Report taints post-9/11 air quality reports

[BOBDN]

Report taints post-9/11 air quality reports

"WASHINGTON -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency wrongly told New Yorkers not to worry about health risks of debris-laden air from the World Trade Center collapse, the agency's watchdog says in a report."

Are the people in the Bush White House simply serial liars? Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

When there is a genuine threat to public health it is incumbent upon government to make people aware of that threat so people can take whatever actions they deem necessary to protect themselves from the threat. Not tell people all is well when it isn't. How can lying to people about a genuine threat to their health enhance national security? Doing so is the antithesis of national security.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

That, of course, depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

That, of course, depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

galt

You're so hung up on Clinton you probably have a stain on your dress.

Let me make this easy enough for even you to understand. My kids, along with 8 million other people, live in Manhattan. My wife and I live in New Jersey. If the Bush administration had kept their lying mouths out of the picture people would have been warned of the danger in air quality from the WTC collapse. My kids would have stayed here with us. Those people who chose to, based on factual evidence, could have left the city as well until air quality was OK.

What don't you understand about that? How on earth is telling people there is no threat when there actually is one helping "national security"? Why would anyone deliberately put millions of people at risk unnecessarily?

Why, on the other hand, would the Bush administration tell people there was a threat when none existed, as in Iraq?

 

[XZeroII]

Although I don't defend anything done, here's what I think happened...

There was huge panic after the WTC buildings collapsed and there was (in effect) hysteria. Preliminary tests were done on the air and found that it was within acceptable risks. This also lessened a panic to get out of NY and surrounding areas. People were already on edge and the last thing they needed was more incentive to panic. Bottom line, I think that there wasn't enough information available, and so [based on what was known at the time] they made a decision to declare the air safe, and this helped calm the nerves of many paniced people.

Do you people not think this through or something? 9/11 was a tradgic time and I find it despicable that you would bring that up in your mud flinging contest.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Although I don't defend anything done, here's what I think happened...

There was huge panic after the WTC buildings collapsed and there was (in effect) hysteria. Preliminary tests were done on the air and found that it was within acceptable risks. This also lessened a panic to get out of NY and surrounding areas. People were already on edge and the last thing they needed was more incentive to panic. Bottom line, I think that there wasn't enough information available, and so [based on what was known at the time] they made a decision to declare the air safe, and this helped calm the nerves of many paniced people.

Do you people not think this through or something? 9/11 was a tradgic time and I find it despicable that you would bring that up in your mud flinging contest.

Read the link. The evidence was there. The White House decided intentionally to tell the EPA to lie about air quality.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of mud flinging. They risked the lives of millions of Americans by lying to them about a real threat which they were totally aware of.

I live close enough to Manhattan to know what was going on there. My kids live on Manhattan island. The day after 9/11 they could easily have left the city. There was no panic. People walked miles on the very day without panic to exit Manhattan.

There is no excuse in a free society to lie to us about a real threat when there is absolutely NO reason.

The Bush administration is a disgrace. You accuse me of flinging mud, they were flinging toxic by-products of the WTC collapse knowingly at millions of New Yorkers.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Although I don't defend anything done, here's what I think happened...

There was huge panic after the WTC buildings collapsed and there was (in effect) hysteria. Preliminary tests were done on the air and found that it was within acceptable risks. This also lessened a panic to get out of NY and surrounding areas. People were already on edge and the last thing they needed was more incentive to panic. Bottom line, I think that there wasn't enough information available, and so [based on what was known at the time] they made a decision to declare the air safe, and this helped calm the nerves of many paniced people.

Do you people not think this through or something? 9/11 was a tradgic time and I find it despicable that you would bring that up in your mud flinging contest.

Ahhh....that makes sense. So it's much better to lie to everyone about the air being safe so they "feel better" in their minds? What happens down the line when they get physically ill because they took no precautions to protect themselves because they were told everything was "fine"? That is some sound logic you have there...

Edit:

Anyone notice this administration never bothers to just come out and say they made a mistake? If they did that I'm sure the american people would appreciate it more. However, it's blame everyone else...take no responsibility.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Although I don't defend anything done, here's what I think happened...

There was huge panic after the WTC buildings collapsed and there was (in effect) hysteria. Preliminary tests were done on the air and found that it was within acceptable risks. This also lessened a panic to get out of NY and surrounding areas. People were already on edge and the last thing they needed was more incentive to panic. Bottom line, I think that there wasn't enough information available, and so [based on what was known at the time] they made a decision to declare the air safe, and this helped calm the nerves of many paniced people.

Do you people not think this through or something? 9/11 was a tradgic time and I find it despicable that you would bring that up in your mud flinging contest.

