Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 03-01-2006, 08:29 PM

ok, matthew, I don't agree with a lot of what you're saying.

For one thing, the article clearly delineates the fact that numerous officials, not weathermen, were speaking with the president and warning him of what they thought was most likely to occur.

in one portion of the article originally posted, the point is made that bush himself becomes concerned. so those facts alone simply don't square with your contention that it was just the media following the big story...

but, for the sake of this next point, I'll just concede what you're saying. give you the best case scenario. that everything you are claiming is true...

even still, bush consistently made the claim that, while mistakes may have been made, they weren't made by him because he didn't have prior knowledge of the extent of what was going to happen. no one had a clue, was his claim.

that doesn't square with these new facts, facts that are documented on tape and transcripts and presumably he didn't think the public would access. because there is only one reason to say you didn't know that something could happen when your advisors and experts are warning that it very well might--to avoid personal responsibility. in a courtroom, these kinds of statements would be used as evidence of a guilt.

the only way around that is to say that someone saying something could happen is not the same as anticipating that it might. you didnt explain the difference between those two claims, and to everyone else in here there is none. not because we are liberally biased and hate the president, but because anticipating something and warning others about it is as close as you can come to thinking something could happen without watching it actually go down. I don't get why so many of us have to go through these language tests on this board, it's really frustrating to have to actually argue that someone else understand/adhere to a dictionary definition. it appears as though you are just disagreeing because you find it unpalatable to agree with people you disagree with on so many other issues--so you're grasping at straws to explain and parse out words into oblivion.

to put it simply, if the president was admitting that mistakes had been made, and that he was at least partially to blame, this issue wouldn't even be a news story. you are even saying, oddly thinking it's a defense of his statements, that mistakes were made. but he doesn't admit they were made by anyone other than everyone else. talking about the situation was the "blame game" and he just decided to tell the nation, hey, I didn't even realize this was going to happen and neither did anyone else. which is now clearly and documented bs.

edit: well shit, see yah in a couple days, man

03-01-2006, 08:29 PM	#18 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ok, matthew, I don't agree with a lot of what you're saying. For one thing, the article clearly delineates the fact that numerous officials, not weathermen, were speaking with the president and warning him of what they thought was most likely to occur. in one portion of the article originally posted, the point is made that bush himself becomes concerned. so those facts alone simply don't square with your contention that it was just the media following the big story... but, for the sake of this next point, I'll just concede what you're saying. give you the best case scenario. that everything you are claiming is true... even still, bush consistently made the claim that, while mistakes may have been made, they weren't made by him because he didn't have prior knowledge of the extent of what was going to happen. no one had a clue, was his claim. that doesn't square with these new facts, facts that are documented on tape and transcripts and presumably he didn't think the public would access. because there is only one reason to say you didn't know that something could happen when your advisors and experts are warning that it very well might--to avoid personal responsibility. in a courtroom, these kinds of statements would be used as evidence of a guilt. the only way around that is to say that someone saying something could happen is not the same as anticipating that it might. you didnt explain the difference between those two claims, and to everyone else in here there is none. not because we are liberally biased and hate the president, but because anticipating something and warning others about it is as close as you can come to thinking something could happen without watching it actually go down. I don't get why so many of us have to go through these language tests on this board, it's really frustrating to have to actually argue that someone else understand/adhere to a dictionary definition. it appears as though you are just disagreeing because you find it unpalatable to agree with people you disagree with on so many other issues--so you're grasping at straws to explain and parse out words into oblivion. to put it simply, if the president was admitting that mistakes had been made, and that he was at least partially to blame, this issue wouldn't even be a news story. you are even saying, oddly thinking it's a defense of his statements, that mistakes were made. but he doesn't admit they were made by anyone other than everyone else. talking about the situation was the "blame game" and he just decided to tell the nation, hey, I didn't even realize this was going to happen and neither did anyone else. which is now clearly and documented bs. edit: well shit, see yah in a couple days, man __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 03-01-2006 at 08:32 PM..