www.webdeveloper.com
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 149

Thread: Why hasn't Bin Larden been found despite spy satellites covering his area?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Coast, Australia
    Posts
    271

    Exclamation Why hasn't Bin Larden been found despite spy satellites covering his area?

    Hi all,

    Quote from website http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...atellite_x.htm

    Limits on commercial spy satellites to ease
    By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
    WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is significantly loosening controls on commercial spy satellites, allowing them to capture images with high enough resolution to show people on the ground and using them as a much greater resource for national security organizations.

    The Bush administration is easing on limits of spy satellites, similar to the Japanese one being carried by this rocket.

    The administration also plans to allow exports of spy satellite systems, including radar mapping and other types of sensors.

    The policy, to be announced Wednesday, was authorized by President Bush on April 25 and described at a briefing Monday by a senior administration official.

    The administration's motive is two-fold: To get the images cheaper for the Defense Department, CIA and other agencies than the government can produce them itself. The national security agencies will then concentrate on space activities that can't be met by private companies for economic or national security reasons.

    Secondly, the move will bolster U.S. dominance over other nations in the increasingly competitive field of spy satellite technology.

    In 1994, President Clinton signed a directive allowing U.S. companies to sell commercial images taken from space on a restricted basis. Clinton's policies limited these businesses to images of about 20-inch resolution, too big to show a person, and severely limited exports of satellite technology by U.S. companies. The new policy will allow these exports, subject to approval by Defense and foreign policy officials.

    Critics have been concerned that this technology could fall into the wrong hands, such as terrorists targeting dams or power plants or unfriendly nations looking for weak points in U.S. security. But during the Iraq war, the spy satellite companies acted as "good citizens," the senior administration official said. The official said those businesses restricted sales that might have threatened national security and provided timely images to defense agencies.

    During operations last year in Afghanistan, the U.S. government purchased all satellite time from Space Imaging of Thornton, Colo., which then was the only operating private company. Now, three U.S. and one Israeli companies operate private spy satellites, and the private sector of several other nations plan to enter the arena.

    "This policy really confirms the government is behind the industry," said Mark Brender of Space Imaging.

    In November, his company asked the government for permission to launch a private spy satellite with 10-inch resolution of the ground, which will now be approved. Currently, the company's IKONOS satellite takes pictures with a 39-inch resolution. A competitor, DigitalGlobe of Longmont, Colo., takes images with a 24-inch resolution. "Higher resolution images provide more information and more detail needed for military mapping, state and local government zoning and homeland security disaster preparedness," Brender said.

    The senior administration official stressed that remote sensing images will still be subject to "shutter control" by the government if it appears to damage U.S. security. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency, jointly run by the CIA and Defense Department, will enforce the policy. NIMA officials would not comment on it.
    First Question: Why Has'nt Bin Larden been caught/found yet dispite spy satellites covering his area?

    Some in these forums say the Weapons of Mass Desruction (WMD) in possession of Suddem Hussain was moved around, and that the Weapons inspectors have not been able to prove anything. this is simply not true.

    quote from website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=382&sID=6

    Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we been - seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

    ...

    At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, rebaselining activities were performed. These included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site's personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.
    Second Question: If Suddem Hussain moved the WMD around to avoid being caught, Why are the Bush Administration not supplying proof in the form of Satellite images of his weapons being moved?


    Edit: Quote deleted, link dead.


    Question four: Why was there a war with Iraq without proof that WMD existed?

    By the way UN weapons Inspectors never found any WMD that were not destroyed anywhere in Iraq until a year later, which is a very questionable event, because what they found was a bombshell on the side of the road where anyone driving past would have seen it. Obviously they would have found the bomb in many different ways 1) by Spy Satellite 2) US Army Patrols doing inspections on suspicious people while in their possession(if it was left there after the war) 3) US Army Patrols finding the bomb when driving by 4)Someone reporting in the bomb. 5) some other means I have not yet thought of.

    Quote by website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=382&sID=6

    Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for.

    I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

    ...

    It is our intention to examine the possibilities for surveying ground movements, notably trucks. In the face of persistent intelligence reports - for instance, about mobile biological-weapons production units - such measures could well increase the effectiveness of inspections.

