This just in...the mine collapse was Bush's fault, too!!!

[Jeff Boler]

OK ... so President Bush, whose military record is dubious, isn't going to unequivically state that torture is wrong and that the United States will not jeopardize American Soldiers and Agents lives by so doing, when a distinguished member of his own Party, who happens to have the unfortuneate benefit of five years first hand experience, and more than 90 other Senators, and many military leaders past and present, can agree how to define torture.

Got it.

What you have is not curable by medicine. The idea that torture puts US solidiers in jeopardy can be worked either way. Perhaps by not performing torture, they are unable to obtain the information they need to keep soldier's safe. And...if you start questioning the reasoning behind certain senators reasons for speaking out against torture, it will lead you to policitics, and future elections, i.e. John McCain.

The President's Plan is not laid out clearly, so how do we measure if we are succeeding? How many body bags will it take until we can be sure it is not failure? Of course, without goal posts, you can never know.

Guess what...the President doesn't have to lay out anything for you. The point could be made that it would be a mistake to lay out exit strategies, as it would clearly give the enemy the information they need to cause further problems. As for body bags, if you look at other wars, the amount of US casulties is quite small.

And in your eyes, if it were a Democratic President with a similar plan, you would have no problem with it. But because it's Bush...it's wrong.

As for the mine resources, i'm attempting to find them.

 

[Navarre]

Could we please keep to the topic thread? The mining tragedy wasn't caused by the war in Iraq. If you want to attribute the explosion to the war you'd need a long line of logic.

If we are going to discuss whether or not President Bush is implicated in the tragedy let's discuss only issues relevant to the disaster. There are plenty of thread to debate the merits of the war effort.

The families of these miners have been through quite enough. Even though they aren't reading this, let's do them the honor of not using their loved ones deaths as a sounding board for unrelated political opinion.

 

[heretic888]

Being tortured makes one an expert? Do you think what (if anything) we were doing would be defined as torture based on McCain's experiences? I need to sit down and read how they are defining torture. Care to share the basics?

Senator McCain defines 'torture' based on what is written in the United States military field manuals, something all soldiers should be familiar with. These regulations conform with the international treaties that our country has agreed to, such as the Geneva Convention and the United Nations charter.

McCain's position is essentially that what is written in the field manuals should be applied to all people in all places at all times. The explicit position of Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld and the implicit position of President Bush is that certain organizations and individuals constitute 'special exceptions' (both on the side of the torturer and tortured) who, essentially, are given no restrictions or limitations whatsoever in how they choose to conduct interrogations (this is generally thought to apply to the CIA and NSA).

There also seems to be some disagreement with the President and Vice President on this issue. The President states we are, in fact, not torturing anybody. The Vice President states we should be able to torture certain people because it is 'justified'.

Laterz.

 

[Jeff Boler]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/4/220540.shtml

 

[heretic888]

The idea that torture puts US solidiers in jeopardy can be worked either way. Perhaps by not performing torture, they are unable to obtain the information they need to keep soldier's safe.

One could make that argument, naturally.

Of course, it's in the same empirical category as "pink elephants exist" or "the earth is flat". Meaning, it is one of those assertions that have absolutely been disconfirmed time and time again by actual real world evidence. The only thing backing it up is political ideology.

And...if you start questioning the reasoning behind certain senators reasons for speaking out against torture, it will lead you to policitics, and future elections, i.e. John McCain.

To note, Senator McCain's reasons for opposing torture are:

1) He has experienced it firsthand.

2) It goes against what he was instructed to do during his service in the military.

3) It is contrary to American moral principles.

Guess what...the President doesn't have to lay out anything for you.

No, but the President does have to lay out his plan to the United States Congress.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

And in your eyes, if it were a Democratic President with a similar plan, you would have no problem with it. But because it's Bush...it's wrong.
.

There is no acceptable plan in Iraq that I would agree with. Please search this board for the keywords 'Senator Smith' to find my stance circa 2002.

As for torture ...

I will direct you to 'IAVA', Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, I am just a peace-luvin' liberal who thought 1911 was the year in the early part of the last century. They, however, have a bit more credibility on the issue.

 

[arnisador]

There is no acceptable plan in Iraq that I would agree with.

Well, since we're already there...that isn't too useful.

 

[mrhnau]

Must agree with Navarre, Lets get it back to main topic. Go play with Iraq somewhere else.

 

[michaeledward]

I just did a quick search on mining regulation change ... and found this article ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html

It was written long before the recent events.
It discusses mountain top mining.

Some quotes.

To environmental groups, they are the administration's payback to an industry that has raised $9 million for Republicans since 1998.

... attempt by the Clinton administration to strengthen government oversight of these dramatically larger new mines.

Meanwhile, West Virginia coal executives had begun to stake their hopes on an administration change in Washington. The state's coal firms raised $275,000 for Bush.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, since we're already there...that isn't too useful.

Arni ... (if I may call you Arni) ...

we should have never gone there.
it is wrong for us to be there.
it is illegal for us to be there.
there is no good result that will come out of our being there.

As for useful ...

• An immediate withdrawl of all coalition forces to the Saddam Hussein's pre-90 Iraqi boundaries.
• A steady rotation of six United States Aircraft Carrier battle groups within striking distance of Iraq.
• Marine rapid deployment forces stationed in Turkey, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

Let, the Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurds work out their historical territories in a way that is suitable for them; sometimes referred to as a three-state solution. It will take a civil war. The United States, and any coalition partners left, should be close at hand to prevent outside (Iranian, Saudi Arabian) influence and support.

As it stands now, the United States is never going to get out of Iraq. And bodies keep piling up.

 

[Xequat]

1)Well, comparing Rhodes to Limbaugh, I know that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has never made Randi Rhodes an honorary member of that body.

2)So, are you asking to have a discussion about safety rules for mining? Enforcement of those rules? Changes in legislation concerning mining safety?

1) I don't care; no relevance.
2) Nope.

we should have never gone there.
it is wrong for us to be there.
it is illegal for us to be there.
there is no good result that will come out of our being there.

Wrong. wrong, wrong, and wrong. There, we've both had enough say on something completely irrelevant. End of that discussion on this thread, please; there are plenty of others for the Iraq topic.

What I find hysterical is that I brought up this topic as being so utterly ridiculous that even the most liberal of all liberals would have a laugh and admit that nobody's perfect. Instead, you are actually trying to defend it. I'm completely amazed. If you actually believe these things, then there is no way you can ever legitimately criticize Bush for being stupid. Apparently, he has the brilliant ability to suck up to competing energy sources at the same time, while covering up a conspiracy on absolutely every possible negative thing that has ever happened to or within the US.

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or get mad. Well, I'll probably just laugh at you because I know you are smart enough to know better. I usually love to argue with you because you're so smart and actually cite sources for most things you post, but this and one other thread really get me wondering if you can ever accept that you are not perfectly correct about everything.

 

[michaeledward]

I ask if we can have a discussion about mining regulation, mine safety, changes in mine policies since Bush took office, and you said, ....

Let me quote it ...

2) Nope.

So, what you're really saying, is you don't want to talk about the things that could have made mining a less safe occupation under the Bush administration.

You, however, have no problem attacking those who do want to discuss those things.

Got it.

 

[Xequat]

You got nothing. That's not what you asked. I'm not going to quote you and then nitpick every word like lawyers, but of course I would love to hear how policy changes done specifically by Bush directly caused the mine to collapse. Yes, I'd love to hear it, but I don't want to have a broad discussion about mining safety, which is how I interpreted your question. So yes, let's hear how Bush caused the mine to collapse with some kind of legislation or lack of enforcement of the rules on this mine or all mines. Seriously, please. I'm sorry. I really want to see this. Just stay off Iraq. If you're one that really "wants to discuss these things," then please discuss them, because it's page 3 and you haven't started yet.

 

[jdinca]

Why aren't you listening to Air America?

He's not a masochist. :flame:

In absolutely no way shape or form can you blame the mine collapse on Bush, just as it wasn't his fault that Katrina decided to blast its way through New Orleans. No, his position on the Kyoto accord had nothing to do with the strength of Katrina, nor did it have anything to do with a mine collapse. That you choose to quote environmentalists point of view on mine regulations is all I need to see. Anything short of stopping mining will not make that group happy.

I'm going to wait and see what the investigation reveals. Yeah, there were a number of violations. Did any of them contribute to the explosion or to their ability to survive? Debating it and placing blame prior to an official report is just spinning wheels and a waste of perfectly good brain cells.

 

[Xequat]

Oh, my mistake, Mike. You did post an article earlier and I didn't read all of it because it's apparently an editorial anyway, and I don't want to read 5 pages worth of opinions. That's actually why I haven't posted on a lot of our threads in the Study...I get there too late and don't usually have time to read everything that's been posted. Sorry about that.

What I got out of the article was nothing about how the environmental impact of mountaintop mining causes mines to collapse or how Bush is responsible. Both the Rep and Dem governors have supported the mining operation in WV. And yes, the mining operation has raised money for Bush. Just like every union has probably raised money and support for Democrats. You'll have that. But $275,000 is hardly having a President in your back pocket. Give me anything that ties this collapse or any other collapse to Bush.

 

[Xequat]

Even then, jdinca, the fact that there were violations means that the cause would more likely have been the operators of the mine for having violated the regulations. If Bush, or anyone else had set up rules and those rules were not followed, then it sure as hell isn't the fault of the person making the rules that they get broken. Quite the opposite.

