[macintologist]

I find this kind of disturbing. It appears that Bush knew about the attacks in advanced, since he managed to watch the first plane hit the tower LIVE. For anyone who was watching the news that morning, it was very clear that news stations would say "We have breaking news, a plane has just crashed into the North tower".

But it appears that Bush saw this happen live on whatever TV screen he had, implying that he had foreknowledge of the attack.
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting Dec 4, 2001.

I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot.

President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California Jan 5, 2002.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on.

The only way he could have possibly seen that first plane hit the tower live like he is suggesting, is if he had anticipated the attacks.

Disturbing...

[mitchell_pgh]

I think you are reading in to what he said.

[chabig]

I saw the plane hit the tower on TV too, as did most everyone else here. That doesn't mean we knew in advance that it would happen.

Chris

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by chabig:
I saw the plane hit the tower on TV too, as did most everyone else here. That doesn't mean we knew in advance that it would happen.

I agree. How exactly does seeing it on TV before launching into "My Pet Goat" equate foreknowledge??

[BRussell]

Here's a more complete transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: _Thank you, Jordan. _Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. _I was in Florida. _And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. _I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. _And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. _I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. _And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

So it couldn't have been the second plane that he saw on TV before going into the classroom, but he couldn't have seen the first plane hit the tower because it hadn't aired on TV at that point. It wasn't until much later - several days, I believe - that they got a video of the first plane. (Think how weird it would be to be taping the towers BEFORE any planes hit it. There were several tapes of the second plane hitting, but tapes of the first plane hitting were very rare.)

Clearly he's wrong that he saw a plane hit the tower on TV before hearing about the second plane hitting. I assume he's just misremembering what happened.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Clearly he's wrong that he saw a plane hit the tower on TV before hearing about the second plane hitting. I assume he's just misremembering what happened.

Ah, there's the rub. Thanks for clearing up the "controversy" for me. I wasn't getting it.

Yeah, that is rather curious. My instinct is to agree with you that he's simply "misremembering" in an attempt to establish a bond with his audience over the tragedy.

However, I'm still convinced that NSC knew something was going down but miscalculated the extent of the threat and did nothing because it was believed that some sort of incident would be useful political capital. I'm not convinced that they had an inkling of the scope of the plot or they would have done something. Not even Richard Perle would stand by and let that happen and I'm not certain he's entirely human.

[macintologist]

Richard Perle is a lunatic. He was at a press dinner a few years back, giggling and laughing about how we are going to have World War III, we are going to nuke everyone, har har. And then he goes, "Isn't that impressive" and started grabbing on some women.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yeah, that is rather curious. My instinct is to agree with you that he's simply "misremembering" in an attempt to establish a bond with his audience over the tragedy.

I think he liked that little line he had about "I used to fly, and that's one bad pilot," and he fit his memory to the joke. Not necessarily intentionally, but it's the kind of thing everyone does.

I had looked into this before because I teach cognitive science and this was a good example of a flashbulb memory - very vivid memories of important things like "where were you on 9/11" or Kennedy's assassination or Pearl Harbor for earlier generations. The research shows, strangely enough, that memory for these kinds of events are just as inaccurate as memories for other, more mundane events. But confidence in flashbulb memories is very high because of their vivid nature. [/end pontification]

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Richard Perle is a lunatic. He was at a press dinner a few years back, giggling and laughing about how we are going to have World War III, we are going to nuke everyone, har har. And then he goes, "Isn't that impressive" and started grabbing on some women.

That's because he is a consultant for defense contrators and war profiteers. War == house payments for Mr. Perle. That is why he was forced to resign from the administration although I suspect he still lurks about and has as much influence as he did before.

That is why I'm largely suspicious of the "liberal internationalism" of so called neocons. They claim the mantle of idealists from the post WWII era committed to humanitarian and economic justice in defense of democratic and liberal capitalism, but considering how many of them have personal fortunes from defense contractors and war profiteers I find it impossible to take them as sincere or credible.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yeah, that is rather curious. My instinct is to agree with you that he's simply "misremembering" in an attempt to establish a bond with his audience over the tragedy.

