretty much stopped bothering with these circular debates. They're useless. Those on each left/right fringe are never willing to admit they might be wrong.

Bush is behind everything wrong with the country, period.

Bush is in the right, no matter what, period.

Its useless to try and sway any of them.

[off piste]

"So you are the one who is wrong. The Special Prosecutor, who knows more than any of the rest of us, says Bush purposely outed Plame."

This is the absolute last time I am going to play this game with you. Fitzgerald seems to indicate that all signs point to "someone" in this administration outing Valerie Plame for pay back against Wilson. I freakin understand that. He does not say that it was Bush. That has never been said except by you and Trail Bait and a few other move on dot org diehards. What is it you dont understand. We are all still innocent until proven guilty. Unless its Republicans or Bush or Cheney or Rove or... Over and out of here.


These guys will never admit to partisan bias. This is why I've pretty much stopped bothering with these circular debates. They're useless. Those on each left/right fringe are never willing to admit they might be wrong.

Bush is behind everything wrong with the country, period.

Bush is in the right, no matter what, period.

Its useless to try and sway any of them.


And, when we get a democratic president in, we'll get to listen to the ultra righties do the same thing. They were there when Clinton was in office, they'll be there again. Both bookends are equally tiring and don't realize how alike they are.....

[TrailBate]

nobody is forcing anyone to debate anything here. If you don't want to debate, don't. But debating is one of the things that makes America great! (*wave flag*)

But don't throw a hissy fit because your quotes from an opinion peice don't stack up against the facts of testimony and legal documents.

It happens to be my opinion (and the opinion of 60% of America) that Bush is a loser. Clinton was not my favorite guy, but I'd rather have him in office than the fascist pig we have now. Republicans don't seem to understand the whole "separate but equal" thing. Whatever Bush does is okay, cuz he's the Preznit.

If you want to just sit back and watch our country slide into a fascist state, fine. I won't. If the best you can do is resort to Clinton's bj as a defense, then you are out of ideas.

[Slider]

I like it when the outrage is so unfounded. It means the end is near.

Here we have the only person that knows the full truth say, exactly, in a filing before the court, that he sees no alternative other than that the Bush administration waged a campaign to discredit Wilson by outing Plame. Can't fight the clear facts? Well, let's shift the discussion!

Kernel says: "He does not say that it was Bush."

Fitzgerald says "White House Efforts." So now the argument is that Bush didn't know what was going on? Gimme a break.

Cheeze says: "These guys will never admit to partisan bias."

The only bias is in trying to claim that "White House" does not equal Bush. But it is really lots more than bias. It is desperation. And I like it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

What’s notable here is that it’s the usual Bush-backers that are complaining about the debates. Can’t win a debate? Can’t defend Bush? Don’t admit defeat! Just say you’re sick of debating!

[Slider]

" It does not say "We have evidence..."

Hmmm, so what happens when you don't have "evidence".
I know, in the brave new world we'll just put people away based solely on the prosecutor's opinion.
Nice
Let's see the evidence

BG


We will get to see the evidence directly, in court. That is when the fun will really start.

How will the partisan crap shift when there's a guilty verdict? Goddamn Democratic courts? Biased judges? Lying Special Prosecutors?

You guys got some time. Better get working on it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's funny, I was wondering what you're excuse would be in the opposite case. Actually, I don't wonder at all. It will be the same old evil-Republicans song.

[kernel crash]

Let me throw out a few facts

1 - I am not a Bush backer. Don't like the guy. Didn't vote for him. Think he's way to weak as a president. Can't put two intellegent sentences together. Can't stand his pandering to the illegals. I could go on and on...

2 - Check the threads. When have I brought up Clintons BJ's???

3 - It's not a hissy fit as you describe it when I point out that, even though there is evidence that points in the White House direction, there is NO evidence that George Bush pulled the trigger. That's was all I've been trying to say for two days here. You two are frothing at the mouth to such an extreme that you can't see that if the tables were turned, and Bush was your guy, you would be having a hissy fit that were calling Bush guilty before all the evidence was in. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this very simple concept? I don't care if it looks bad or smells bad. His guilt is your opinion. Don't try to pass it off as fact. Not yet. Maybe tomorrow but not today.

4 - "Can’t win a debate? Can’t defend Bush? Don’t admit defeat!" Can't win a debate??? Ohh. Aren't you smooth. Keeping score now? That's not what I was doing here. I was just trying to throw some cold water on a couple of dogs in heat. Christ. You two go on like a couple of old ladies at the town bingo hall.

5- I understand that your disapointment in the last two elections has been very hard on you. I'll try to be more sensitive to your fragile condition as you continue to rant to the high heavens. Goodnight, and good luck.

[TrailBate]

Scooter Libby said in his sworn testimony that he got permission to leak the info from Bush and Cheney.

If that is not evidence, i don't know what is.

[Slider]

Let me throw out a few facts

1 - I am not a Bush backer. Don't like the guy. Didn't vote for him. Think he's way to weak as a president. Can't put two intellegent sentences together. Can't stand his pandering to the illegals. I could go on and on...

