John H wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:55:33 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:03:28 -0500, Jim wrote:



Do you hold Clinton responsible for the attacks that took place while
he was in office? Was he responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing?
Using your "buck stops here" approach, he was. I'm sure that if I were
to search the internet, I could find a site making him part of some
conspiracy or other behind the Oklahoma City bombing. It would be a
waste of my time.

Should Clinton have been held accountable for the Khobar Towers
bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the World Trade Center bombing?

Yes--- the POTUS as Commander in Chief should be held accountable (as
opposed to the "responsible" you used in your first paragraph) for the
safety of the nation and it's forces. They occurred on his watch, and
he (Clinton) should (and I believe did) take both preventative and
retaliatory action.

Yes Bush went after Ben Laden (unsuccessfully) in Afghanistan. He also
used the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq, and did nothing to the
Saudis who financed the whole thing

John H wrote:


On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:26:57 -0500, Jim wrote:




As I recall the grounding order came after the 2nd tower was hit. The
fact remains that the US was attack. The military did nothing (at least
nothing effective) to stop it. The "Commander in Chief" (again to the
best of my knowledge) issued NO orders to defend the country. He now
refuses to testify to the commission investigating the incident, and in
fact seems to be doing everything he can to impede the investigation.

There are a lot of websites supporting theories that he knew in advance.
I don't subscribe to this, but there ARE a lot of conflicting reports
as to his actions, and many unanswered questions.

Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"?

Very simple logic
1) Country was attack
2) Defense caught unprepared
3) Commander in Chief takes the blame

John H wrote:



On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:33:11 -0500, Jim wrote:





And in all cases radio contact with the planes was turned off.
Passengers with cell phones were talking from the PA plane and
describing what was happening. The FAA ordered ALL planes grounded --
these 4 did not respond. IT doesn't take a genius.

John H wrote:




On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:50:31 -0500, Jim wrote:






John H wrote:





Bush did a superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme.



Ummm -- seems to me that The president and VP ran and hid while this was
going on. There was something like 20 min between tower 1 and tower 2
being hit. It was over an hour before the Pentagon was hit, yet no air
defense was prepared. The plane that went down in PA was tracked for
some time, yet not taken out

All in all I'd say the presidents' actions on 9/11 are nothing to brag about


Jim, we had not normally been keeping an air defense battery around
the twin towers or the Pentagon. The closest air defense we had was at
Fort Belvoir, VA. That's about an hour from the Pentagon on a good
day, assuming the troops were loaded and ready to go.

We had not been keeping F-16's on the ready rack at Andrews AFB
either.

Have you ever landed at National Airport in Washington, D,C.? When
landing from the north, planes fly directly above the Potomac River
until they hit the runway. This means they pass within a few blocks of
the Pentagon. The warning time would have been about 4 seconds from
the time a plane left the normal flight path.

It's okay to hate Bush, but try to exercise some reason!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Are you implying that the FAA ordered all planes grounded before the
incidents occurred?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Note: (9:26 a.m.) Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, "almost certainly
after getting an okay from the White House, initiate[s] a national
ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to
get down as soon as reasonable."

This was after both towers had been hit. The Pentagon was hit 12
minutes later, during the time when all aircraft were trying to land.
Keep in mind that the Pentagon is almost directly en route to National
Airport when approaching from the north.

Do you hold Clinton responsible for the attacks that took place while
he was in office? Was he responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing?
Using your "buck stops here" approach, he was. I'm sure that if I were
to search the internet, I could find a site making him part of some
conspiracy or other behind the Oklahoma City bombing. It would be a
waste of my time.

Should Clinton have been held accountable for the Khobar Towers
bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the World Trade Center bombing?

Of course, I'm being ridiculous. I hope you can see that and adjust
accordingly.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Good. We agree on how Presidents should be considered responsible for
whatever happens while they are in office.

I hold Bush responsible for 9/11 in the same way you hold Clinton
responsible for all the incidents that occurred during his watch.

That's fair.

And the cover up? Follows is an extract from a reference 1st posted by
me, then by you

"September 11, 2002: On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, The
New York Times writes, "One year later, the public knows less about the
circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight
than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in
the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." A former police
commissioner of Philadelphia, says: "You can hardly point to a
cataclysmic event in our history, whether it was the sinking of the
Titanic, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Kennedy assassination, when a
blue-ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and, where
appropriate, suggest reforms. That has not happened here."


The fact that I posted a web site does not indicate agreement with
everything on the site.

Isn't there a commission investigating this as we type?

A commission that is hindered in every step by Bush and his
administration, that was not set up until almost 2 years after the fact,
and only then because of overwhelming demand by congress and the people.

It will take about a week to read the website provided, but it does
raise a LOT of questions about BOTH the Clinton and Bush administration.

However Clinton (in your opinion) might have F***ed up , Bush had 9
months to set things right. He didn't.