Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Why Does the Christian Right Embrace a Lying President ?

JustJess · 09-08-2005, 05:58 AM

In re: smooth's post re:whether I think Bush actually lied regarding our possible preparedness for disasters... I do not dispute that there is ample evidence on both sides that can be easily interpreted both ways. I believe that the interpretation mostly is a result of the biases of whoever is reading. As it happens, I do not like Bush for a variety of reasons, none of which are directly related to his being Republican, but rather his actual governing practices, but I digress.

In regards to 9/11, yes, I believe there was a lot of bullshit and/or lies put out there by the governing parties. I'm betting they did hear about the possibilities far ahead of the incident, but didn't put any stock into them since I'm sure they hear about a LOT of possible threats constantly. My beef has always been about how they handled it after the fact. Rather than saying "we didn't know, we had no idea" and then "okay, well, maybe we might have heard something, but it's x's fault!!!" etc. etc.... wouldn't it be better to be a little more honest? Give the American people the benefit of assuming they're at least partially intelligent? Why not say "Look, with 90% (or whatever is accurate) of possible threats reported, they never actually come to fruition. So we didn't think it'd actually happen. We're working on our systems now to avoid this for future issues." While it's not great, it's certainly a lot more honest, and a lot harder to be critical. Okay, they fucked up. Agreed. Now we need to fix our country and it's systems and playing the blame game is useless. But instead they did play the blame game, and that's what I find to be the lies and dishonest actions of the President and his administration. I believe they decided to not be honest with the people about their intents and reasons and motives.

As for NO... well, actually, I don't see how this is actually the Federal gov't's fault so much. It's a natural disaster, and they've had a zillion (yes, that's the exact figure) hurricanes there before without this kind of devastation. Weathermen are usually crying "wolf" and then when shit actually happens, they get smug that we didn't listen. But the last 93 times they cried wolf, nothing happened. So I don't actually think Bush was so wrong here. I do think the slow response time was the issue, not the preparedness. Everywhere, in every town and city, maintenance of facilities is an on-going process. Sometimes things are new, and in between those times, things need repairs. It's a fact of life. So no, I don't think they really knew how bad it was going to be.

Summary:
Lying after 9/11? Yes. But not in the way that Host presented, in my terribly humble opinion.
Lying after NOLA? No. Just poor response.

09-08-2005, 05:58 AM	#43 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	In re: smooth's post re:whether I think Bush actually lied regarding our possible preparedness for disasters... I do not dispute that there is ample evidence on both sides that can be easily interpreted both ways. I believe that the interpretation mostly is a result of the biases of whoever is reading. As it happens, I do not like Bush for a variety of reasons, none of which are directly related to his being Republican, but rather his actual governing practices, but I digress. In regards to 9/11, yes, I believe there was a lot of bullshit and/or lies put out there by the governing parties. I'm betting they did hear about the possibilities far ahead of the incident, but didn't put any stock into them since I'm sure they hear about a LOT of possible threats constantly. My beef has always been about how they handled it after the fact. Rather than saying "we didn't know, we had no idea" and then "okay, well, maybe we might have heard something, but it's x's fault!!!" etc. etc.... wouldn't it be better to be a little more honest? Give the American people the benefit of assuming they're at least partially intelligent? Why not say "Look, with 90% (or whatever is accurate) of possible threats reported, they never actually come to fruition. So we didn't think it'd actually happen. We're working on our systems now to avoid this for future issues." While it's not great, it's certainly a lot more honest, and a lot harder to be critical. Okay, they fucked up. Agreed. Now we need to fix our country and it's systems and playing the blame game is useless. But instead they did play the blame game, and that's what I find to be the lies and dishonest actions of the President and his administration. I believe they decided to not be honest with the people about their intents and reasons and motives. As for NO... well, actually, I don't see how this is actually the Federal gov't's fault so much. It's a natural disaster, and they've had a zillion (yes, that's the exact figure) hurricanes there before without this kind of devastation. Weathermen are usually crying "wolf" and then when shit actually happens, they get smug that we didn't listen. But the last 93 times they cried wolf, nothing happened. So I don't actually think Bush was so wrong here. I do think the slow response time was the issue, not the preparedness. Everywhere, in every town and city, maintenance of facilities is an on-going process. Sometimes things are new, and in between those times, things need repairs. It's a fact of life. So no, I don't think they really knew how bad it was going to be. Summary: Lying after 9/11? Yes. But not in the way that Host presented, in my terribly humble opinion. Lying after NOLA? No. Just poor response. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.