"misremembering"? Sort of the way Kerry "misremebered' whether or not he actually crossed into Cambodia? Of course, he was crucified for his memory lapse. Not so with Dubya.

Welcome to the 21st century Teflon Presidency.

[Buckaroo]

First of all, other than the people in the vicinity of the tower, no one else saw the first tower hit while it happened. And, NO one saw the event live on TV. The only recording of the first plane crashing into the first tower was recorded by a crew video taping some other event, and happened to be there to catch part of the impact. No one saw that live, it was broadcasted a couple hours after the first strike. The second plane was shown live. Everyone was in shock when they saw it.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
First of all, other than the people in the vicinity of the tower, no one else saw the first tower hit while it happened. And, NO one saw the event live on TV. The only recording of the first plane crashing into the first tower was recorded by a crew video taping some other event, and happened to be there to catch part of the impact. No one saw that live, it was broadcasted a couple hours after the first strike. The second plane was shown live. Everyone was in shock when they saw it.

Sorry too logical, obviously Bush knew and had the secret service rig up a closed circuit TV.

[budster101]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I find this kind of disturbing. It appears that Bush knew about the attacks in advanced, since he managed to watch the first plane hit the tower LIVE. For anyone who was watching the news that morning, it was very clear that news stations would say "We have breaking news, a plane has just crashed into the North tower".

But it appears that Bush saw this happen live on whatever TV screen he had, implying that he had foreknowledge of the attack.
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting Dec 4, 2001.

President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California Jan 5, 2002.

The only way he could have possibly seen that first plane hit the tower live like he is suggesting, is if he had anticipated the attacks.

Disturbing...

I'm a little confused here. Wasn't he in the middle of reading to the children when he found out about the plane(s) crashing into the towers?

[budster101]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
"misremembering"? Sort of the way Kerry "misremebered' whether or not he actually crossed into Cambodia? Of course, he was crucified for his memory lapse. Not so with Dubya.

Welcome to the 21st century Teflon Presidency.

I would think these not being at all similar situations. I think he was under attack for what he had admitted to doing in the free-fire zones, etc. Along with his obvious two-faced personality when it comes to the public Kerry and private Kerry. (i.e., yelling at a secret service agent that *he* ran into when he fell off of his bicycle.) I don't think the voting public had enough confidence that this man can be himself, whoever that is. He needed to win over people who typically voted democrat, and he didn't.

Kerry was not 'crucified'. He self-destructed by way of lacking any direction or conviction.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by budster101:
Along with his obvious two-faced personality when it comes to the public Kerry and private Kerry. (i.e., yelling at a secret service agent that *he* ran into when he fell off of his bicycle.)

Skiiing, I thought.

[budster101]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Skiiing, I thought.

You may be right. He also fell off of his bike.

Now that I re-remember it, wink, I think he also mentioned not owning any SUV's, those where his 'family' cars, not his. And that bike cost more than most of his constituants (sp) make in 6 months.

I'm not blaming him for being rich, just two-faced.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by budster101:
You may be right. He also fell off of his bike.

Now that I re-remember it, wink, I think he also mentioned not owning any SUV's, those where his 'family' cars, not his. And that bike cost more than most of his constituants (sp) make in 6 months.

You know, you're right. If I had thought about these substantive issues during the election I definitely wouldn't have voted for him. I was thinking about silly things like war and the federal budget when I should have been thinking about serious things the republicans wanted to talk about like skiing accidents and SUV ownership and the fact that HE HAS AN ORANGE FACE!

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You know, you're right. If I had thought about these substantive issues during the election I definitely wouldn't have voted for him. I was thinking about silly things like war and the federal budget when I should have been thinking about serious things the republicans wanted to talk about like skiing accidents and SUV ownership and the fact that HE HAS AN ORANGE FACE!

