Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THIS BUSH-WHACKING IS NONSENSE
New York Post ^ | Sunday, May 19, 2002 | By LINDA STASI

Posted on 05/19/2002 1:58:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Sunday, May 19, 2002

Quote of the Day by Texasforever 5/17/03

1 posted on 05/19/2002 1:58:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AuntB;nunya bidness;GrandmaC;Washington_minuteman;buffyt;Grampa Dave;Jolly Rodgers;blackie...

2 posted on 05/19/2002 1:59:40 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
No one believes that Bush is at fault for anything but a failure to bring forth the sort of evidence that is now being presented about the ineptitude of the FBI and CIA in fulfilling their mandate to protect U.S. territory against assault. Dubya's failure to get out ahead of this 'story', by bringing forth what he undoubtedly knew from Sept. 11th onwards, or at least from shortly thereafter, is not qualitatively different from Nixon's failure to alert the U.S. public to the 'Watergate' shenanigans once he had knowledge of who was involved in a burglary about which he had no foreknowledge and would have certainly acted to stop if he had known about it, just as Dubya would have done in the present instance. It's the failure to make full disclosure of information that is relevant to the public's right-to-know that has come to be seen a tantamount to 'political coverup' ever since 'Watergate'. It is this that gives the story legs ; and it was a tactical error for Dubya to allow his political enemies to access this advantage.
3 posted on 05/19/2002 2:30:58 AM PDT by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant
It's the failure to make full disclosure of information that is relevant to the public's right-to-know that has come to be seen a tantamount to 'political coverup'

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.

4 posted on 05/19/2002 4:59:07 AM PDT by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant
is not qualitatively different from Nixon's failure to alert the U.S. public to the 'Watergate' shenanigans once he had knowledge of who was involved in a burglary about which he had no foreknowledge and would have certainly acted to stop if he had known about it

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.

5 posted on 05/19/2002 5:37:26 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
she's right about the menopausal women theres a few that I work with that could take-out Osama your mama in 7 days or less and the terror and destruction left in their wake absolutely mind boggling and then as second squad I know some serious PMS'rs.
6 posted on 05/19/2002 5:46:30 AM PDT by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Although I welcome the editorial from the NY Post, it was their front page photo and banner that was the fuel that Hillary used to attack the president.
7 posted on 05/19/2002 5:49:45 AM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
Not that she needed a headline to go on the offense/be offensive, mind you.
8 posted on 05/19/2002 6:06:29 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Not that she needed a headline to go on the offense/be offensive, mind you

Yes, but we expect that from her, I didn't expect it from the NY Post.

9 posted on 05/19/2002 6:09:07 AM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mware; Brian Allen
..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.

10 posted on 05/19/2002 6:14:50 AM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant
I don't mean to insult you-but that was the longest bit of pure hogwash I've seen around here in a long time. Full disclosure after 9/11 as if there had been a cover-up? What a sick innuendo THAT is. Especially when our congress received the SAME REPORTS. I hate this kind of insinuation crap. Liberals are EXPERTS at it so that they can get the headline in-they care not about whose reputation is smeared as the story dies because the shocking HEADLINE remains. Just ask Billy Dale.
11 posted on 05/19/2002 6:46:17 AM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mware
Although I welcome the editorial from the NY Post, it was their front page photo and banner that was the fuel that Hillary used to attack the president.

Yeah. Gigantic 50 point headline: "BUSH KNEW".

That was the most outrageous of all the outrageous newspaper headlines, IMHO.

12 posted on 05/19/2002 6:49:26 AM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
The Dems are just putting on a dog-and-pony show. It is a full-court press because elections are coming up. It is simply the routine comedy show to impress us on how much difference there is in the two parties. Personally, I spend my free-time watching old movies, walking, and playing computer games. The grand political discussions have really ceased meaning anything.
14 posted on 05/19/2002 7:38:01 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Well, the good news is that on Jay Leno's Tonight Show he asked the audience "Do you really think its fair to blame Bush?" To which the WHOLE audience responded "NO!" I mean not one "yes". And that is an audience that is use to making fun of Republicans.
15 posted on 05/19/2002 7:47:56 AM PDT by techcor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
BUMP AND GOOD MORNING JOHN!
16 posted on 05/19/2002 8:13:23 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant
Dubya's failure to get out ahead of this 'story', by bringing forth what he undoubtedly knew from Sept. 11th onwards, or at least from shortly thereafter, is not qualitatively different from Nixon's failure to alert the U.S. public to the 'Watergate' shenanigans once he had knowledge of who was involved in a burglary about which he had no forek

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.

Dick Cheney explained all about all of the briefings including the August 6th briefing on MEET THE PRESS with TIM RUSSERT ON NBC ON SEPT 16Th, 2001. IT was broadcast that same Day on NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC. NO OTHER NETWORK OR NEWS AGENCY PICKED IT UP. Perhaps media is too hung over or drugged out on Sunday mornings to watch MEET THE PRESS. They sure ain't in church.

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?

If Bush had really wanted the public to know about it he wouild have released the information to FOX And DRUDGE.

But on the other hand if it had been an intentional cover up he would have released the info to Rather and Jennings. That would be absolute proof of a cover up since no one watches those idiots anymore.

What this proves is if you want to cover something up put out the full info on the major Networks.

MARK THIS DOWN. IF YOU PUT INFO ON MEET THE PRESS, THE PRESS WILL NEVER KNOW IT.


17 posted on 05/19/2002 8:49:51 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
John the morning shows had the Democrats backing off the Attack on Bush.

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.

Dubya's Teflon is making Ronald Reagans Teflon look sticky. The Democrats just discovered that super glue won't work.


18 posted on 05/19/2002 9:06:51 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Democrats live and die by the polls. What they've been doing lately is to sling dirt...then check the polls to see if any of it stuck. If not, then they repeat the process with something even nastier.

I dread to think what's coming next!

19 posted on 05/19/2002 11:00:20 AM PDT by JessicaDragonet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Dick Cheney explained all about all of the briefings including the August 6th briefing on MEET THE PRESS with TIM RUSSERT ON NBC ON SEPT 16Th, 2001. IT was broadcast that same Day on NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC. NO OTHER NETWORK OR NEWS AGENCY PICKED IT UP. Perhaps media is too hung over or drugged out on Sunday mornings to watch MEET THE PRESS. They sure ain't in church.

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.

20 posted on 05/19/2002 1:25:26 PM PDT by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Republic
Especially when our congress received the SAME REPORTS. I hate this kind of insinuation crap.

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.

21 posted on 05/19/2002 1:41:34 PM PDT by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
at least to this point in what we know

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.

22 posted on 05/19/2002 1:45:59 PM PDT by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
GWB is the man !!
23 posted on 05/19/2002 3:12:22 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, but do you honestly believe he was too busy shooting doves on his ranch

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.

24 posted on 05/19/2002 3:45:09 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2;Brad's Gramma
***The few, the proud, the menopausal

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!

25 posted on 05/19/2002 6:25:57 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the heads up!
26 posted on 05/19/2002 7:45:35 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT SHE WISHES FOR. . .
THE REAL PROXIMATE CAUSE OF 9/11
 
What did he know. . . and when did he know it ?
by Mia T
5.17.02
 "The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

more

27 posted on 05/20/2002 5:07:21 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic; I.M. Trenchant
I don't mean to insult you-but that was the longest bit of pure hogwash I've seen around here in a long time.

I second that, and, Oh, BTW, you aren't trenchant.

28 posted on 05/20/2002 9:32:20 AM PDT by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Cheers.
29 posted on 05/20/2002 12:23:30 PM PDT by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Bigg Red.....lol....it is good to see your name on the boards.
30 posted on 05/20/2002 3:16:06 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson