White House told EPA to lie about NY air quality, post 9-11

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Here's a case where Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity gets him a pass. It's very easy to believe he did not know anything about the air quality at Ground Zero. Hell, he even visited the site in late September(?)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
i basically don' t trust anything the New York Times, jerrold nadler (d, NY) or hillary clinton (d, ny) claim.

the basic dem marching orders are call bush a "liar" about everything..
again, this is part of a "vast left wing conspiracy" (yep..you heard it first here) to clean up clinton's
reputation by smearing bush's reputation...

they are constantly calling him a "liar", or that he "mislead" the public...
it's all an effort to make bill's perjory, disbarrment, and impeachment seem trivial ("it was only about sex!, bush's lies are are about really important stuff")

yep..your gonna hear this more and more

he lied about this, he lied about that, he lied about this, blah blah blah...

this is the democrats strategy for the 2004 presidential election... and it just isn't going to work.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Repost




text


Anyways...another reason on my growing list of why I don't support the bush administration as much as I did pre 9/11. Although I thought it was somewhat obvious at the time that there was no way, 10 days after the attacks, that the air was safe.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i basically don' t trust anything the New York Times, jerrold nadler (d, NY) or hillary clinton (d, ny) claim.
the basic dem marching orders are call bush a "liar" about everything..
again, this is part of a "vast left wing conspiracy" (yep..you heard it first here) to clean up clinton's
reputation by smearing bush's reputation...
<snip>

Well, you can certainly stick your head in a hole if you don't want to know the truth, frankly nobody really cares. The story's been all over the place, not just the NY Times. Not only that, the report was released by the EPA themselves. Mea Culpa:

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i basically don' t trust anything the New York Times, jerrold nadler (d, NY) or hillary clinton (d, ny) claim.

the basic dem marching orders are call bush a "liar" about everything..
again, this is part of a "vast left wing conspiracy" (yep..you heard it first here) to clean up clinton's
reputation by smearing bush's reputation...

they are constantly calling him a "liar", or that he "mislead" the public...
it's all an effort to make bill's perjory, disbarrment, and impeachment seem trivial ("it was only about sex!, bush's lies are are about really important stuff")

yep..your gonna hear this more and more

he lied about this, he lied about that, he lied about this, blah blah blah...

this is the democrats strategy for the 2004 presidential election... and it just isn't going to work.

Your analysis is basically correct, except for the wrong reason. Clinton has nothing to do with the current administration. The truth is they call Bush a liar, because he basically is one. This is the 2nd case of him doctoring EPA reports because he didn't like what they said. This is misleading the public, because the EPA is funded by public money. Imagine what he would have done about Love Canal.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.

Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.

Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.

Hello???

Reports, EPA, blah, blah ba blah, the relevance it has nothing to do with the big picture, buildings crumbled with people in them and under them. Who is wearing the Rose Colored Glasses?

Here's more relevance, your friend is trapped under the ruble but some EPA guy starts screaming the air is contaminated, everyone leave the island. People tried their best, would you would've wanted otherwise?


 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.

Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.

Hello???

Reports, EPA, blah, blah ba blah, the relevance it has nothing to do with the big picture, buildings crumbled with people in them and under them. Who is wearing the Rose Colored Glasses?

Here's more relevance, your friend is trapped under the ruble but some EPA guy starts screaming the air is contaminated, everyone leave the island. People tried their best, would you would've wanted otherwise?

I think you're missing the point. The point is: It's yet another lie, in a huge stack of lies, that the liars keep lying to us about.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.

Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.

Hello???

Reports, EPA, blah, blah ba blah, the relevance it has nothing to do with the big picture, buildings crumbled with people in them and under them. Who is wearing the Rose Colored Glasses?

Here's more relevance, your friend is trapped under the ruble but some EPA guy starts screaming the air is contaminated, everyone leave the island. People tried their best, would you would've wanted otherwise?

Ok, you are taking this the wrong way. Your points about common sense are valid. I also am not talking at all about whether or not people did their best. I am speaking strictly of this report. If the air quality was as bad as expected, why couldn't the report just state their factual findings? Why did they need to be "softened" by the NSA? Let me put this simply...why couldn't the EPA just report the facts as they saw them? If the EPA had reported hazardous air quality, couldn't people in the area take precautions to protect themselves? Maybe public service announcements could have been aired urging the people who were in danger to protect themselves?

Let's look at is this way. Say a large number of the healthcare workers that had to work in the immediate area of ground zero had been made aware of the severity of the air quality, and been advised to take the needed precautions. Don't you think that might have cut down on some of the health problems that cropped up later? Wouldn't you be concerned responding to a scene that had very high levels of a cancer causing sunbtance like asbestos. Wouldn't you want some form of protection?