Ahhh....that makes sense. So it's much better to lie to everyone about the air being safe so they "feel better" in their minds? What happens down the line when they get physically ill because they took no precautions to protect themselves because they were told everything was "fine"? That is some sound logic you have there...

Edit:

Anyone notice this administration never bothers to just come out and say they made a mistake? If they did that I'm sure the american people would appreciate it more. However, it's blame everyone else...take no responsibility.

I noticed, Insane3D. But in their minds they aren't making mistakes. You see, the Bush administration is an administration of serial liars.

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

That, of course, depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

What the fsck does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Clinton's transgressions (and there were plenty of them) are completely irrelevent to the performance of the Bush administration. Are you so blindly partisan and thickk-headed that you can not understand that?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: reitz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

That, of course, depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

What the fsck does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Clinton's transgressions (and there were plenty of them) are completely irrelevent to the performance of the Bush administration. Are you so blindly partisan and thickk-headed that you can not understand that?

Yes, he is.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: reitz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Is there anything they won't do in the name of "national security?"

That, of course, depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

What the fsck does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Clinton's transgressions (and there were plenty of them) are completely irrelevent to the performance of the Bush administration. Are you so blindly partisan and thickk-headed that you can not understand that?

Yes, he is.

I would try to explain it to you but you're obviously too close-minded to even try to understand as I've seen from your numerous posts. So I'll just let you slip through the cracks and move on. Just keep 2 things in mind. First, everything is not always Black and White. And second, try to look at the big picture instead of always concentrating on small details taken out of context.

 

[reitz]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
I would try to explain it to you but you're obviously too close-minded to even try to understand as I've seen from your numerous posts. So I'll just let you slip through the cracks and move on. Just keep 2 things in mind. First, everything is not always Black and White. And second, try to look at the big picture instead of always concentrating on small details taken out of context.

Is that directed towards me? If so, I'm not sure I'm following you...

 

[XZeroII]

What are you people, 15 years old? You sure act like it. Learn about the 'real' world and how it works before making comments like that. I don't defend what the Bush admin. did, but I can see why they wouldn't want something like that coming out at the time.

I also don't recall any other president ever admitting they made a mistake except under extreme circumstances (not often).

 

[BOBDN]

This is a simple question of government telling people the true nature of a threat WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FACING THE THREAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

If government is going to lie about a threat that people can avoid if they know the truth how can anyone possibly defend that?

It's as simple as black and white. There is no gray here.

The air may be hazardous to your health. Government tells everyone it's safe. If people knew the truth they could take measures to ensure their safety. If people believe a lie they are being exposed to danger they could easily avoid.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
This is a simple question of government telling people the true nature of a threat WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FACING THE THREAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

If government is going to lie about a threat that people can avoid if they know the truth how can anyone possibly defend that?

It's as simple as black and white. There is no gray here.

The air may be hazardous to your health. Government tells everyone it's safe. If people knew the truth they could take measures to ensure their safety. If people believe a lie they are being exposed to danger they could easily avoid.

What you are saying is that it's ok to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre (yea, it's on old one) when there is a small, controllable fire in there. Sure, the people will be safer and not breathe in as much smoke, but someone will probably be trampled trying to get out. My point is that you don't know what the exact conditions are, or what would have happened. Let's just pretend for a moment that Bush declared that the air within a 10 mile radius of the WTC was contaminated and dangerous to breathe. How many people would be within that area? I don't know, but I would guess about a million. Let's say that 40% of those people decided that it wasn't worth the risk to stay and decided to evacuate. That's 400,000 people immediatly taking to the streets. There would be an instant traffic jam. Next, where would all those people go? Would they stay at a motel? How far would they have to go to find one that had a room available, and how long would they have to stay before the air cleared? Could they afford that? Next, that would leave most of NY empty (relatively). Who would watch out for looters and vandals? What about the areas that these evacuated people are staying in? Would the local police be able to deal with the extra people? Stores? etc...?
This is all stuff that you have to consider. You think it's an easy choice because you haven't thought it through all the way. Once again, I don't defend what Bush did, but it's not an easy choice to make especially when you're only dealing with preliminary reports. Maybe someday you will be president and you will face a terribly tradgic event like that and then you can just be 100% honest and handle the situation however you like, but until then...

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: reitz

Originally posted by: dabuddha
I would try to explain it to you but you're obviously too close-minded to even try to understand as I've seen from your numerous posts. So I'll just let you slip through the cracks and move on. Just keep 2 things in mind. First, everything is not always Black and White. And second, try to look at the big picture instead of always concentrating on small details taken out of context.

Is that directed towards me? If so, I'm not sure I'm following you...

No towards BOBDN.