I was going to vote for Kerry, but then I saw this picture:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I was going to vote for Kerry, but then I saw this picture:

Exactly! You can even see the orange tint from his face if you look close enough. How I could have voted for him I'll never know.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The only way he could have possibly seen that first plane hit the tower live like he is suggesting, is if he had anticipated the attacks.

Disturbing...

Cool -- that's three times I've been able to use the new pic. Thanks!

Maury

[vmarks]

the spelling is waist.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by vmarks:
the spelling is waist.

Waist: The part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis.

Waste: An unusable or unwanted substance or material, such as a waste product.

Panty: Short underpants for women.


Pantywaste: An unusable or unwanted substance or material, such as a waste product, from the short underpants of a woman.

Thanks for playing,
Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Waist: The part of the human trunk between the bottom of the rib cage and the pelvis.

Waste: An unusable or unwanted substance or material, such as a waste product.

Panty: Short underpants for women.


Pantywaste: An unusable or unwanted substance or material, such as a waste product, from the short underpants of a woman.

Thanks for playing,
Maury

No, pantywaist is a homophobic slur. You basically called machintologist a f*g.

If you didn't know what the word means, then perhaps you shouldn't use it.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, pantywaist is a homophobic slur. You basically called machintologist a f*g.

If you didn't know what the word means, then perhaps you shouldn't use it.

Odd, I've been using the term pantywaste since I was in Junior High and NONE of us ever linked it to ANYTHING relating to homosexuals. I guess it depends on where you're from. Our "definition" was just what I posted.

I notice that the Urban Dictionary has definitions for both spellings.

So, I know what the word means -- but different people have different meanings. Oh well.

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Odd, I've been using the term pantywaste since I was in Junior High and NONE of us ever linked it to ANYTHING relating to homosexuals. I guess it depends on where you're from. Our "definition" was just what I posted.

I notice that the Urban Dictionary has definitions for both spellings.

So, I know what the word means -- but different people have different meanings. Oh well.

Maury

It's not "odd" it's ignorant. Kids often use words without really understanding what they mean. That's probably especially true with slurs or other perjoratives.

That you are not the only person in the world to have misspelled it isn't that surprising, especially given that the two spellings are homonyms. But "pantywaist" is the original spelling, and it is indeed a slur implying that someone is a homosexual. Don't use it unless you plan on coming across as a bigot.

[finboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:

I notice that the Urban Dictionary has definitions for both spellings.

yeah, but there can only be one correct spelling. Pantywaist is the only one I've ever heard of, but I've never heard it used as a slur on gays, only a slur on someone's manliness. In other words, I've never heard it used to imply that someone was gay, but to emphasize their lack of natural ability.

So it's a slur, in my experience, on wimpy, weak guys. Or guys who are "whipped". In any case, I've never heard or seen it connected with gayness.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by finboy:
yeah, but there can only be one correct spelling. Pantywaist is the only one I've ever heard of, but I've never heard it used as a slur on gays, only a slur on someone's manliness. In other words, I've never heard it used to imply that someone was gay, but to emphasize their lack of natural ability.

So it's a slur, in my experience, on wimpy, weak guys. Or guys who are "whipped". In any case, I've never heard or seen it connected with gayness.

Right, which is how we've all used it: a wuss, not a homosexual.

Oh well.

Maury

[BRussell]

I also thought it meant more "effeminate" than strictly gay. But those two are so tied together (in stereotypes/slang) that it's probably the same thing. I've definitely never thought it meant waste products in women's underwear.

Anyway, your stream of insult pictures don't exactly further the "debate" around here Maury.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I also thought it meant more "effeminate" than strictly gay. But those two are so tied together (in stereotypes/slang) that it's probably the same thing. I've definitely never thought it meant waste products in women's underwear.

Anyway, your stream of insult pictures don't exactly further the "debate" around here Maury.

The "watse" was the wussy kid that was born. And yes, my pics aren't helping any -- I just get bored at work sometimes and feel like being a d0rk.

Maury