To put this as simply as I can. The EPA is a scientific body. They report scientifc findings that they determine through sound scientific methodology. Basically, they report factual data as they see it. Let's refer to this as the truth. Why then, is it a problem for them to just report what they find? Why must their data be reviewed by the NSA, changed, and willfully falsified instead of just reported as is? I am really surprised by your reaction to this...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.

Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?

I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.

Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.

Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.

Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.

Hello???

Reports, EPA, blah, blah ba blah, the relevance it has nothing to do with the big picture, buildings crumbled with people in them and under them. Who is wearing the Rose Colored Glasses?

Here's more relevance, your friend is trapped under the ruble but some EPA guy starts screaming the air is contaminated, everyone leave the island. People tried their best, would you would've wanted otherwise?

Ok, you are taking this the wrong way. Your points about common sense are valid. I also am not talking at all about whether or not people did their best. I am speaking strictly of this report. If the air quality was as bad as expected, why couldn't the report just state their factual findings? Why did they need to be "softened" by the NSA? Let me put this simply...why couldn't the EPA just report the facts as they saw them? If the EPA had reported hazardous air quality, couldn't people in the area take precautions to protect themselves? Maybe public service announcements could have been aired urging the people who were in danger to protect themselves?

Let's look at is this way. Say a large number of the healthcare workers that had to work in the immediate area of ground zero had been made aware of the severity of the air quality, and been advised to take the needed precautions. Don't you think that might have cut down on some of the health problems that cropped up later? Wouldn't you be concerned responding to a scene that had very high levels of a cancer causing sunbtance like asbestos. Wouldn't you want some form of protection?

To put this as simply as I can. The EPA is a scientific body. They report scientifc findings that they determine through sound scientific methodology. Basically, they report factual data as they see it. Let's refer to this as the truth. Why then, is it a problem for them to just report what they find? Why must their data be reviewed by the NSA, changed, and willfully falsified instead of just reported as is? I am really surprised by your reaction to this...

"Maybe public service announcements could have been aired urging the people who were in danger to protect themselves?"

...because we as a people do not need that much hand holding by the Government especially during such a tragic situation.
(Not directed at any particular person) It may have been OK to have Mommy hold & aim your wee wee for a while but after a certain time have to be able to piss on your own.



 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
"Maybe public service announcements could have been aired urging the people who were in danger to protect themselves?"

...because we as a people do not need that much hand holding by the Government especially during such a tragic situation.
(Not directed at any particular person) It may have been OK to have Mommy hold & aim your wee wee for a while but after a certain time have to be able to piss on your own.

Ok, Dave. I think I see where you are coming from now. I'm sorry you feel that way since I think you are still missing the point. It seems you just have a distaste for any and all government intervention now...in any form. I think we could go at this all day and you would still not get the point, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree since we obviously have very different opinions on this.

The fact remains however, the government didn't think we deserved to hear the truth, but a rose colored version of how they wanted it to be. If you don't see the inherent fault in that, you likely never will.

Edit:

You know, by your reasoning, maybe we should get rid of all fire departments. Why do we need the government "hand holding" us when it comes to fires? Why can't we all be adults and put it out ourselves? House on fire? Suck it up and put it out yourself...

Of course I don't mean this, but I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I wonder when the first lawsuits will fly over Manhattanites breathing air the EPA claimed was safe? I'll betcha the administration saw those initial EPA reports and envisioned even more $ Billions being lost in NY as people stayed clear of the area due to tainted air. It's sad (and bordering on criminal IMO) that they view lost profits as more important than people's health.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
If you think the air was safe after two buildings were knocked down then your very gullible. I think most smart people would assume that the air was filled with lead and asbesto and other natsy stuff.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
If you think the air was safe after two buildings were knocked down then your very gullible. I think most smart people would assume that the air was filled with lead and asbesto and other natsy stuff.

Exactly, and it was more than 2 buildings, it was the buildings surrounding those two gigantic ones as well put down more debris than if an entire city was destroyed compared to the size of most other cities.

I am not entirely anti-Government either. I just don't see where Government "Intervention" was neccessary on the air quality. They said you wouldn't die on the spot from breathing the air and don't know of anyone that did. There may be some that have lung & cancer issues down the road but short of evacuating Manhattan Island again what else would you do?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
If you're not smart enough to figure out the air is bad for you, you deserve to breath the bad air?

Dave, you're defending the lies told by the government by saying people should be smart enough to see thru them...so that makes the lies ok.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
If you're not smart enough to figure out the air is bad for you, you deserve to breath the bad air?

Dave, you're defending the lies told by the government by saying people should be smart enough to see thru them...so that makes the lies ok.
He's going even farther than that. He's saying that anybody who figured the air was dangerous and changed their minds when the EPA said it was OK were also chumps. I guess they were.