2 - Check the threads. When have I brought up Clintons BJ's???

3 - It's not a hissy fit as you describe it when I point out that, even though there is evidence that points in the White House direction, there is NO evidence that George Bush pulled the trigger. That's was all I've been trying to say for two days here. You two are frothing at the mouth to such an extreme that you can't see that if the tables were turned, and Bush was your guy, you would be having a hissy fit that were calling Bush guilty before all the evidence was in. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this very simple concept? I don't care if it looks bad or smells bad. His guilt is your opinion. Don't try to pass it off as fact. Not yet. Maybe tomorrow but not today.

4 - "Can’t win a debate? Can’t defend Bush? Don’t admit defeat!" Can't win a debate??? Ohh. Aren't you smooth. Keeping score now? That's not what I was doing here. I was just trying to throw some cold water on a couple of dogs in heat. Christ. You two go on like a couple of old ladies at the town bingo hall.

5- I understand that your disapointment in the last two elections has been very hard on you. I'll try to be more sensitive to your fragile condition as you continue to rant to the high heavens. Goodnight, and good luck.


You seem a lot more hot than either of us. I kinda like the debate thing. Too bad the fun is about something as grave as treason by the President, which you seem to completely discount for some reason. Whatever, have a nice day.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Scooter Libby said in his sworn testimony that he got permission to leak the info from Bush and Cheney.

If that is not evidence, i don't know what is.


I'm guessing that there was a time, not very long ago, when you likely would have dismissed anything that came out of the mouth of a Repubican operative such as Libby as less than the truth. Suddenly now he is the case for the Bush haters. Interesting.

[MTBME]

"there was a time, not very long ago, when you likely would have dismissed anything that came out of the mouth of a Repubican operative such as Libby "

Well I guess its true that politics make strange bed fellows. Also from Slider...

"Fitzgerald says "White House Efforts." So now the argument is that Bush didn't know what was going on? The only bias is in trying to claim that "White House" does not equal Bush."

According to you guys, Karl Rove was the brains behind all the crap in the White House. Now suddenly Bush is really the guy behind the curtain? This is starting to look like an episode of 24!

[Slider]

"there was a time, not very long ago, when you likely would have dismissed anything that came out of the mouth of a Repubican operative such as Libby "

Well I guess its true that politics make strange bed fellows. Also from Slider...

"Fitzgerald says "White House Efforts." So now the argument is that Bush didn't know what was going on? The only bias is in trying to claim that "White House" does not equal Bush."

According to you guys, Karl Rove was the brains behind all the crap in the White House. Now suddenly Bush is really the guy behind the curtain? This is starting to look like an episode of 24!




Brains, in no way, equate to responsibility.

Slider

[off piste]

It seems rare to hear the perspectives of the people serving over there. This was an interesting email someone received that they shared on another forum:

From a Lt. Col. with the 101st Airborne Div who was also in Vietnam:

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was
forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to
my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.

I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to
return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971
after my tour in Vietnam Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just
four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack
the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when
the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the
Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and
casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their
hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are
having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a
democracy over night.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the
voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid
and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen
soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble
cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly
protesters is beyond shameful.

I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom - Vietnam generation, who have
such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks
through to victory.

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than
they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press,
but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from
history that there is no substitute for Victory.

Sincerely,

Joe Repya
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army,
101st Airborne Division"

[off piste]

It seems rare to hear the perspectives of the people serving over there. This was an interesting email someone received that they shared on another forum:




While at the same time, you see this:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060414&hn=32034

Prominent retired generals in the US have started a campaign calling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

The number of generals seeking Rumsfeld’s dismissal rose to six in the past one week.

Former CENTCOM Commander Ret. Ge. Anthony Zinni among the generals accused the Secretary of falling flat on his face. Another retired general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs blamed Rumsfeld of bringing arrogance into the Pentagon.

Several commanders of the US Marines and Land Forces also joined sides with the retired military top levels.

President George W. Bush to the countrary of the criticisms continues to back Rumsfeld.

The White House Spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the President believes Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a very challenging period.

[Slider]

Whose opinion should should carry more weight, one Lt. Col, or several Generals?

Slider

[MTBME]

"Whose opinion should should carry more weight, one Lt. Col, or several Generals?"

Thats a dumb question. Why does one statement have to neutralize the other? I think both statements are accurate.

[off piste]

I think you missed the point -- both parties are for continuing the mission -- the generals are pointing at the administration as being at fault.

[TrailBate]

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack
the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of fascist politicians that lie to get tens of thousands of people killed.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when
the going gets tough.

rewrite history? You mean like we did NOT invade because of WMD's or ties to Al Qeada and 9/11? Those were NOT aluminum tubes for nukes, the did NOT try to buy uranium from Africa, those were NOT mobile weapons labs?

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the
Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of war supporters claiming liberals are saying something they are not. I'm tired of people who claim they are "supporting the troops" just buy putting a magnet on their car. (don't want anything permanent, in case the trend stops)

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and
casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their
hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are
having on the battlefield.

