TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Some considerations about incompetence. (9 posts)

1. giveback
   

   It seems that this nation has fallen in love with the idea of Bush's "incompetence". What is he actually incompetent at? And does that mean that all similar government officials, by association, perpetuate the same incompetence? All too incompetent to pull off 9/11?

   It seems as if there has been a lack of distinction between incompetence and personal preference in governance. Bush is not incompetent, in terms of his and his associates agenda. They may have failed on some points, and painted themselves into a corner, but for the very fact that a large number of people regard them as "incompetent" instead of "necessarily accountable" is a display of their abilities. It's just not the abilities that some people prefer to accept as indications of competence.

   http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/...

   I wonder if the "incompetence" dealt to Bush is a roundabout way of dealing with an administration far more corrupt than many would have expected. The opposition was not feasibly prepared, or possibly not inclined, to deal with Bush, his associates, and his acolytes. Essentially this is incompetent citizenship in a democratic nation. This is not said to demonize anybody, but to point out the undercurrent of motivation and esteem, and eventual cynicism.

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Arabesque
   Member

   I'm doing a paper on the incompetence theory.

   “It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”

   “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11, it seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.”

   "instead of accountability, several of the key figures—[Generals] Myers and Eberhard, FAA official Ben Sliney—have been promoted since Sept. 11! …one or more of them must be wrong about what happened on 9/11,” noted Nicholas Levis.

   “generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday… As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up.”

   “The task that the FAA allegedly failed to perform repeatedly that day—notifying the military when an airplane shows any of the standard signs of being in trouble—is one that the FAA had long been carrying out regularly, over 100 times a year. Can we really believe that virtually everyone—from the flight controllers to their managers to the personnel in Herndon and FAA headquarters—suddenly became ridiculously incompetent to perform this task? This allegation becomes even more unbelievable when we reflect on the fact that the FAA successfully carried out an unprecedented operation that day: grounding all the aircraft in the country. The Commission itself says that the FAA ‘[executed] that unprecedented order flawlessly.’ Is it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”

   “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)

   “If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

   “I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols… [The] Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77."

   “Air traffic controllers who handled two of the hijacked flights on September 11, 2001, recorded their experiences shortly after the planes crashed, but a supervisor destroyed the tape,” and that “an F.A.A. quality-assurance manager… crushed the cassette in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building.”

   “suspicion of [Pentagon] wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”

   Dayton Claimed that NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”

   “Ample evidence gathered from mainstream news sources and compiled by Paul Thompson… indicates that the wargames served to confuse and stymie air defense response to the simultaneous crash-bombings. Although Thompson avoids conclusions and merely presents a long series of verifiable facts, confusion appears to have been the exact result intended by at least some of the wargame planners. This was already a central thesis of Mike Rupperts's 2004 book Crossing the Rubicon.”

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. giveback
   

   Good quotes. How do we open up people for them? In regards to 9/11 Truth, the incompetence theory is possibly the most binding, working completely on a separate logic.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Rajjpuut
   Member

   I believe the overall impact of this line of debate is flimsey at best.

   Bush is called incompetent because Democrats don't like him. They came up with a life history they said reflected his "stupidity" going back to his college days. Naturally, there was a lot of truth included with a lot of slanting. Clinton the champion of the "soccer moms" (reportedly he got over 68% of the female vote against Bush senior and a much higher percentage against Dole) was assailed as an untrustworthy cad around women going back to his days in Arkansas politics because Republicans didn't like him. Naturally there was a lot of truth there (he didn't get impeached because Monica was his first such affair, did he) and also some clear slanting and exaggeration. We always see this from the "outs" criticizing the "ins," so how is this either surprising or discussion worthy?

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. Arabesque
   Member

   how is this either surprising or discussion worthy?

   I believe that exposing "incompetence" as a deliberate hangout is important. And a good way to do that is to examine what exactly the "failures" were, and then to show that there is strong evidence of "sabotage", not "failure".

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. Rajjpuut
   Member

   Commenting on the last response's tie-in to the opening salvo at the top of the page . . .

   If "incompetence" were a deliberate issue with GWB, which is who and what this thread started with, how come I've never heard a single Republican or Adminstration source claim he's "incompetent?" Get real. On another issue's thread, I was told not to use "invective", whatever that means. But I'd say that the propaganda technique known as "broad generalization" used here ("It seems that this nation has fallen in love with the idea of Bush's "incompetence.") is far more threatening to a "truth site" than merely calling obviously stupid people, "stupid."

   Again, I believe mightily in the potential of this site, but I see largely a lot of "bitching and whining" about the "ins" from the "outs" which makes the site seem like it's a forum for Democrats' complaints rather than a site dedicated to: 1) essential truths we get no where else 2) ideas for crucial actions if, and only if, those truths can be substantiated.

   I wasn't surprised at the attacks on Clinton by the Republicans and I'm not surprised by the attacks on GW Bush by the Democrats, I just am 100% certain that that line of "thinking" won't accomplish what this site purports to want to accomplish. Truth has no ideology although people try to associate it with their own, always.

   To give you an idea what I mean, Lou Dobbs used to be the biggest mouthpiece for liberalism on the airwaves. Every question was an invitation for a response in line with Lou's obvious predjudices and his facial expressions were priceless. Then about 15 months ago Lou seemed to remember the good example of that great journalist Walter Chronkite and since then I absolutely find it difficult to see any "agenda" from Lou whatsoever, he's just a great provacateur for that most crucial side of things known as the truth! I rarely go through an editorial much less a news report from Lou that I am not challenged to grow and learn a wider perspective. Unabashed, unslanted truth works funny that way.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. giveback
   

   Rajjpuut,

   It does appear that your position, in all it's examples, is indebted to the concept of status, and the concurrent need to belittle others. I'm really cannot figure how your motives, in how you explain and execute them, could communicate with us in any accurate and helpful way. The only thing that has become of this is the potential for a great deal of shame.

   I am personally looking forward to a different and more effect method of communication so we can all find some clarity.

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. truthmover
   Administrator

   Moderator Response

   Rajjpuut, you are not violating the letter, but the intent of our guidelines, and that's no hiding place on this forum. Please read them if you haven't already. Here's the problem.

   You are acting cocky and dismissive while you have given us no indication that you have any experience or expertise on what is being discussed. Your post above demonstrates little understanding of the issue at hand, little interest in mutual discourse, and little tact. That won't fly here. You have now posted to several threads with the same basic critique of our intent, and in no case have you been very specific, or offered constructive recommendations to address the problems you see. For this reason your behavior suggests but does not necessarily indicate that you are here to either piss us off, or distract us.

   If that is your intent, it won't work. We're too savvy, and we'll just give you the boot. If your intent is genuine, then as Giveback suggests above, you are going to have to find more effective methods of communication if you want to be a part of the discussion happening here. The real problem with your approach is your use of stereotyping. You approach with assumptions rather than simply asking questions. You act like you've got it all figured out, but give little indication in your posts that this is the case. For instance:

   I wasn't surprised at the attacks on Clinton by the Republicans and I'm not surprised by the attacks on GW Bush by the Democrats, I just am 100% certain that that line of "thinking" won't accomplish what this site purports to want to accomplish. Truth has no ideology although people try to associate it with their own, always.

   So you imply that you've got our priorities all figured out and that you have absolute certainty that that we are on the wrong course. One problem. You have offered no examples outside this forum, and no clear presentation of your concern. The forum is not the organization. The forum is not the flyers we hand out, nor the conversations we are having with people on the street every week. The forum is a place where we can talk about our concerns, share and develop strategies, keep each other informed, and feel free to get it wrong sometimes.

   Please refrain from posting to our forum in a manner not respecting the expertise, experience, or intentions of the other people posting to this site. Please refrain from making broad general statements without indicating their specific basis. Please refrain from telling us that the project has a lot of potential.

   Invective: 1. vehement or violent denunciation, censure, or reproach. 2. a railing accusation; vituperation. 3. an insulting or abusive word or expression. 4. vituperative; denunciatory; censoriously abusive.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. truthmod
   Administrator

   Back to the incompetence

   They're still in office. How incompetent can they be.

   People often point to the mess in Iraq, Katrina, or the failure to find WMDs as proof of this administration's incompetence. But the quagmire and the sectarian violence seem to be just what they wanted. And displacing a bunch of poor black people to make room for developers is clearly a great thing for the rich right wing. As far as WMDs go, I'm not sure, but maybe it's not that easy to sneak adequate counterfeits or replacements into Iraq and not have them ID'd as such.

   Bush: "I can barely speak English." The media and Bush himself always jokingly play up his "incompetence" or stupidity. Thus many take the evils that he and his administration are committing less seriously. It becomes more of just an exasperating joke ("Oh, there goes Bush again.") than a genuine, serious and purposeful opposition.

   http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/...

   Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.