Bush admin. uses Saddam-style tactics to block 9/11 commission

[jahawkin]

Recall what Bush said in the State of the Union Address this year:
link

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Now the chairmen of the federal 9/11 commission are claiming the Bush admin is doing the exact same thing.
link

At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of "minders" at the interviews as a form of intimidation. "I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," he said. "You might get less testimony than you would."

"We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there," he said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I see that we're grasping at ever smaller straws

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I see that we're grasping at ever smaller straws

Because we all know the Bush administration has been so forthcoming about everything else that might produce a hint of criticism.

By the way, Kean is a Republican.

 

[shiner]

jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I see that we're grasping at ever smaller straws

CkG

How is this grasping at straws? If I am being interviewed by an auditor, the last thing I would want is my boss sitting behind me.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Seems like a reasonably accurate, albeit sarcastic, comparison to me. They are doing much the same thing, for the same reason: to keep the truth from escaping. To criticze Iraq for this tactic while accepting it from Bush seems rather hypocritical.

 

[tcsenter]

Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I see that we're grasping at ever smaller straws

CkG

This is the kind of mentality that gets us in trouble. When Bush said this during the State of the Union address, people were probably nodding their heads in agreement without question or deliberation and became shocked at the tactics the Iraqi's were employing. Not a shred of skepticism, just absolute thoughtless approval. Now when someone accuses the Bush administration for the same thing suddenly they burst with protest and denial. It's mind boggling how people can have such double standards... Bush accuses Iraq of something, people agree- no we dont need hard evidence, we trust you oh humble oil tycoon. But someone accuse Bush of doing something wrong? They'll bend over backwards to find a way to discredit the source perhaps by finding a spelling error in their article...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being
elected by definition means having the higher preference.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

edit: oh ya, here's some yellow journalism from the NYTimes...

Acting more like the Soviet Kremlin than the American government, the administration has insisted that monitors from various agencies attend debriefings of key officials by investigators.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

OK, I'm there(here), and I see exactly what Shinerburke said...and/OR...a blatant attempt at slandering Bush. Have any of your(the left in general) darts even come close to hitting the board? let alone score points?

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I see that we're grasping at ever smaller straws

CkG

This is the kind of mentality that gets us in trouble. When Bush said this during the State of the Union address, people were probably nodding their heads in agreement without question or deliberation and became shocked at the tactics the Iraqi's were employing. Not a shred of skepticism, just absolute thoughtless approval. Now when someone accuses the Bush administration for the same thing suddenly they burst with protest and denial. It's mind boggling how people can have such double standards... Bush accuses Iraq of something, people agree- no we dont need hard evidence, we trust you oh humble oil tycoon. But someone accuse Bush of doing something wrong? They'll bend over backwards to find a way to discredit the source perhaps by finding a spelling error in their article...

I agree, however I'd change "oil tycoon" with [slander mode]Oil Buffoon[/slander mode] 😉

There are certainly Security concerns, I suppose, but Bush's record with "Information" probably means any Secret leaked would be a Lie or Innaccurate anyway.

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

As soon as we start digging up tens of thousands of Americans in mass graves them maybe I will compare the 2.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

OK, I'm there(here), and I see exactly what Shinerburke said...and/OR...a blatant attempt at slandering Bush. Have any of your(the left in general) darts even come close to hitting the board? let alone score points?

CkG

How is this slandering the Bush admin.?? They are using the exact same techniques in having government minders at interviews. Yes, the cost of saying something against government/agency official view are extremely different (loss of your job/career vs. loss of your family/self) but the effect of the minders is still the same.
If government minders were so bad in Iraq, why are they acceptable here in the US?? National security concerns is not a legitimate excuse, as I'm sure the commission chairmen had the proper security clearance to hear anything and the report issued could be censored before release to public.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

OK, I'm there(here), and I see exactly what Shinerburke said...and/OR...a blatant attempt at slandering Bush. Have any of your(the left in general) darts even come close to hitting the board? let alone score points?

CkG

How is this slandering the Bush admin.?? They are using the exact same techniques in having government minders at interviews. Yes, the cost of saying something against government/agency official view are extremely different (loss of your job/career vs. loss of your family/self) but the effect of the minders is still the same.
If government minders were so bad in Iraq, why are they acceptable here in the US?? National security concerns is not a legitimate excuse, as I'm sure the commission chairmen had the proper security clearance to hear anything and the report issued could be censored before release to public.

OK - I'll play along then. Shinerburke was right then(I said "and/OR") 😀.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

OK, I'm there(here), and I see exactly what Shinerburke said...and/OR...a blatant attempt at slandering Bush. Have any of your(the left in general) darts even come close to hitting the board? let alone score points?

CkG

How is this slandering the Bush admin.?? They are using the exact same techniques in having government minders at interviews. Yes, the cost of saying something against government/agency official view are extremely different (loss of your job/career vs. loss of your family/self) but the effect of the minders is still the same.
If government minders were so bad in Iraq, why are they acceptable here in the US?? National security concerns is not a legitimate excuse, as I'm sure the commission chairmen had the proper security clearance to hear anything and the report issued could be censored before release to public.

OK - I'll play along then. Shinerburke was right then(I said "and/OR") 😀.

CkG

Great. Now are you going to keep calling people names or actually contribute something of worth??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: shinerburke
jahawkin users yellow journalism style headlines to get attention.

Ya, I'm an attention whore. Just look at all the threads I've recently started.....

OK, I'm there(here), and I see exactly what Shinerburke said...and/OR...a blatant attempt at slandering Bush. Have any of your(the left in general) darts even come close to hitting the board? let alone score points?