    ...

    We have, to date, found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.
    This would be the only factor that Bush went to war on. some things was unaccounted for, but not found. Of course if it was used up in the gulf war, the weapons inspectors would not have found any thing left, and this would not be proof enough to justify war.
    quote from website http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct7.html

    The report released Wednesday by U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer confirmed that the Iraqi leader had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in the 1990s and had effectively ended his elementary efforts to pursue nuclear weapons.

    ...
    He recalled that Russian gyroscopes were smuggled into the country and his U.N. inspectors got divers to go into the Tigris River to find them where the Iraqis had attempted to hide them.

    ...
    Duelfer said he believed when Hussein began discussions with the United Nations in late 2000 about readmitting inspectors, "to me that was a very key indicator that there probably wasn't large stocks there to be found." When the U.S. troop buildup began in the Gulf, it became "clear that Saddam chose not to have weapons at a point in time before the war," he added.
    Question five: Why did it take so long (a year) to find a bomb that was so convenient to find when such effective means of disabling Suddam was in place could find things they had hidden in much harder places much easier when it was known there were none?

    Now some may say that Suddem Hussein had prevented weapons inspectors from coming in to check his weapons stock pile. After reading all this,
    Question six: If he had proven that he was no threat, why would he have to worry about the Weapon Inspectors?
    Quote from website http://www.vermelho.org.br/english/text/struggler.asp

    Another pretext of the United States that must be demystified is that Iraq expelled the UN inspectors in 1998 and did not allow them to return. It was the United States that told the inspectors to leave so that they could start the bombing campaign that was called Operation Desert Fox, when 1,100 bombs and Cruise missiles were thrown at Iraq. After the operation, an article by the Washington Post shown that the Defense Intelligence Agency obtained the information gathered in the inspection and handed it to the Pentagon that used them to direct the bombardments. It is obvious that in such conditions the Iraqi government could not allow the return of the inspectors.
    Having said all this,
    Question seven: If Bin Larden and Suddem Hussain's weapons of mass desruction has not been found using satellite technolergy, are they really beening used for the purpose Bush and gang say they are for?
    Don't forget, You Americans are paying for this in your taxes, Isn't it time you start questioning their motives for spending your money on something like this with no apparent results?
    Edit: links was dead, replaced with new links.
    Last edited by smercer; 02-18-2005 at 05:16 AM.
    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040713-12.html
    George W Bush said on 13 July 2004:
    although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
    George Bush is officially a professional liar, and even professional liars make mistakes in telling lies.
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    160
    OH MY GOD HERE WE GO AGAIN

    Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

    A. Cause he is one sneaky bastard with a long list of loyal followers who would never give him up..... money isn't the issue with fanatics, you can't buy them, so forget about the reward, it won't work.... That coupled with the fact that America loves to tru and swat flies with a sledge hammer (it may work if the flies are en-masse but the individual will slip through)... Lets face it AMERICA can't track down it's OWN top 10 MOST wanted (makes you wonder just how wanted they are) Let alone some crazy bastard (who looks like every other crazy bastard) a few thousand miles away....


    Q If Suddem Hussain moved the WMD around to avoid being caught, Why are the Bush Administration not supplying proof in the form of Satellite images of his weapons being moved?

    A. There are not any WMD, Bush jnr. wanted to win where his Bush snr. got his arse Kicked.... PRIDE...... Oh yeah did I mention Saddam hated the states and was being mean when it came to HIS oil.. therefor any excuse to invade will do (got to get that OIL)


    Q. Why was there a war with Iraq without proof that WMD existed?

    A. OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL,


    Q. Why did it take so long (a year) to find a bomb that was so convenient to find when such effective means of disabling Suddam was in place could find things they had hidden in much harder places much easier when it was known there were none?

    A. It was the Americans who were doing the looking..... lmao


    Q. If he had proven that he was no threat, why would he have to worry about the Weapon Inspectors?

    A. He wasn't worried, that doesn't mean however He wanted other people sniffing around in his back yard... He was arrogant enough to tell them to F**K OFF... sadly America Didn't..... Now its Vietnam in the desert.....


    Q.If Bin Larden and Suddem Hussain's weapons of mass desruction has not been found using satellite technolergy, are they really beening used for the purpose Bush and gang say they are for?

