I beat you all to that conclusion weeks ago. . .
"When EPA made a Sept. 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, the agency did not have sufficient data and analyses to make the statement. . ."
Now see, expecting one to take responbility over that which one has no authority is an idiocy the likes of which only the military can willingly embrace. Lying, as I have always understood it, is purposeful deception. If it lying can be construed as accidental in nature, then answering a question incorrectly can be viewed as a lie. which is as excessive as it is preposterous. The EPA did not have all the facts, and that would not have been a satisfactory conclusion to present the public with shortly after such a grand mal event. I've read about this in other articles, and from what I understand, they looked over the building materials and did a quick diagnosis of the plane, as well as blood work on the people at ground zero, and decided there were no lethal, cancerous or biological agents floating about. They took that to mean it was relatively safe, although anyone who has used bondo, spackle or plaster of paris can tell you breathing in dust particles isn't healthly.
I don't think this really has much of anything to do with the Bush Administration and certainly doesn't reflect upon the President himself. I understand not many people like the man, but would it be impossible to keep complaints regarding his conduct within the boundaries of reality?
Threaded Mode
