PDA

View Full Version : Gov. Bush wants probe of Schiavo collapse


Infiniti2001
Jun 17th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Friday, June 17, 2005 Posted: 12:19 PM EDT (1619 GMT)


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush asked a prosecutor Friday to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, calling into question how long it took her husband to call 911 after he found her.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m., and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday from The Associated Press. In comments in The Miami Herald, he said Terri Schiavo would not have survived if her husband had not immediately called 911.

"It's absolutely preposterous," Felos said. "If he had waited 70 minutes she would have been dead."

Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected at her husband's request, despite unsuccessful efforts by her parents, Bush and others to keep her alive.

An autopsy released Wednesday concluded that she had been in a persistent vegetative state and revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

It left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. The autopsy showed she suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain had shrunk to half the normal size for her age.




That man is a disgrace to this country and the not-so-great state of Florida(and to think I live there).I wish he'd show that much concern for the thousands of kids in foster care . :rolleyes:

Helen Lawson
Jun 17th, 2005, 06:56 PM
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Kart
Jun 17th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Spot the sore loser.

griffin
Jun 17th, 2005, 07:10 PM
Spot the sore loser.


More like "spot the political whore exploiting someone else's tragedy to pander to the extreme right as he lines himself up for a Presidential bid"

"New information"?!?!?! Testimony from a 1992 trial? :fiery:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 17th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Spot the sore loser.
Indeed.

Sounds like somebody didn't take very well to being wrong.

decemberlove
Jun 17th, 2005, 08:49 PM
I thought it was over. :(

Helen Lawson
Jun 17th, 2005, 08:52 PM
I thought it was over. :(

It will NEVER be over!!! :sad: :sad: :sad: :fiery: :fiery: :fiery:

Volcana
Jun 17th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Well, at least we know he isn't running for President.

Justin
Jun 17th, 2005, 10:54 PM
More like "spot the political whore exploiting someone else's tragedy to pander to the extreme right as he lines himself up for a Presidential bid"

"New information"?!?!?! Testimony from a 1992 trial? :fiery:

Spot on!

Another reason why I hate Bush. ;)

Meesh
Jun 18th, 2005, 11:22 AM
Well, he will have to put Terry on the top shelf soon as it's hurricane season.
Last year we heard him during all the hurricanes... then we had to hear him do the same speel in Spanish.
Anyone remember his wife (Columba Bush) getting busted by customs for all the sh*t she bought on a trip to Paris and didn't claim it. 19,000.00 in jewelry and clothes... Opps I forgot to claim it... just an oversight. :rolleyes:

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 18th, 2005, 05:01 PM
More like "spot the political whore exploiting someone else's tragedy to pander to the extreme right as he lines himself up for a Presidential bid"

"New information"?!?!?! Testimony from a 1992 trial? :fiery:


Yup. Exactly. Problem is considering that Florida is the most backward state in the union, this could backfire. I'm sure people have said this before in 2000 but there will not be another Bush in the White House.

Lord Nelson
Jun 18th, 2005, 06:33 PM
what do you mean by most backward. Florida is one of the richest states. By the way there is nothing wrong with having a probe.

Steam
Jun 19th, 2005, 01:06 AM
This is fucking ridiculous.

LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RVD
Jun 19th, 2005, 03:46 AM
This is yet another documented reason why the US economy is the f**king toilet. These Bushes can't run a damn business, let alone a state or country. Bushes need to know when to let shit go. :fiery:
YOU LOST FOOL! NOW GET ON WITH RUNNING THE DAMN STATE!! SHIT!

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 19th, 2005, 04:42 AM
More abuse of government power. What else is new?

Jakeev
Jun 21st, 2005, 06:27 AM
Friday, June 17, 2005 Posted: 12:19 PM EDT (1619 GMT)


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush asked a prosecutor Friday to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, calling into question how long it took her husband to call 911 after he found her.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m., and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday from The Associated Press. In comments in The Miami Herald, he said Terri Schiavo would not have survived if her husband had not immediately called 911.

"It's absolutely preposterous," Felos said. "If he had waited 70 minutes she would have been dead."

Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected at her husband's request, despite unsuccessful efforts by her parents, Bush and others to keep her alive.

An autopsy released Wednesday concluded that she had been in a persistent vegetative state and revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

It left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. The autopsy showed she suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain had shrunk to half the normal size for her age.




That man is a disgrace to this country and the not-so-great state of Florida(and to think I live there).I wish he'd show that much concern for the thousands of kids in foster care . :rolleyes:

Not just foster care but how bout the probably hundreds or probably thousands of actual unsolved murders in Florida?