CkG

How is this slandering the Bush admin.?? They are using the exact same techniques in having government minders at interviews. Yes, the cost of saying something against government/agency official view are extremely different (loss of your job/career vs. loss of your family/self) but the effect of the minders is still the same.
If government minders were so bad in Iraq, why are they acceptable here in the US?? National security concerns is not a legitimate excuse, as I'm sure the commission chairmen had the proper security clearance to hear anything and the report issued could be censored before release to public.

OK - I'll play along then. Shinerburke was right then(I said "and/OR") 😀.

CkG

Great. Now are you going to keep calling people names or actually contribute something of worth??

Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.

You see what you are looking for in this so much so that you take contextual reasoning and toss it out the window. Sure the "technique" or acts may look similar on the surface but one can hardly National Security isn't a good reason to have someone hold you in check.

Oh and where exactly did I call names? OR was that just an attempt to try see yourself as righteous?

CkG

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being
elected by definition means having the higher preference.

i think its time to drop the pathetic argument that bush was illegally elected into office. its so old

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.

I do it to inform people of a story they might otherwise miss.

Sure the "technique" or acts may look similar on the surface but one can hardly National Security isn't a good reason to have someone hold you in check.

How can national security be compromised if a government agent is interviewed by members of the 9/11 commission?? The sensitive information will never make it into a public report, but could be essential in the findings and recommendations of the commission.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.

I do it to inform people of a story they might otherwise miss.

Sure the "technique" or acts may look similar on the surface but one can hardly National Security isn't a good reason to have someone hold you in check.

How can national security be compromised if a government agent is interviewed by members of the 9/11 commission?? The sensitive information will never make it into a public report, but could be essential in the findings and recommendations of the commission.

Umm... maybe because there are different levels of security clearance. 😉

CkG

 

[tcsenter]

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being elected by definition means having the higher preference.

Thanks. I especially liked the part where you confess profound ignorance of the US Constitution and the federal election process. We don't elect presidents popularly - never have.

You may want to read the US Constitution once before you die. Its kinda neat, try it.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being elected by definition means having the higher preference.

Thanks. I especially liked the part where you confess profound ignorance of the US Constitution and the federal election process. We don't elect presidents popularly - never have.

You may want to read the US Constitution once before you die. Its kinda neat, try it.

The point is, you shouldn't use the word 'elected', unless you are trying to be misleading. Being elected assumes the democratic princicple of winning by vote. Blow the dust off your dictionary and see for yourself.

And maybe you should consider Saddam legally elected, remember the election they had recently where people could vote yes or no to Saddam? He got 100% of the vote!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being elected by definition means having the higher preference.

Thanks. I especially liked the part where you confess profound ignorance of the US Constitution and the federal election process. We don't elect presidents popularly - never have.

You may want to read the US Constitution once before you die. Its kinda neat, try it.

The point is, you shouldn't use the word 'elected', unless you are trying to be misleading. Being elected assumes the democratic princicple of winning by vote. Blow the dust off your dictionary and see for yourself.

And maybe you should consider Saddam legally elected, remember the election they had recently where people could vote yes or no to Saddam? He got 100% of the vote!

Sure Saddam was "legally elected" - A dictator makes the law😛 He sets the rules for the election and therefore was legally elected. Now tcsenter is correct that Bush was legally elected - it is you and atleast 2 other people here that can't get past the 2000 election. In America the president is chosen by an electorate - not directly by the people. Bush won that vote - hence legally elected.

Lozina - I might suggest you ask Loonbeam and MunarRay for "better" arguments on the 2000 election - yours was too easy and direct. They can teach you how to make accusations and then use poems and riddles to back up their assertions which is much harder to respond to since it isn't direct. Just some freindly advice 😀

CkG

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a wonderful fairy tale. Is your name Donald Rumsfeld? I especially like the part where you say "Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States)" considering Bush never had the popular vote. Being elected by definition means having the higher preference.

Thanks. I especially liked the part where you confess profound ignorance of the US Constitution and the federal election process. We don't elect presidents popularly - never have.

You may want to read the US Constitution once before you die. Its kinda neat, try it.

The point is, you shouldn't use the word 'elected', unless you are trying to be misleading. Being elected assumes the democratic princicple of winning by vote. Blow the dust off your dictionary and see for yourself.

And maybe you should consider Saddam legally elected, remember the election they had recently where people could vote yes or no to Saddam? He got 100% of the vote!

Sure Saddam was "legally elected" - A dictator makes the law😛 He sets the rules for the election and therefore was legally elected. Now tcsenter is correct that Bush was legally elected - it is you and atleast 2 other people here that can't get past the 2000 election. In America the president is chosen by an electorate - not directly by the people. Bush won that vote - hence legally elected.

Lozina - I might suggest you ask Loonbeam and MunarRay for "better" arguments on the 2000 election - yours was too easy and direct. They can teach you how to make accusations and then use poems and riddles to back up their assertions which is much harder to respond to since it isn't direct. Just some freindly advice 😀

CkG

I'm not arguing if Bush won our particular form of Presidential Election or not. I'm arguing usage of the general term "elected", since it really puts to shame other countries with a more demotcratic way of electing leaders. There needs to be a way to distinugish his Election from others. Perhaps we need a new word... pseudo-elected perhaps?

 

[maXroOt]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

you'll realize that he merely said that bush is using saddam style tactics ... which according to the article is true. no where did he claim that bush is using ALL of saddams tactics

i wonder when those mass graves were dug, maybe when we were blindly supporting saddam?