shakran

Boy. . This sounds a lot like the famous statement "it depends on what your definition of "is" is." I railed on Clinton for saying that then, and I'll rail on you for saying this now.


Anticipation does not require that the anticipated event actually come true. I can anticipate that it will be cloudy tomorrow. This does not make me a liar if the sun comes out.

Suggesting Bush lied about this is not suggesting that he and those who warned him knew that what actually happened was going to happen and they purposely did nothing. It is suggesting that he and those who warned him knew that what actually happened was likely, and in fact the closer the storm got had a very high probability, of happening, and they purposefully did nothing to prepare for that eventuality.


Destruction was anticipated. Trying to wiggle out of that by redefining anticipation is beneath you.

But even if you were correct about that, if you know that the hurricane COULD devastate the Gulf, wouldn't it be kinda prudent to have resources in place to deal with the problem if it DOES happen? If I think leaving a lit candle in my kid's room could result in him knocking it over and setting the drapes on fire (even though this event might NOT happen) would it not be wise for me to remove the candle or, at the very least blow it out?


I have never had my left ear burned off by a blowtorch, but I can still anticipate that if I hold a blowtorch up to my left ear, it will burn off. The neat thing about human beings is that we've got these big brains that allow us to draw logical conclusions about likely events. We don't have to actually experience something in order to make deductions about its consequences. You post here, and therefore you presumably have not been run over by a Mack truck while lying in the street. But that does not mean that you do not understand that lying in the street in front of a speeding Mack truck would be a bad idea. You predict. . .anticipate. . the consequences of lying in front of a speeding Mack truck and, discerning that those consequences would be bad for you, you avoid doing it.


You're attempting to redefine the term "anticipate," yet you accuse others of playing semantics?

No one has said Bush is satan personified. They have said Bush was less than honest about his understanding of the hurricane before it hit. He has said many times that he had no idea it could be that bad, and that's why the resources werent' in place to help out afterwards. This video shows that those statements are not accurate.



And even if we accept your argument that Bush did not lie because of your semantical redefinition of the word "anticipate," don't you think Bush is being less than forthcoming by not then admitting "of course, while I didn't anticipate it I was told many times that it COULD happen and I flat out ignored it."