Skip to comments.THIS BUSH-WHACKING IS NONSENSE
Posted on 05/19/2002 1:58:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2Edited on 05/26/2004 5:06:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
May 19, 2002 -- HOW much did the president know and why didn't he do more to stop it? That was the question being bandied about all week on the talk shows.
What were they trying to say exactly - that President Bush knew but forgot to stop the World Trade Center attacks?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Only if you are cynical and political about the whole thing. So called "full disclosure" should not be of the public kind, and the critics know it, but are cynically pursuing their own political agenda at the expense of the military during a time of war.
It seems to me that the biggest snafu in this whole thing has been the legislated inability of the FBI and the CIA to easily share information. That road block was put there years ago and never made any sense in a terror environment.
Still the loyal Nixonian, I see.
I would say there is a qualitative difference, at least to this point in what we know, since Nixon arguably not only did not "alert the U.S. public", but was involved in covering up crimes by those in his own administration.
Yes, but we expect that from her, I didn't expect it from the NY Post.
Place not your trust in the Post, mate.
The paper's new editor, Col Allen, spent years running Sydney's Daily Telegraph. Downunder conservatives know him as a untrustworthy rogue, who'll turn on our side of politics like a pet croc. The only thing that keeps him somewhat muzzled is that he's quite often onto his third Johnnie Walker by late morning.
Yeah. Gigantic 50 point headline: "BUSH KNEW".
That was the most outrageous of all the outrageous newspaper headlines, IMHO.
THAT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE. THE ADMINISTRATION DID PUT IT OUT ON SUNDAY Sept. 16th 2001. That is just five days after the attack. And the first long form news programs that were scheduled after the attack. The only way to avoid the media cuting your words to a 3 second sound byte is to go on the Sunday shows. That is what the Administration did. ON NBC.
Cheney should reveail important information on a show called MEET THE SLUTS. They way he could get Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and Clinton to watch. Did I mention Larry King?
Cheney told about all the briefings and intellignce data the administration had just 5 days after the attack. Cheney did it on the SUNDAY SHOWS ON THE MAJOR NETWORKS. HE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE AUGUST 6th DATA and quoted from it on NBC's MEET THE PRESS.
NO WONDER NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT. IT WAS ON NBC. NO ONE WATCHES THE NETWORKS. Last thurday Brian Williams ran the Sept 16, 2001 clips from MEET THE PRESS on his news program. I WATCHED THEM AS BRIAN replayed the cuts AND BRIAN HAD RUSSERT ON TO CONFIRM THE CLIPS DID AIR ON SEPT 16, 2001. Just 5 days after the attack.
OF COURSE THIS IS PROOF CHENEY AND BUSH WERE COVERING IT UP. WHY ELSE WOULD THEY PUTING IT OUT ON THE MAJOR NETWOKK SUNDAY NEWS SHOWS?
What this proves is if you want to cover something up put out the full info on the major Networks.
The first polls are undoubedly in. I would bet the farm they show that Bush has not dropped a single point. I would bet the newest polls show the democrats are down by at least 5 and perhaps 10 points.
When there is a crisis like a war or a real threat to the nation presidents position in our nation changes. He stops being "The" President and becomes "MY" President to those in the middle of the political spectrum. A president is almost always "My" presidnet to members of his own party. But in normal times he is "The" president to he political middle.
In times like these Bush has become "MY" President to those in the middle and even some Democrats.
Think of the things you refer to as "MY". It is "MY" spouse, "MY" Car, "MY" house, "MY" office, "MY" friend.
What happens when someone attacks anything that you put "MY" in front of? Right! You get angry. Only you can trash anything you refer to as "MY". If I do it you not only don't buy the attack, you get mad at ME.
The only way for "MY" president to become "The" President is for "MY" president to not be working to fix "MY" problems. That is what happened to BUSH SR. "MY" president turned into "The" president when Bush Sr. did not appear to be fixing the economy. That is not the case with this "My" president.
The polls are in. I have not seen them. But by the Democrats reaction this Sunday Morning, I would say the public is angry at Democrats for Attacking "Their" president.
I dread to think what's coming next!
Thanks for your elaboration. From the other responses in this thread to my post, I'd venture that I am not alone in being oblivious of what Dick Cheney said to Russert on Sept. 16th. If Cheney said all about all of the briefings then I should think Dubya will have no problem fending off his media and political critics.
I quote this morning's Drudge link on Specter's concerns: "If the White House tries to fight the move, says a G.O.P. source, 'as many as 20 Republican senators' would vote to enforce the subpoena." Does this not imply that there is a divide between the Administration and GOP (not liberal) members of the Senate on this issue ? Doesn't Spector's attitude remind you of Thompson's and Weickert's attitudes during 'Watergate' ? Surely it is not just liberals who are worrying this issue like a dog worrying a bone when so many GOP senators are exchanging brickbats with a GOP Administration.
Your point is well taken, but judging by the item I have cited in the post that precedes this one, I think the snipit I quoted from your post is the operative one.
On one hand it appears the article is sounding balanced but...I'll have to see where this goes this week. It seems the next hit is that Bush was spending too much time at the Ranch to be able to see what was happening.
Most intelligent people that know this President, knows that he's always on the job, no matter where the White House is located.
THE Marines have finally come to their senses and stopped trying to recruit 18-year old males, and are openly recruiting menopausal women. It's true! How else can you explain their new slogan - "The Change Is Forever." Dear God, what a thought.
Actually, it would take about 14 seconds for a platoon of peri-menopausal women to do what all the CIA operatives in the world have been unable to do - find Osama bin Laden.
You think not? Did you ever try to hide from your mother - especially when she was in a hormonally induced month-long bad mood? Most men can't deal with one woman who's hot flashing and mood changing, let alone, say 1,000 of them - especially if those same overheated females found out they'd been dropped into a stinky camp with
no room service. Bin Laden's bad guys would give up in an Afghan minute.***
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! um...golly, she's right!
I second that, and, Oh, BTW, you aren't trenchant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.