Just love it when politicians make isolated agendas don't you?:rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Jun 21st, 2005, 03:38 PM
:shrug: I don't get the government's obsession with Terri Schiavo...I just don't get it.

Knizzle
Jun 21st, 2005, 03:53 PM
Let's investigate why it took Bush 7 min to react to the towers being attacked.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2005, 01:03 AM
Let's investigate why it took Bush 7 min to react to the towers being attacked.

What do you care? You'd criticize him no matter how long it took. Had he immediately jumped up and reacted, you libs would be saying that he was "crazed". :rolleyes:

Why don't we investigate why Clinton did nothing about terrorism for 8 years while he was president? :wavey:

I suppose in your mind, terrorism didn't exist when Clinton was president. :rolleyes: I can name several things that took place on Clinton's watch (including 1993 WTC bombing). What did he ever do about them?

Besides, had Gore won that election, would you be complaining about him taking 7 minutes to react? I don't think so. Admit it.

Infiniti2001
Jun 22nd, 2005, 03:41 AM
What do you care? You'd criticize him no matter how long it took. Had he immediately jumped up and reacted, you libs would be saying that he was "crazed". :rolleyes:

Why don't we investigate why Clinton did nothing about terrorism for 8 years while he was president? :wavey:

I suppose in your mind, terrorism didn't exist when Clinton was president. :rolleyes: I can name several things that took place on Clinton's watch (including 1993 WTC bombing). What did he ever do about them?

Besides, had Gore won that election, would you be complaining about him taking 7 minutes to react? I don't think so. Admit it.

tsk, tsk!! So tell me: did 9-11 happen under Clinton? Or Bush? That says it all about whose policies on terrorism were more effective.

Actually, not only didn't Clinton not "do nothing" about terrorism, he was effectively dealing with it and containing it (it's virtually certain that he foiled a couple of plots of the magnitude of 9-11 including the plot to blow up as many as dozens of airplanes all at once. He responded to the 1993 bombing and effectively prevented an even worse catastrophy. When the Bush team came into the White House, they were so arrogant and hated Clinton so much (remember the lies they spread about how the Clinton staff had trashed the White House? Rove spread this deliberately and it was in every tv talk show monologue but it was FALSE) that they refused to utilize any policies he set in place. Not only did they ignore briefings from his security staff, they also ignored the bi-partisan Hart-Rudman report which was placed on Bush's desk shortly after his inauguration in 2001 and shunted over to Cheney's desk where it sat with NO action at all (meanwhile he was meeting with oilmen to figure out how to rape the country's energy supply). If ANY one else had become president — Gore, Bradley or McCain — it's virtually certain that the policies of Clinton's team would have been continued, the Hart-Rudman report read and acted on and no vacation taken during the summer of 2001 when warning of an imminent terrorist attack were being sent to the White House --- and, I've become convinced, 9-11 would never happened. I don't buy the conspiracy theorists who say Bush knew and let it happen, but it's clear he abandonned Clinton's effective policies against terrorism.

Sadly, some Republicans, you included :o and those in the White House, are so consumed and blinded by mindless Clinton bashing, ya'll can't see reality. :tape:

Lord Nelson
Jun 22nd, 2005, 01:17 PM
tsk, tsk!! So tell me: did 9-11 happen under Clinton? Or Bush? That says it all about whose policies on terrorism were more effective.

Actually, not only didn't Clinton not "do nothing" about terrorism, he was effectively dealing with it and containing it (it's virtually certain that he foiled a couple of plots of the magnitude of 9-11 including the plot to blow up as many as dozens of airplanes all at once. He responded to the 1993 bombing and effectively prevented an even worse catastrophy. When the Bush team came into the White House, they were so arrogant and hated Clinton so much (remember the lies they spread about how the Clinton staff had trashed the White House? Rove spread this deliberately and it was in every tv talk show monologue but it was FALSE) that they refused to utilize any policies he set in place. Not only did they ignore briefings from his security staff, they also ignored the bi-partisan Hart-Rudman report which was placed on Bush's desk shortly after his inauguration in 2001 and shunted over to Cheney's desk where it sat with NO action at all (meanwhile he was meeting with oilmen to figure out how to rape the country's energy supply). If ANY one else had become president — Gore, Bradley or McCain — it's virtually certain that the policies of Clinton's team would have been continued, the Hart-Rudman report read and acted on and no vacation taken during the summer of 2001 when warning of an imminent terrorist attack were being sent to the White House --- and, I've become convinced, 9-11 would never happened. I don't buy the conspiracy theorists who say Bush knew and let it happen, but it's clear he abandonned Clinton's effective policies against terrorism.