I'm tired of Bush supporters that are afraid to go over to Iraq and put their money where their mouths are. Let's see Limbaugh and O'Really report live from Main Street, Baghdad. Last I heard, reporters are not ALLOWED out of the green zone without an "escort."

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a
democracy over night.

I'm tired of the constant elections that claim we have "turned a corner." Iraqi refugees have doubled in the last 2 weeks.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the
voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament

and that has gotten us where.....??

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid
and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

typical right wing talking point. Can't defend yourself, just claim we're "terrorists/communists/witches"

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen
soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble
cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly
protesters is beyond shameful.

that would be a bunch of moronic Baptists doing that. Be honest, huh?

'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom - Vietnam generation, who have
such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks
through to victory.

Weren't we victorious 2 years ago? "mission accomplished"?

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than
they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.

Hmm, it seems to me these people are concerned about ALL innocent people being killed or tortured. It's because of this invasion that it is all happening.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press,
but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Funny, I hear about the mass graves all the time.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from
history that there is no substitute for Victory.

yeah, Vietnam worked out greeeat.

[MTBME]

I was refering to the email by Joe Repya Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army, 101st Airborne Division" as being an accurate portrayal from his perspective.

and the opinions of the generals saying Rumsfeld must go.

I'm saying they are probably both right.

[off piste]

I was refering to the email by Joe Repya Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army, 101st Airborne Division" as being an accurate portrayal from his perspective.

and the opinions of the generals saying Rumsfeld must go.

I'm saying they are probably both right.




Sorry Norm -- I was answering Slider -- shoulda quoted.

Mark

[Slider]

The Lt. Col says we're winning the war, and the Generals are saying Rumsfeld has botched it so bad that he needs to be removed.

Are we winning, or victims of incompetent management?

Slider

[off piste]

My company is unbelievably, hideously, incompetently managed. But yet, we're a market leader.

Just because there's no one in the wheelhouse doesn't mean the folks in the engine room don't know what their doing.

[catbbq]

My company is unbelievably, hideously, incompetently managed. But yet, we're a market leader.

Just because there's no one in the wheelhouse doesn't mean the folks in the engine room don't know what their doing.


Full steam ahead into the nearest iceberg.

[Slider]

My company is unbelievably, hideously, incompetently managed. But yet, we're a market leader.

Just because there's no one in the wheelhouse doesn't mean the folks in the engine room don't know what their doing.


Your company is profitable, it seems. If it wasn't, it would go out of business, right?

The Iraq war is not "profitable" in any way. Incompetence in Iraq has cost us a few thousand US lives, plus countless others, plus $100billion/year. Even with good management, there's no upside. When you add in complete mismanagement, there is a huge downside.

Now I am not saying the troops aren't dedicated or capable. If the Lt. Col stuck to that point, I'd agree with him. But he ventures into politics, and he is 100% wrong. Baby Boomers don't have "weak stomachs"; they just refuse to stomach meaningless deaths, having seen them before in 'Nam. They stopped that war, thankfully, and will, hopefully, stop this one too.

Slider

[off piste]

No, I don't believe the Lt. Col. is wandering into politics. I thinks he's giving us insight into the mind of the soldier -- they're over there, so they want to complete the mission, regardless of what they feel about what got them over there. You'll notice the generals aren't talking about pulling out either -- they just want to get Rumsfeld's micromanagement off their cases so they can do their jobs right without the monkey on their backs.

[off piste]

My company is unbelievably, hideously, incompetently managed. But yet, we're a market leader.

Just because there's no one in the wheelhouse doesn't mean the folks in the engine room don't know what their doing.


Your company is profitable, it seems. If it wasn't, it would go out of business, right?

<SNIP>



No, they're pissing away accumulated cash at the rate of about $20M/quarter, and the management is about as easy to extract as the current administration, and has about as much accountability for its actions. But, they're paying me about $5/hr more than my typical counterpart makes in other companies, and I've been expecting belly up to happen for going on 4 years now. Plus, they laid off people making a quarter of what I make, and in doing so created a labor shortage, which I'm happily making up for with as much OT as I want to work. So, I'm kind of enjoying the enthropy somewhat.

[Slider]

Well, the end will come eventually, it appears. With war, there's no market that deals the final blow. There are only voters, protestors, and the enemy. In Iraq, the enemy will find enough recruits to keep the carnage growing, so it is up to the voters and the protestors to put a stop to things.

That is what the Lt. Col. seems to miss.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I think an overwhelming majority of liberals/democrats believe American soldiers are the best in the world, and are performing under extremely difficult circumstances.

Some of us want them to come home and live, others want them to stay.

I'm tired of the US government continually lying to us while most Americans wonder what's happing to Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.

I'm tired of Republicans saying they support the troops, while they have to buy their own body armor, until the government bans that armor, then cuts their VA benefits when they get home.

[MTBME]

"so it is up to the voters and the protestors to put a stop to things.

That is what the Lt. Col. seems to miss."

Maybe the Lt. Colonel has a different perspective on this because he is actually on the ground there, unlike the rest of us.

[Slider]

Exactly. That skews things.

Slider

[MTBME]

"Exactly. That skews things."

Wow. You can twist this to get the results you want. Very interesting.