    A. They are there to spy on us.... everyone..... cause America need an excuse (no matter how cheap) to be the SCHOOL YARD BULLY.... The technology will never be used for niceness..... only Evil....

    I'm Glad I'm Not American
    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gütersloh / Europe
    Posts
    175
    watch fahrenheit 911 to get answers to most of those questions
    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Coast, Australia
    Posts
    271
    I am not asking the questions because I don't know them, I am asking them to shed light on the situation.

    By the way Jeff, you get a medal for answering correctly
    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040713-12.html
    George W Bush said on 13 July 2004:
    although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
    George Bush is officially a professional liar, and even professional liars make mistakes in telling lies.
    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    160
    Originally posted by smercer
    I am not asking the questions because I don't know them, I am asking them to shed light on the situation.

    By the way Jeff, you get a medal for answering correctly
    Sorry I didn't know it was rhetorical

    Thanks for giving me an A... Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...
    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Coast, Australia
    Posts
    271
    Originally posted by jeff_archer7
    Sorry I didn't know it was rhetorical

    Thanks for giving me an A... Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...
    But you only know about it becaue you have an open mind. It was not very long ago that you only just found out. Scary when you do find out, it's like the foundations you built your morals and beliefs all your life on comes out from under you.

    The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other.
    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040713-12.html
    George W Bush said on 13 July 2004:
    although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
    George Bush is officially a professional liar, and even professional liars make mistakes in telling lies.
    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    339
    Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

    A. Coz he shaved, got a baseball cap on backwards and went cruisin' with his homies in hummers wearing phat gold chains and AK-47's. Oh, that, and the fact he went undercover in LA.

    Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Elvis?
    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    18
    Originally posted by Fantatier
    watch fahrenheit 911 to get answers to most of those questions
    That movie is filled with so many deceits, starting from the top and Michael Moron, er, Moore. FahrenHype 9/11 goes over the facts in a more documentary-like production.

    I was and still am completely against the war and find the actions by the current administration suspect to say the least. However, I consider myself an Independent, and did not vote in the election because I felt we were doomed either way.

    Jeff, the war was not because of oil. If we wanted oil, we would not be instituting a democracy there. The war was a result of Bush feeling a threat to a much needed democracy movement. In addition, Bush indeed wanted revenge on the man who nearly killed his daddy [cnn].

    I'd also like to make the point: (1) Is it better now that bin Laden is on the defensive, or was it better when he could attack the country? and (2) Is the world safer with Hussein out of power? A simple yes or no will answer fine.

    Mike

    EDIT: I should also point out several WMD were found in Iraq. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" were found. [fox].
    EDIT: My taxes?! My taxes are finally coming back to me. This is the first time since Reagen that I've gotten/noticed tax relief.
    EDIT: Where's question 3?
    Last edited by thuko135; 02-11-2005 at 08:55 PM.
    Share on Google+

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    18
    Getting sick of edits, so
    Originally posted by smercer
    The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other.
    You really haven't a clue what you are talking about, do you. Try and prove that with a credible source, because I don't buy it
    Originally posted by jeff_archer7
    Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...
    Seems as if you think wrong . Your answers have proved nothing to show you know anything about the US.
    Share on Google+

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles California
    Posts
    1,045
    Originally posted by philaweb
    Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

    A. Coz he shaved, got a baseball cap on backwards and went cruisin' with his homies in hummers wearing phat gold chains and AK-47's. Oh, that, and the fact he went undercover in LA.

    rofl i saw him , but i thought it was Snopp Dogg when i frist glanced
    Share on Google+

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Coast, Australia
    Posts
    271
    Originally posted by thuko135
    That movie is filled with so many deceits, starting from the top and Michael Moron, er, Moore.
    That sounds one sided to me, and that web site you gave does not give any points exactly, for instance it would call a statement made by Michael Moore a lie but would not say why it is a lie.

    Originally posted by thuko135

    I was and still am completely against the war and find the actions by the current administration suspect to say the least. However, I consider myself an Independent, and did not vote in the election because I felt we were doomed either way.
    the current administration is far from being good, and Bush should therefore be impeached for 1) his lies and deceits 2) war when Suddem was cooperating.