Sadly, some Republicans, you included :o and those in the White House, are so consumed and blinded by mindless Clinton bashing, ya'll can't see reality. :tape:
Clinton did absolutely nothing when Bin Laden was hiding in Sudan before he was kicked out of ther to land up in Afghanistan. You may not remember, but Osama was highly wanted even when Clinton was in power and Bill let Osama flee. In addition, the 9/11 hijackers took years to plan their terrorist act. The hijackers who piloted the planes got their training in the U.S. when Clinton was in power. If you want to be non-partisan then read the 9/11 commission reoprt which bames both the Democrats and the Republicans for not being able to prevent 9/11. Personally I blame the secret services such as CIA and FBI who were so arrogant that they refused to share intelligence info with each other

Pureracket
Jun 22nd, 2005, 02:16 PM
Clinton did absolutely nothing when Bin Laden was hiding in Sudan before he was kicked out of ther to land up in Afghanistan. You may not remember, but Osama was highly wanted even when Clinton was in power and Bill let Osama flee. In addition, the 9/11 hijackers took years to plan their terrorist act. The hijackers who piloted the planes got their training in the U.S. when Clinton was in power. If you want to be non-partisan then read the 9/11 commission reoprt which bames both the Democrats and the Republicans for not being able to prevent 9/11. Personally I blame the secret services such as CIA and FBI who were so arrogant that they refused to share intelligence info with each otherThe Sudan story is a lie. Clinton did indeed search for him in the Sudan (by the way, Clinton would not have turned a blind eye to the genocide that's going on there now, either).

harloo
Jun 22nd, 2005, 02:24 PM
Clinton did absolutely nothing when Bin Laden was hiding in Sudan before he was kicked out of ther to land up in Afghanistan. You may not remember, but Osama was highly wanted even when Clinton was in power and Bill let Osama flee. In addition, the 9/11 hijackers took years to plan their terrorist act. The hijackers who piloted the planes got their training in the U.S. when Clinton was in power. If you want to be non-partisan then read the 9/11 commission reoprt which bames both the Democrats and the Republicans for not being able to prevent 9/11. Personally I blame the secret services such as CIA and FBI who were so arrogant that they refused to share intelligence info with each other

Clinton did things to contain terrorism but he did not do enough and Bush would of followed his lead if 9/11 did not happen. The American people were in full support of attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and finding Bin Laden. However, when the focus shifted too Sadam(who had no relation too 9/11 as the panel stated) people started to question the President's motives? ;)

Why Iraq because they had an evil dictactor? Why not Saudia Arabia which is a known too harbour terrorist? Why not Syria for the same reason? This is a war on terrorism right?:worship: Oil?

When is this administration going to take any responsibility for their actions?:tape:


-Clinton is not responsible for the WMD's fiasco
-Clinton is not responsible for Colin Powell going before the U.N. and lying about the case for war in Iraq
-Clinton is not responsible for what happened in Guantanamo.
-Clinton is not responsible for the Downing Street Memos.

charmedRic
Jun 22nd, 2005, 02:24 PM
Sore Loser. The Bush's are pathethic.

Pureracket
Jun 22nd, 2005, 02:26 PM
Clinton did things to contain terrorism but he did not do enough and Bush would of followed his lead if 9/11 did not happen. The American people were in full support of attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 and finding Bin Laden. However, when the focus shifted too Sadam(who had no relation too 9/11 as the 9/11 panel stated) people started to question the President's motives?

Why Iraq? Why not Saudia Arabia which is a known to harbour terrorist? Why not Syria for the same reason? Why Iraq, because they had an evil dictator? He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, and had no WMD's.

When is this administration going to take any responsibility for their actions?

-Clinton is not responsible for the WMD's fiasco
-Clinton is not responsible for Colin Powell going before the U.N. and lying about the case for war in Iraq
-Clinton is not responsible for what happened in Guantanamo.
-Clinton is not responsible for the Downing Street Memos.:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship :

SelesFan70
Jun 22nd, 2005, 03:10 PM
The Sudan story is a lie. Clinton did indeed search for him in the Sudan (by the way, Clinton would not have turned a blind eye to the genocide that's going on there now, either).

That's going on there "now"? It's been going on for generations. I wonder when the world is going to wake up and see how many Christians the Muslims are killing every day in Darfour and N. Africa in general....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

Lord Nelson
Jun 22nd, 2005, 06:23 PM
This message is responses to Pureracket, Harloo & Selesfan70.

Pure racket: Clinton may have searched for Bin Laden but he let Osama flee to Afghanistan instead of forcing the Sudanese to give him to U.S. authorites. In Clinton's defense I don't think the Sudanese would have given him to them but still Clinton should have tried. By the way the first WTC attacks in 1993 happened under Clinton.

Harloo: You have a point. Bush would have acted like Clinton in response to terrorism if there was no 9/11. I don't get your point with Saudi Arabia. I doubt that Muslims would take it well if the U.S. had invaded Saudi Arabia which contains Mecca. As for Syria, well they have already gotten out of Lebanon which is a good step forward. Bashar Assad unfortunately does not control the country well and he needs to replace the political hierarchy with his own people.
I strongly support the U.S. attack on Iraq. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, int. terrorism flourished and created an atmosphere which led to 9/11. The U.S. did not want the dsame thing to happen to Iraq. Saddam was also pretty unstable killing 100'00s of shiites and Kurds (I'm a strong supporter of Kurdish rights against Arab hegemony). Also Saddam annexed Kuwait, set oil wells on fire which damaged the ecosystem. He also purposely destroyed the marshes in southern Sudan leading to drying off the marshes to ensure that shiite fighters don't hide in them. The U.N were also incapable of letting us know if Saddam did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. Itw as their responsibility to let us know. If this was not the case then the sanctions against Iraq should have been removed.

Selesfan70: I agree with you on Sudan. Since 1983, millions of Sudanese died and most of them were Christians. But the western world did not seem to care. Same with Biafra in Nigeria. Its only Christian groups in the U.S. which seems to care. That has helped the south a bit and there may be peace there. I am happy though that East Timor, Republic of Serpska (Serb Bosnia) and Nagorno-Karabah(Armenia)-Christian regions broke off from Muslim countries.

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2005, 01:01 AM
tsk, tsk!! So tell me: did 9-11 happen under Clinton? Or Bush? That says it all about whose policies on terrorism were more effective.


I KNEW one of you would say that. But like someone already pointed out....9/11 was YEARS in the making, but it happened 8 months into Bush's presidency. So, whose watch does that mean all of the planning of (and training for) 9/11 took place on? That's right, Bill Clinton. And do you honestly think that Clinton would have prevented it?

Look at everything that took place on Clinton's watch:

1993 - WTC Bombing

1996 - Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia bombed, killing 19 and injuring 200 soldiers

1996 - Clinton passes on offer from Sudan for bin Laden

1998 - Bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.

1998 - Missile strike against bin Laden's Khost, Afghanistan training camp and a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory....when? Oh right about when the Monica scandal started. He makes this decision without even consulting his Joint Chiefs.

2000 - Bombing of the USS Cole. 17 sailors killed, 39 injured.

And I'm sure I left a few out.

Bill Clinton? Effective? I guess that's a relative term, isn't it? And besides the Sudan offer, there have also been claims that Clinton turned down at least 1 other offer for bin Laden.

What's the common theme in all of those attacks? They're overseas. That makes it okay? :rolleyes: I've read a quote from Madeleine Albright (defending Clinton) that more or less makes that very statement.

He responded to the 1993 bombing and effectively prevented an even worse catastrophy.

How did he prevent an even worse catastrophe?

BTW, there was supposedly evidence that the 1993 bombings were tied to Iraq, but Clinton preferred to believe that it was just loose terrorist groups (i.e. not state sponsored). Why? Because he didn't want to go to war with Iraq or any nation. He let PUBLIC OPINION dictate his presidency.

Sadly, some Republicans, you included :o and those in the White House, are so consumed and blinded by mindless Clinton bashing, ya'll can't see reality. :tape:

Now THIS statement is just completely and utterly FALSE!

You said that I am "so consumed and blinded by mindless Clinton bashing, "....

Define "consumed" and "mindless". Wouldn't those 2 words imply that I post about Clinton FREQUENTLY and RANDOMLY????

Let's see. As far as I can recall, this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 years that I've posted anything about Bill Clinton. (And for all I know, it's actually the 1st.) That ain't frequent. And it ain't random. And, btw, it ain't bashing. And, any time I've posted about Clinton was in response to one of the 1000 threads bashing Bush (just like this one).

Before you go making comments like that, maybe you (and other libs) should look in the mirror. You wanna talk about consumed and mindless??? Look in the mirror. How many threads are started on a daily basis bashing Bush? How many posts/threads have you made about Bush?

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2005, 01:05 AM
Clinton did absolutely nothing when Bin Laden was hiding in Sudan before he was kicked out of ther to land up in Afghanistan. You may not remember, but Osama was highly wanted even when Clinton was in power and Bill let Osama flee. In addition, the 9/11 hijackers took years to plan their terrorist act. The hijackers who piloted the planes got their training in the U.S. when Clinton was in power. If you want to be non-partisan then read the 9/11 commission reoprt which bames both the Democrats and the Republicans for not being able to prevent 9/11. Personally I blame the secret services such as CIA and FBI who were so arrogant that they refused to share intelligence info with each other

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Meesh
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:33 PM
It's Jeb that's ordered this probe not W.