aghast, thank you for the effort that you put into your post. Sadly, it really covers no new ground in this debate, and actually *buttresses* the argument that I've been advancing here. Clearly, the commission, especially the extreme liberal faction of the commission, are intent on *embarrassing* people. They are intent on using *hindsight* to blow vague, non-actionable warnings out of proportion. They are intent on getting their face on the evening news. They are intent on making negativity and blame the highest priority. Why can these people not accept that hindsight taints this picture? Why can these people not accept that American leaders are working their tails off to secure our nation? Why do these people *assume the worst* at each turn? At least you admit that Ben-Veniste and Kerrey were grandstanding. You are moving in the right direction there. Unfortunately, you veered off course with your slanted and inaccurate vacation estimates. Sadly, the rest of your argument is just old, tired, rehashed garbage that has failed to stand up to our critical eyes. The amount of work which you put into that post is remarkable. It makes me think that you feel the need to redeem yourself for past failures here. You have lost a battle, and you are determined to not lose again. With this latest FLOP, I'm prepared for your next response to rival Websters *unabridged* version in length. GOOD DAY
Given this, I suspect that Trader_Jorge never even read my post to begin with. An echo chamber proves untenable when you have to formulate your own voice. Boredom, 80 wpm, half an hour and CTRL - C / CTRL - V can produce wonders. I can cut and paste too, Trader_Jorge. Apparently I just have a lot better sources. I have thirty posts. I'm not exactly sure I've ever been in a "battle." What's war really like, Jorge?
You're right. It's actually over 40%. Washington Post, 4.9.2004 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62524-2004Apr8.html) You are wrong in the only (quasi-)factual counter-argument you offered. Again, to borrow from your readily imitable style, you have been proven: COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED
They haven't even mentioned the memos from foreign countries received during the summer of 2001 warning of the attack. Someone did a good job of squelching all that. I probably mentioned it already. I know TJ isn't to be taken seriously. He makes Sean Hannity look like Ted Kennedy.
aghast, it seems as though you really don't understand the issue. Here is some help for you: While the president of the United States is never completely on vacation, most commanders-in-chief manage to enjoy a respite from the daily grind during their stay the White House. George W. Bush seems to have taken this to the extreme early in his tenure as president. A humorous, fake resume for Bush suggests that he set the record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history -- a bit of an exaggeration, but still cause for some teasing. According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation." and White House officials point out that the president is never off the clock. They refer to the 30 days at his Texas ranch — now it's called the Western White House — as a working vacation. He'll receive daily national security updates and handle the duties of the Oval Office from his 1,583-acre spread near Crawford. DEBUNKED
I won't apologize to you because I believe every insult that I hurled. If you actually believe the garbage that you spew then you are an idiot of the highest degree, a troll who knows no boundary or limit, and/or the moron of the century. I did apologize to the poster I insulted who deserved an apology. If anyone else here thinks I have insulted them wrongly, let me know via post or email and I will make sure you get the apology you deserve.
Does this make anyone else’s skin crawl? Every time I hear it all I can think about is the flat, wasteland of central Texas. We used to call that area "radio hell” because driving through it, you couldn’t find a radio station for a 100 radius. Doesn't the press have another nickname for it?
I am just tired of pu$$yfooting around and not calling them like I see them with this troll. He is worse than mindless, he has leased out his brain. Cheap.
You're wrong here basso... it's the right that equates meetings with action... in Bush's PC he said repeatedly he met with Tenet regularly yet by his own rambling evasive answer he admits he did nothing as a result of those meetings... Here's Condi... "At the beginning of the administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of central intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office -- meetings which I attended, along with the vice president and the chief of staff. At these meetings, the president received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. ... I am quite certain -- given that the director of the CIA met frequently face to face with the president of the United States -- that he would have made that available to the president or to me. ... First of all, it was coming from the top because the president was meeting with his director of central intelligence. And one of the changes that this president made was to meet face to face with his director of central intelligence almost every day. ... Well, the president was meeting with his director of central intelligence" Here's Bush... "And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that's where I got my information. I changed the way that the relationship between the president and the CIA director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary. Now, in the -- what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America. But, frankly, I didn't think there was anything new. I mean, major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And that was good news, that they were doing their job. The way my administration worked, Ed, was that I met with Tenet all the time. I obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We have a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it." So, Bush was "dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me. " But nothing happened after the meetings. Meeting and learning about a problem does nothing to solve the problem... or respond to a threat. Bush was satisfied the FBI was taking care of it? Disgusting. Clinton may have only met with Tenet a few times, but he was getting daily briefings. My guess is that he was engaged and asking questions and certainly doing something other then being a passive vessel for a briefer. This also illustrates a big difference between Bush and Clinton... Bush has this imperial thing going where he only wants to be talked to be Senior staff... Clinton didn't care who he was briefed y as long as the information was good. The difference to me is clear... Clinton is assured of his intellectual prowress and confident enough to let anybody in the room while Bush doesn't want anyone except his principles to know he's an idiot. Will's piece ties into this nicely. Your post is way off... the Left doesn't equate meetings with fighting terror... it's what happens after the meetings that counts... Clinton probably didn't do enough but Bush did absolutely nothing.
Great that you would use a statistic from August 2003 when I provide a current link from the past week. You don't doubt the vailidity of the source, obviously, as you use the same paper, just a slightly yellowed version. Let's see, Let's do the math: Inaugurated Jan. 20, 2001. 365 Jan 20, 2002 365 Jan 20, 2003 365 Jan 20, 2004 80 Apr 9, 2004 (date of the article) ========== 1175 500 days vacation & vacation transit / 1175 total days in office = 0.42553191489361702127659574468085... Let's be generous and round that up to 43% of his presidency spent on vacation. Course, that article is almost a week old. And he's on vacation right freakin' now, so it looks like I'm going to have to redo my math. Carry the 2... "Working vacation?" How much work do you do when you're on vacation? More from the venerable Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2676-2004Apr10.html): Let's see: most or all of his principals are in Washington. This date in question, at least, not even Rice is with him. Tenet is either in Washington or on vacation himself, so he's not getting "almost-daily updates" from his CIA chief. He's thus out of the loop on full intelligence and national security updates. In a Fox News interview, Bush admitted to never reading the newspaper or watching televised news coverage. He insisted that he relied upon his advisors for information. This is a frightening proposition already, but even moreso when those advisors are in Washington, 1500 miles away. How much work is he getting done when he's out on the links, jogging, going hunting, or (now) giving wildlife tours to fishing tv shows. Sure. Completely focused on the tasks at hand. (I've glanced at this site for a while. I realize that you never debate on substance. Behind the curtain, you must be a knowing dadaist promulgating this farce, get some kind of jollies from this conservative caricature. What I don't get is why you've stayed in character for so long. There must be diminishing returns in yuk-yuks, always pretending to be an administration dittohead. And if this is your idea of entertainment, it astounds me that you have to troll through so many National Review / Moonie Times / Wall Street Journal (a pay site) op-eds each day just to be able to cut and paste. Even Andy Kaufman eventually came out of character. Unless you're more than one character: if you also post as MacBeth or Fisher or one of the Rims, the complete opposite of "Trader_Jorge," I partially withdraw this statement, and go back to scratching my head.)