    Originally posted by thuko135

    Jeff, the war was not because of oil. If we wanted oil, we would not be instituting a democracy there. The war was a result of Bush feeling a threat to a much needed democracy movement. In addition, Bush indeed wanted revenge on the man who nearly killed his daddy [cnn].
    You do not send in your countries army for personal reasons.
    The war was all about OIL. The country is now run by a government that is put there by the Bush Admin, and now is controlled much like the queen of England rules over Australia (She has a representive we call the Governor-General) but democracy is only what they call it. Because the people there have to go and write on a piece of paper and put in a box, Does not mean that the people behind the scenes are not going to instate who the people want. Do you get to see what lies beyond the smokescreen, the ballot boxes and ballot paper? You only believe that a bunch of votes is going to allow the people of Iraq to choose their leader (you can choose between black or black, Now who do you want to vote for?). The election is rigged to make it look like a democracy, and think about that next time you go to vote.

    Originally posted by thuko135

    I'd also like to make the point: (1) Is it better now that bin Laden is on the defensive, or was it better when he could attack the country?
    More to that point: The Americans bombed and killed many Afghanis, for the sake of bringing to justice someone who the Bush and gang refused to supply proof before going to war. Now think about this: How many more terrorists (who would not have been considered terrorist before the war, because of revenge) do you think the US Gov will now be defending their borders from?

    Having said that, I'll let you answer your own question based on what I have said.

    Originally posted by thuko135

    and (2) Is the world safer with Hussein out of power? A simple yes or no will answer fine.
    No.
    Originally posted by thuko135

    EDIT: I should also point out several WMD were found in Iraq. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" were found. [fox].
    I think you need to re-read my sources
    Quote by website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=382&sID=6
    edit: link was dead, Replaced with another site.

    How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.
    Now, who are you willing to believe; a neutral who only wants to stop weapons of mass destruction from being used who was hired by the UN, who was in Iraq and physically saw Suddem was not danger to the rest of the world,

    or are you willing to believe someone who is trying to make a buck from a sensational story in the news while sitting behind his desk and getting his info second hand from the head of the Iraq Survey Group while not even checking if his statement is true?

    Originally posted by thuko135

    EDIT2: My taxes?! My taxes are finally coming back to me. This is the first time since Raegen that I've gotten tax relief.
    so for every dollar that goes to tax, you get five cents back?</sarcasm>

    That does not say that your money is being spent rightfully by the people who are supposed to represent the people of USA.
    Originally posted by thuko135

    EDIT3: Where's question 3?
    Got lost between Question two and Question four. lol
    Last edited by smercer; 02-18-2005 at 05:06 AM.
    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040713-12.html
    George W Bush said on 13 July 2004:
    although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
    George Bush is officially a professional liar, and even professional liars make mistakes in telling lies.
    Share on Google+

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Coast, Australia
    Posts
    271
    Originally posted by thuko135
    You really haven't a clue what you are talking about, do you. Try and prove that with a credible source, because I don't buy it
    Quote by website http://www.bernie.house.gov/document...0612104617.asp

    Corporations Have Chokehold on U.S. Media
    by Rep. Bernie Sanders

    One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions.

    Television is the means by which most Americans get their “news.” Without exception, every major network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest. Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing Australian who already owns a significant portion of the world’s media. His network has close ties to the Republican Party, and among his “fair and balanced” commentators is Newt Gingrich.

    NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world — and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party, has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other industries. Former CEO Jack Welch was one of the leaders in shutting down American plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and Mexico.

    ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions.

    CBS is owned by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VH1, TNN, CMT, 39 broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.

    The essential problem with television is not just a right-wing bias in news and programming, or the transformation of politics and government into entertainment and sensationalism. Nor is it just the constant bombardment of advertising, much of it directed at children. It’s that the most important issues facing the middle-class and working people of our country are rarely discussed. The average American does not see his or her reality reflected on the television screen.

    The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not have a national healthcare program. Yet, despite 41 million people with no health insurance and millions more underinsured, we spend far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation. Maybe the reason is that we are seeing no good programs on television, in between the prescription drug advertisements, discussing how we can provide quality healthcare for all at far lower per capita costs than we presently spend?