 

[michaeledward]

You got nothing. That's not what you asked. I'm not going to quote you and then nitpick every word like lawyers, but of course I would love to hear how policy changes done specifically by Bush directly caused the mine to collapse. Yes, I'd love to hear it, but I don't want to have a broad discussion about mining safety, which is how I interpreted your question. So yes, let's hear how Bush caused the mine to collapse with some kind of legislation or lack of enforcement of the rules on this mine or all mines. Seriously, please. I'm sorry. I really want to see this. Just stay off Iraq. If you're one that really "wants to discuss these things," then please discuss them, because it's page 3 and you haven't started yet.

I don't want to discuss it.

You started this thread. You started it by bringing up an accusation that seems to be quite a bit different than what I would expect from Randi Rhodes. I haven't looked that the transcripts.

I think the idea of directly blaming President Bush is stupid beyond belief. So, I am not defending anyone who makes such a claim.

If you think that the policy changes put in place by this Administration have no impact on Mine Safety, however, you're nuts. This administration has been funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars to energy companies. The price of Coal has doubled since the Bush administration has taken office (as has oil, natural gas more than that). This is driving coal companies to make attempts to access the material in harder to reach places. If the coal was easy to get from the Sago mine, it would have been excavated many years ago. Only now, with prices up, and regulations down, does it become worthwhile for Industry to undertake some of these tasks.

So, please, stop ascribing to me something I have not said. I am not personally blaming Bush.

What caused the explosion, and death of those laborers, was a sealed of mine cavern that filled with methane gas. Somehow, oxygen got mixed with the methane. And from that, there was combustion. And while I think President Bush is a gas-bag, I don't think he exhaled into a sealed of mine cavern recently .... that would have to be Dick Cheney in his 'secret location'.

 

[Xequat]

I ask if we can have a discussion about mining regulation, mine safety, changes in mine policies since Bush took office,

You, however, have no problem attacking those who do want to discuss those things.

Got it.

Sorry, I certainly thought that you were talking about yourself, so maybe you meant Randi Rhodes? I 'm not following how I ascribed something you didn't say, but I could be misinterpreting the text or it wasn't quite written the way you wanted it to be. From these quotes, it looks to me like you wanted to discuss mining procedures.

Yes, I started this thread to pick on one extremist who made an absolutely ridiculous claim, which you apparently agree is ridiculous, assuming you find the transcripts and I didn't make the whole thing up, which I have no reason to do, by the way. It did seem a little out of character, because she'll usually make a point that is debatable, then bring a guest that backs up that point of view and has a discussion, occasionally throwing in an inappropriate insult to the other side like most opinionated talk show hosts do, but I can't recall her ever trying to convince a guest to say something that she wants to hear and failing. What I don't get is that there are so many legitimate things to rip Bush on, and so many others that are BS, but accepted as truth, that she has no reason to fabricate things like this. It makes no sense. Maybe she was just tired or something.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think the lesson in this is when people die, other people take the opportunity to promote themselves and their political views. Not one side, all though each will likely claim it is the other, people on both sides do it.

In fact, here we have what is already a 3 page thread arguing about politics as a result of people dieing. And this is a martial arts forum.

Questions that should be getting asked are "Should the safetyl regulations be changed?" and "Who's going to do it if they do?" Not pointing fingers and blaiming others to serve ones own purposes.

 

[michaeledward]

I hope I have not blamed Bush in this thread for the explosion in the mine.

I find it hard to believe that Randi Rhodes made that statement, but I did not hear it. I have seen some posts on DailyKos and Drudge making those accusations, but I haven't seen a transcript. And the posters on DailyKos are no different than the posters on Martialtalk ... knuckleheads with opinions and a computer. Which is why I asked for 'sourced' 'articles'. These posts certainly don't earn the label 'article'. Maybe if it was published by the NYTimes, WashingPost, or Cleveland Plain Dealer, but not Drudge Retort.

I can imagine Randi Rhodes talking about the connections between the Bush Administration and the Mining Companies. I can imagine her making statements about deregulation of the industry leading to unsafe work environments. Those topics of discussion, which can be tied to Bush, I think is not a hard stretch to make.

However, I would also say it is in very poor taste to get up on that soap box a day or two after twelve hardworking citizens died.

For the moment, let's assume that Randi Rhodes did make the statement that "President Bush is personally responsible for those twelve lost lives" ..... I would point you to one of the opening chapters of 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot and Other Observations' ... Written by some 'Franklin' guy, I think. .... In that book, the author says it would be unfair to quote the Radio Personality from live radio, cuz, good ole Rush might be in a groove .... without time to stop for a candy-bar, lowering his blood sugar to the point he says something crazy .... It happens. (Hell, we use that technique against O'Reilly all the time). In that book, the author turns to Mr. Limbaughs written work .... which has the benefit of being fact-not-checked before publication. .... Maybe Randi Rhodes was in a similar zone, just needing a Snickers. Who know?