Dean: I'll protect you as well as Vermont's Nuclear Plant!
Boom!
As if it weren't already hard enough for Dean to show he would have acted differently but better than Bush with regard to Iraq, Terrorism and so on, we now have this.
How hard is it going to be to claim Bush is overzealous or too preemptive when you have the NRC waltzing mock terrorists into your state nuclear reactor. Forget whether Iraq tried to purchase materials from various African countries, they could have just come over and taken it from Vermont!
Now the article does mention that Dean did eventually make some moves and hindsight is 20/20. But how credible will the charges be that then ring against Bush that his hindsight should have somehow been better? That the lax security that was no longer acceptable after 9/11 should have somehow been different nationwide before 9/11.
Now again they cite documents going back to 1992 and mentioning specific lapses that repeatedly involve the same scenarios. Mock terrorists were able to gain access and also sneak in guns. We aren't even talking about a scenario that sounds too fantastic to be true before it happens. (Like someone using box cutters to take a plane into the WTC) We are talking about actual dangerous known targets repeatedly being compromised by conventional weapons.
How can Dean have any credibility left in this area?
Nick
As if it weren't already hard enough for Dean to show he would have acted differently but better than Bush with regard to Iraq, Terrorism and so on, we now have this.
Quote:
Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors.
Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors.
How hard is it going to be to claim Bush is overzealous or too preemptive when you have the NRC waltzing mock terrorists into your state nuclear reactor. Forget whether Iraq tried to purchase materials from various African countries, they could have just come over and taken it from Vermont!
Now the article does mention that Dean did eventually make some moves and hindsight is 20/20. But how credible will the charges be that then ring against Bush that his hindsight should have somehow been better? That the lax security that was no longer acceptable after 9/11 should have somehow been different nationwide before 9/11.
Now again they cite documents going back to 1992 and mentioning specific lapses that repeatedly involve the same scenarios. Mock terrorists were able to gain access and also sneak in guns. We aren't even talking about a scenario that sounds too fantastic to be true before it happens. (Like someone using box cutters to take a plane into the WTC) We are talking about actual dangerous known targets repeatedly being compromised by conventional weapons.
How can Dean have any credibility left in this area?
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
We aren't even talking about a scenario that sounds too fantastic to be true before it happens. (Like someone using box cutters to take a plane into the WTC)
You are something else. This line I've quoted sums up how full of crap this thread really is.
Originally posted by bunge
You are something else. This line I've quoted sums up how full of crap this thread really is.
I'm not talking about some hypothetical in some report. Are you telling me that if you asked experts or even laymen before 9/11 how reasonable it would be to believe that both World Trade Center Towers would be taken down by box cutters, I think the percentage would be rather low.
I think if you asked experts or laymen how likely it would be that someone would use weapons to get access to a nuclear powerplant for a terrorist attack, the percentage believing this likely to happen or possible would have been high then and now. Even then they proved the security at the plant was compromised MULTIPLE TIMES over MULTIPLE YEARS.
But of course rather than add something, you toss in your usual dismissive two cents.
Dean shows the exact type of rhetoric over action that scares the crap out of most Americans when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
Nick
And then after 9/11 Bush got a bounce in the polls that put him at the highest recorded approval rating of any president ever. So politically, maybe it's smart to let our nuclear power plants get hit by terrorists.
Originally posted by BRussell
Well hijacking a plane wasn't exactly unthinkable. You're making the scenario sound more implausible by adding the box cutters and WTC information. And, IIRC, Bush got intelligence briefings that a plane was going to be hijacked. Not to mention not doing anything about bin Laden.
And then after 9/11 Bush got a bounce in the polls that put him at the highest recorded approval rating of any president ever. So politically, maybe it's smart to let our nuclear power plants get hit by terrorists.
You're right that hijacking a plane isn't unthinkable. But the point is that Dean has suggested Bush let 9/11 happen, and knew it was going to happen. He has also said he would do a better job than Bush has done while somehow garnering all the necessary U.N. support and not going to war.
Meanwhile you look at his own background and see far worse actions. I mean it isn't like there were agencies running scenarios where they would hijack planes and attempt to feign flying them into buildings. That is what happened with this plant. It was repeatedly compromised by agents attempting to get in, bring in guns, etc. Meanwhile he gives himself the benefit of hindsight while lambasting everyone else as not up to the job. (Democrats included) Anyone can criticize. He should demonstrate credible actions. Instead he shows less action taken while declaring he would have taken more and of course perfect action. He would not have gone to war, oh but Saddam still wouldn't be in power, and I would have gotten the U.N. to commit, even though I think there were no WOMD, I would have gotten them to commit the troops and money, etc.
It just sounds like such lying bullshit. Dean must think he is the messiah because he seems to think himself capable of only perfect actions and above everyone else. Bush may think God is inspiration but I think having a messanic complex is much worse in my opinion. Sealing up all your wrongs for 10 years, declaring no other Democrats should criticize him (even while he ripped them all a new one for voting for Iraq), etc. Dean is really a frightening person when it comes to his perspective about himself and others.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Dean must think he is the messiah because he seems to think himself capable of only perfect actions and above everyone else. Bush may think God is inspiration but I think having a messanic complex is much worse in my opinion. Sealing up all your wrongs for 10 years, declaring no other Democrats should criticize him (even while he ripped them all a new one for voting for Iraq), etc. Dean is really a frightening person when it comes to his perspective about himself and others.
Nick
I agree. Not only with what you state above but with his utter contempt towards Christians. He calls Christians "those people". This fact alone will keep him out of the White House.
Thank God for that
Fellows
Originally posted by trumptman
Dean must think he is the messiah because he seems to think himself capable of only perfect actions and above everyone else. Bush may think God is inspiration but I think having a messanic complex is much worse in my opinion. Sealing up all your wrongs for 10 years, declaring no other Democrats should criticize him (even while he ripped them all a new one for voting for Iraq), etc. Dean is really a frightening person when it comes to his perspective about himself and others.
OK, so it's settled then. Dean thinks he's Jesus and Bush thinks he's Moses.
In regard to the topic, Dean's record with the Vermont Nuclear Plant, my own views of Dean have now been tempered by this information. Most certainly, it may not have technically been Dean's responsibility to protect the nuclear sites, but as the one who governed his state he should have demonstrated some leadership toward getting security improved.
If I read this correctly he had TEN years to do something. Like I said, it may not have been in his job description to take care of this issue, but it's still a damning indictment of his commitment to security.
This story drew blood.
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, so it's settled then. Dean thinks he's Jesus and Bush thinks he's Moses.
Good one!
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey Trumpetman! How is it down at the bottom of the barrel?
I'll tell you what, you get Dean to open up his papers from being governor, his secret meetings with energy officials, his tax haven from surrounding states to allow businesses to avoid paying their income tax, his "my back is so bad I can only ski 5 days this week" medical records, and I'll have something better to hit him with, okay?
8)
Nick
Originally posted by Splinemodel
bunge: If you weren't so self-righteous, I might actually think you're a well-educated guy. Everything is crap to you if it's from trumtpman. At this point it's like the boy who cried wolf.
See, you're full of crap here, even ask Trumptman. He and I agree on some things, not most things, and that's fine. But most anyone here should be able to see that he starts discussions with the intent to stir up an argument. That's actually not so bad, it's just when the evidence is so flimsy it gets old. Usually the best argument against him is in the link he provides and he must be hoping no one reads it thoroughly.
From his own article:
The [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has primary responsibility for safety at Vermont Yankee. But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Dean's campaign said Saturday it ultimately was the NRC's responsibility to ensure security at the plant, but that he badgered Vermont Yankee's operators and the NRC to make improvements during the 1990s. It noted the NRC's safety budget was cut in the 1990s.
"After September 11, Governor Dean decided the buck stops here in terms of security and personally ran this effort, creating a Cabinet-level agency," spokesman Jay Carson said.
Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding.
So, Dean is now responsible for the NRC?
Look at his response to me. He distills the argument down to "how reasonable it would be to believe that both World Trade Center Towers would be taken down by box cutters" when everyone here knows that box cutters had nothing to do with it. But that's the crux of his argument.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll tell you what, you get Dean to open up his papers from being governor, his secret meetings with energy officials, his tax haven from surrounding states to allow businesses to avoid paying their income tax, his "my back is so bad I can only ski 5 days this week" medical records, and I'll have something better to hit him with, okay?
8)
Nick
Dean already gave it to a third party to decide what's safe and what's not safe to release. Somehow that's not good enough for you?
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, so it's settled then. Dean thinks he's Jesus and Bush thinks he's Moses.
Oh come now, Jesus is entirely too monocultural for Dean. He wants to be god so he can go by many different names and be everything to everyone.
If he were just Jesus he might get lumped in with those other candi... I mean prophets. Lastly we all know Dean wouldn't die for our sins. He is much better at pointing a finger and condemning people.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Dean already gave it to a third party to decide what's safe and what's not safe to release. Somehow that's not good enough for you?
Ohh my GOD are you kidding me? That phony gesture scores points with you?
Bunge you something.
As for me NO that is not "good enough"
"Good enough" is when this Dean guy comes clean.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
See, you're full of crap here, even ask Trumptman. He and I agree on some things, not most things, and that's fine. But most anyone here should be able to see that he starts discussions with the intent to stir up an argument. That's actually not so bad, it's just when the evidence is so flimsy it gets old. Usually the best argument against him is in the link he provides and he must be hoping no one reads it thoroughly.
From his own article:
So, Dean is now responsible for the NRC?
Look at his response to me. He distills the argument down to "how reasonable it would be to believe that both World Trade Center Towers would be taken down by box cutters" when everyone here knows that box cutters had nothing to do with it. But that's the crux of his argument.
First of all I start threads to bring about discussion. On some issues I am pretty conservative but there are a range of issues where I hold my own views (trade and male rights issues for example) However I do appreciate the level of thought you applied to your reply. Even if I don't agree with you at all times, I do appreciate it when you contribute thoughtful words to a discussion.
That said, the point of this thread is to show what a fake Dean is with regard to his claims. I've never claimed Bush is perfect, just that it would be really hard to have predicted or even prevented 9/11 until it happened. Heck it could still happen again even with the inspections, tighter rules, air marshalls, etc.
As for the WTC and box cutters, they had plenty to do with it. It is how they took over the planes. The box cutters and some convenient lies (like they were going back to the airports for example) was all it took for them to get control of those planes.
I could even give Dean the benefit of the doubt of he had taken real action and still had compromised security shown. But the point is that he did NOTHING until 9/11. It isn't like Bush jumped on homeland security, etc before 9/11 either but Dean claims Bush doesn't deserve hindsight. He claims Bush knew what was going to happen. Should have prevented it, and that if Dean were in his place, he would have taken those actions.
That is just bull, and it blows his credibility to hell.
The crux of the argument is the Dean double-standard applied yet again. Dean can criticize war votes, but don't you other Democrats dare run ads against him. He can ignore being where the buck stops for a decade, but Bush should have prevented 9/11 and Dean would have prevented it. It is bull.
Nick
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
Dean already gave it to a third party to decide what's safe and what's not safe to release. Somehow that's not good enough for you?
I suppose it was good enough for you if I called John Ashcroft a third party investigating Bush for the leak.
Dean criticized Bush for not being open. Then it was discovered the Bush had left his Texas records open when running. So that stuck Dean in a bind (yet again) for opening his mouth and criticizing others about claimed actions. Never mind that Dean would never take those actions, he loves condemning and criticizing others.
Dean was stuck so he gave the papers to a "third party" to sort out. But the third party is about as independent as Ashcroft was to the parties being investigated. At least Ashcroft started the investigation, saw where it was going and recused himself. We will see what percentage of Dean's papers the "third party" opens.
Of course all of this could just be avoided if Dean would just come clean. Dean claims he doesn't want the media leaking out the names of AIDS patients and such stuff. But I don't think the media are clamoring for that and it is nonsense. They want the details of Dean's work. They can't get at it and Dean is stalling until he has the nomination. Worse yet he is condemning other Democrats for their official actions and positions when his are all locked up tight. He is a hypocrit of the worst kind.
Nick