    Despite the great “economic boom” of the 1990s, the average American worker is now working longer hours for lower wages than 30 years ago, and we have lost millions of decent-paying manufacturing jobs. Where are the TV programs addressing our $360 billion trade deficit, or what our disastrous trade policy has done to depress wages in this country? And while we’re on economics, workers who are in unions earn 30 percent more than non-union people doing the same work. There are a lot of programs on television about how to get rich by investing in the stock market. But have you seen any “specials” on how to go about forming a union?

    The United States has the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, and the highest rate of childhood poverty. There’s a lot of television promoting greed and self-interest, but how many programs speak to the “justice” of the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 95 percent? Or of the CEOs of major corporations earning 500 times what their employees make?

    If television largely ignores the reality of life for the majority of Americans, corporate radio is just plain overt in its right-wing bias. In a nation that cast a few million more votes for Al Gore and Ralph Nader than for George Bush and Pat Buchanan, there are dozens of right-wing talk show programs. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Howie Carr, Oliver North, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger — these are only a few of the voices that day after day pound a right-wing drumbeat into the heartland of this country.

    And from a left perspective there is — well, no one. The Republican Party, corporate owners and advertisers have their point of view well represented on radio. Unfortunately, the rest of America has almost nothing

    As bad as the current media situation is, it is likely to be made much worse by a recent decision in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that responded to a suit by Fox, AOL Time Warner, NBC and Viacom. That decision struck down a federal regulation limiting companies from owning television stations and cable franchises in the same local markets. The court also ordered that the Federal Communications Commission either justify or rewrite the federal rule that limits any one company from owning television stations that reach more than 35 percent of American households.

    The bottom line is that fewer and fewer huge conglomerates are controlling virtually everything that the ordinary American sees, hears and reads. This is an issue that Congress can no longer ignore.
    Notice the .gov? it means it is from a credible source.

    Originally posted by thuko135

    Seems as if you think wrong . Your answers have proved nothing to show you know anything about the US.
    Well he does have a point, in a way. which comes back to
    The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other.
    Last edited by smercer; 02-18-2005 at 05:09 AM.
    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040713-12.html
    George W Bush said on 13 July 2004:
    although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
    George Bush is officially a professional liar, and even professional liars make mistakes in telling lies.
    Share on Google+

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    18
    smercer, the Bush Admin need not be impeached. In the past election, he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in any previous election, and won with a majority vote, which Clinton never did. I don't like the actions they've taken, but I don't nearly think they deserve impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and deserved it. Bush never will be, not with a Republican dominance in the house and majority in the Senate (55-44-1 I believe).

    The web site regarding the Michael Moron film that I linked to has numeorus credible points, spending paragraphs about each deceit. For example, the Bush vacation section:
    Fahrenheit 9/11 Deceits
    Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

    Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

    Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.



    Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas. Reader Scott Marquardt looked into a random week of Bush's August 2001 "vacation." Using public documents from www.whitehouse.gov, here is what he found:

    Monday, August 20
    Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in Independence, Missouri.
    Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    Signed six bills into law.

    ...

    Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
    Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.


    Tuesday, August 21
    Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
    Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the matter of free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.



    Wednesday, August 22
    Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
    Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
    Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
    Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget.
    ...
    Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
    Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.

    Thursday, August 23
    Briefly spoke with the press.
    Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

    Friday, August 24
    ...
    Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications issues.
    Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.

    Saturday, August 25
    Awoke at 5:45 AM, read daily briefs.
    Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45
    Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.

    Having shown a clip from August 25 with Bush explaining how he likes to work on the ranch, Moore announces "George Bush spent the rest of the August at the ranch." Not so, as Scott Marquardt found by looking at Bush's activity for the very next day.

    Sunday, August 26
    Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
    Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still working, not at the picnic.

    Marquandt looked up Bush's activities for the next three days:

    Declared a major disaster area in Ohio and orders federal aid. This affects Brown, Butler, Clermont and Hamilton counties.
    Sent a report on progress toward a "solution of the Cyprus question" to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
    Announced his intention to nominate Kathleen Burton Clarke to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior).
    Spoke at the American Legion's 83rd annual convention in San Antonio, discussing defense priorities. Decommissioned the Air Force One jet that flew 444 missions, from the Nixon administration to Bush's retirement ceremony for the plane in Waco, Texas.
    Attended the dedication ceremony of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in San Antonio.
    Announced appointment of 13 members of the Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nations Veterans.

    It is true in a sense that the Presidency is a "24/7" job. But this does not mean that the President should be working every minute. A literal "24/7" job would mean that the President should be criticized for "sleeping on the job 33 percent of the time" if he slept for eight hours a day.



    Christopher Hitchens notes:

    [T]he shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.



    The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.

    Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore," Slate.com, June 21, 2004. (Some of Moore's defenders have denounced Hitchens as a member of the vast-right wing conspiracy. Hitchens, however, wrote an obituary of Ronald Reagan recalling his lone meeting with Reagan, when he asked a question which made Reagan angry: "The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard." Hitchens also wrote a book and produced a movie, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, urging that Kissinger be tried for war crimes.)



    By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

    Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

    "Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.



    ...



    Moore wraps up the vacation segment: "It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place." The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31.



    [Moore response: Accurately quotes the Washington Post: "if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency 'at vacation spots or en route.'" Does not attempt to defend Fahrenheit's mischaracterization of the Post's meaning. Does not explain why the Israeli context was removed from the Bush quote. Does not defend the claim that Bush went from Texas to Florida.]
    That definately does a job explaining
    how Moron tries to deceit the viewer, not mentioning a 28% from weekends and a small percent at Camp David, where the president is highly qualified to carry out his duties. The number 13%, as mentioned above, was absent from the film.

    The Bush admin sent the army because the major reason I already provided. Hussein was a threat to a much needed spread of democracy in the Middle East. I think war should have been a last resort; however, I never protested his decision. Oil was not the cause. Since 1996, Clinton and Bush have both attempted to enact legislation that would strengthen domestic energy source (eg. Alaskan oil). IF the country wnats to stop foreign source of energy, I don't think we'd go into a foreign country looking for their oil.

    smercer, justify your response that the world isn't safer without Hussein. Australia was a major alliance to coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, so I would've expected you to have some knowldge to know that the war dramatically increased safety in both your country and mine. Not sure what makes you not want to see this. I guess if you can't call yourself independent and you have a biased viewpoint, you'll never admit to the truth.

    And about the wmd, I won't read your conspiracy sources. I'll stick to my impartial sources.

    Mike
    Share on Google+

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Originally posted by thuko135
    And about the wmd, I won't read your conspiracy sources. I'll stick to my impartial sources.

    Mike
    Stop lying to yourself. Impartial my ass....
    <? Damn Browser Incompatibilities ?>
    Dell 1505~2.0 Core Duo~1 gig DDR2-533~ Radeon x1400(256mb)~ Hitachi 100gb 7200rpm
    <? Go Blue. ?>
    Share on Google+

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Originally posted by thuko135
    smercer, the Bush Admin need not be impeached. In the past election, he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in any previous election, and won with a majority vote, which Clinton never did. I don't like the actions they've taken, but I don't nearly think they deserve impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and deserved it.
    Clinton deserved it, but Bush didn't eh? Oh, wait, I see your thinking Moron, you think messing around with one's secretary is worse than genocide? No wonder half of our country are a bunch of no-nothing idiots. You guys have no idea about the value of life, you are all just a bunch of flaming conservative egoists.

    And that whole thing about "us" being safer from the Iraqi war, your joking right. Iraq was doing nothing to us man. Sadam was just sitting on his butt doing nothing. Nothing. We can't find weapons, we can't find ****. He was just sitting there. I am no safer now because of it, actually, now it is more dangerous. Now 3 times as many people want to kill Americans, and 99% of the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots. Mind you Smercer and jeff, I understand your views about Americans, but don't generalize all of us man. Not cool. Say sorry. Yes, the majority of my fellow citizens are a bunch of nazis, but don't label all of us like them. C'mon.
    <? Damn Browser Incompatibilities ?>
    Dell 1505~2.0 Core Duo~1 gig DDR2-533~ Radeon x1400(256mb)~ Hitachi 100gb 7200rpm
    <? Go Blue. ?>
    Share on Google+

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles