White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

[Guest Jules]

To be clear, I only voted for Bush because he lets me keep more of my money. I think that's pretty cool.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Also, back to the subject of this thread, am I wrong for finding it quite absurd that such an important document or communication was handled by e-mail, I mean call me old fashioned but what happened to actual printed reports and delivery by hand and such things.

 

PDF and e-mail through secure channels is the process for most inter-governmental communication.

[Good Old Neon]

Also, back to the subject of this thread, am I wrong for finding it quite absurd that such an important document or communication was handled by e-mail, I mean call me old fashioned but what happened to actual printed reports and delivery by hand and such things.

 

I think the absurd part of this story is that they refused to even open or consider the information contained within the email, not how it was delivered.

 

If they were not willing to click on an email, what makes you think they

[caliber66]

I would, honestly, sincerely like to understand how a reasonable person who voted for Bush deals personally with his presidency and our current state. Obviously the first goal is avoidance, followed by pushing blame elsewhere.

Are those truly the only ways of dealing personally with such a decision? How about honestly believing that things would have gone worse with the other guy(s)?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

To be clear, I only voted for Bush because he lets me keep more of my money. I think that's pretty cool.

Thanks for your response. Not that I'm asking for specific #, but did you work out how much more you've actually kept under him?

 

And do you discount that other policies have ended up taking some of that money back?

 

I know it's a common complaint on the left to say the tax cuts only help the upper 10 percent of the country, I'm curious to hear examples of how it has trickled down.

 

Unless, in fact, you are in the top 10 percent, in which case I take back everything I said.

 

Are those truly the only ways of dealing personally with such a decision? How about honestly believing that things would have gone worse with the other guy(s)?

I tossed out examples. But with hindsight being 20/20 do you not assess the results of your decision vs. the alternative?

 

If they were not willing to click on an email, what makes you think they

[JUDE]

Confessions of a Bush Voter:

 

I could give a rat

[caliber66]

I tossed out examples. But with hindsight being 20/20 do you not assess the results of your decision vs. the alternative?

Ah, but in this case, it is misleading to suggest that hindsight is 20/20. You know how things turned out with Bush. You have no idea how things would have turned out with Kerry or Gore.

[explodo]

Also, back to the subject of this thread, am I wrong for finding it quite absurd that such an important document or communication was handled by e-mail, I mean call me old fashioned but what happened to actual printed reports and delivery by hand and such things.

The EPA is going green the same way my credit card company went green,apparently.

[JUDE]

The EPA is going green the same way my credit card company went green,apparently.

Do they charge an extra 25 bucks for this convenience like my mortgage company does?

[explodo]

Do they charge an extra 25 bucks for this convenience like my mortgage company does?

Maybe that is why the White House wouldn't open the email.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Ah, but in this case, it is misleading to suggest that hindsight is 20/20. You know how things turned out with Bush. You have no idea how things would have turned out with Kerry or Gore.

Maybe not as much with Gore as with Kerry. The No. 1 issue -- according to voters -- is Iraq. Kerry offered one alternative, the pitfalls of current policy and what would happen; Bush offered stay the course. We've since grown the deficit paying for the war (rather than those social programs that most would agree we need), pretty much everything Kerry warned about has come to pass and we're in a quagmire.

 

Much of what Kerry argued about in dealing with Iran and the Middle East was not tried, but is still argued by neutral think tanks (alright, like a think tank can really be neutral) is the best approach rather than covert and clandestine.

 

Gutting FEMA, which was beefed up under Clinton (yeah, I know, big government), would have made a difference. Not having thousands of national guardsmen over in Iraq rather than in the U.S. Gulf would have made a difference.

 

Another four years of eroding environmental policies (the original reason for this thread) would be a significant step back. You can call Gore hypocritical but either Democratic administration would have worked towards righting what the world has finally woken up to.

 

But, ultimately, to use a Clintonesque phrase, it's the war. Have we helped Iraq? No. Have we helped the MIdeast? No. Have we caught bin Laden? No. Are we safer after 9/11 -- despite the big-government billions spent on foolish reorganization of government and spending on fool-hardy inspection plans (the Democrats in the latter, are to blame for most recent wastes)? No.

 

You're right I don't know. But I do hold my elected officials accountable. I'm just wondering how this all weighs in for someone who voted for Bush.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Confessions of a Bush Voter:

 

I could give a rat

[caliber66]

Maybe not as much with Gore as with Kerry. The No. 1 issue -- according to voters -- is Iraq. Kerry offered one alternative, the pitfalls of current policy and what would happen; Bush offered stay the course. We've since grown the deficit paying for the war (rather than those social programs that most would agree we need), pretty much everything Kerry warned about has come to pass and we're in a quagmire.

 

Much of what Kerry argued about in dealing with Iran and the Middle East was not tried, but is still argued by neutral think tanks (alright, like a think tank can really be neutral) is the best approach rather than covert and clandestine.

And yet, you still don't know what would have happened had Kerry been able to implement his plan, or even if he would have been able to do so at all. It is entirely conjecture.

 

You're right I don't know. But I do hold my elected officials accountable. I'm just wondering how this all weighs in for someone who voted for Bush.

That is a significant difference in tone from "how can you look yourself in the mirror." I did not vote for Bush in either election but had I done so, and come to my decision honestly, I would have a clear conscience today.

[JUDE]

Did you find particulars from Bush specifically, as a candidate (and Not McCain, for example) or were your views more specific Republican platforms for voting for Bush? (I realize ultimately, on either party, you're forced into an either/or proposition).

 

Since the President doesn

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

And yet, you still don't know what would have happened had Kerry been able to implement his plan, or even if he would have been able to do so at all. It is entirely conjecture.

 

I don't believe so (yes obviously my opinion) but I think in the case of the war in Iraq, such conjecture is not going out on a limb. Given the basic tenets of the two parties, you can reasonably infer the direction Gore would have taken in regards to going to war with Iraq, and there is more than enough evidence to show that Bush and Co. sought out that war (at the cost of, arguably, losing track of bin Laden), regardless of the facts that the administration was presented with.

 

That is a major difference, and a number of policy and political decisions (and consequences) result from that fork in our government's road. The UN presentation wouldn't have taken place -- or it would have with different evidence. Would we have rushed to war? Would Obama have his primary campaign point in his favor if no vote would have taken place? Would Gore have given the UN inspectors more time in Iraq to find out what we know now? Didn't much of these truths shake loose before 2004. Wasn't there a conscious choice based on what was before everyone, whether they chose to accept it or not?

 

That is a significant difference in tone from "how can you look yourself in the mirror." I did not vote for Bush in either election but had I done so, and come to my decision honestly, I would have a clear conscience today.

Again, you are right, guilty of tone. But I try to consider myself in that place. That I had voted for someone who made decisions which will affect the world for decades, and the facts present themselves as they have. And presented with the facts, I voted for him again.

 

It is a stark question for a stark debate. I apologize for the holier-than-thou tone.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Since the President doesn

[bobbob1313]

Well, for what it's worth, given our country's history, if Gore wins in 00, he probably wins again in 04, and so we'd almost certainly be looking at a republican president now. That's how it works.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Well, for what it's worth, given our country's history, if Gore wins in 00, he probably wins again in 04, and so we'd almost certainly be looking at a republican president now. That's how it works.

Ah, but, according to Gore, weather on inauguration day would be 2 degrees cooler!

[mountain bed]

I picked Bush based on the fact I felt he would be more apt to veto legislation that would result in an increase in the size and scope of government. I was let down in this regard.

Yes, yes you most definitely were let down.

[bobbob1313]

Weren't people implying earlier on in this thread that Bush was responsible for 9/11? Like, the reichstag comments, and all that? So if Gore won, that wouldn't have happened either. Man, what an asshole.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Weren't people implying earlier on in this thread that Bush was responsible for 9/11? Like, the reichstag comments, and all that? So if Gore won, that wouldn't have happened either. Man, what an asshole.

I did not see anyone imply in any way that Bush was responsible for 9/11. That would be assinine.

 

Those who target the report sent to Bush earlier in 2001 warning about airplane attacks on U.S. building and landmarks, while interesting, is still hindsight, given the great deal of intelligence the administration has to sift through.

[caliber66]

I don't believe so (yes obviously my opinion) but I think in the case of the war in Iraq, such conjecture is not going out on a limb. Given the basic tenets of the two parties, you can reasonably infer the direction Gore would have taken in regards to going to war with Iraq, and there is more than enough evidence to show that Bush and Co. sought out that war (at the cost of, arguably, losing track of bin Laden), regardless of the facts that the administration was presented with.

So is it conjecture or not?

 

You can obviously form you own opinion of what outcomes different policy decisions might have brought about, but there is no way of knowing what would have happened, or even if "your" candidate would have acted as you would have expected him to.

[bobbob1313]

Well, given what calling 9/11 our "reichstag" implies, I think it's not a leap to assume that people were trying to imply that.

[Analogman]

Gore did win in 2000 -

[JUDE]

Weren't people implying earlier on in this thread that Bush was responsible for 9/11? Like, the reichstag comments, and all that? So if Gore won, that wouldn't have happened either. Man, what an asshole.

 

Careful, someone might come down there and kick your dorm room/off campus housing unit into a crick.