On Apr 28, 12:02*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:13:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 28, 6:41*am, John H wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:43:07 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:11:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://news.aol.com/article/low-flying-planes-create-total-panic/4478...dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fartic le%2Flow-flying-planes-crea*te-t*otal-panic%2F447862

The brilliance recognises no boundaries.

I am still not sure why this was "confidential". There were no
important people on the plane they were protecting. Why not make a PR
thing out of it, like the Blue Angels.
If people knew they were coming they could have got good press out of
this instead of making fools out of themselves. *
I can see why Obama was ****ed.
In another administration there might have been criticism about who is
in charge here.

No. Really? You mean, like, if Bush were in charge there would be some
criticism of the President by Brian Williams or Keith?

--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

Do you mean like blaming Obama for the economy debacle that happened
under Bush's watch? By the way, you do realize that there are signs
that Obama's recovery plans are working, don't you?

No, we're talking about airplanes and New York. The recovery is
working, but has to do with capitalism, not Obama's socialism. Obama's
'fixes' are simply a ruse to get the government bigger and raise
taxes.

How do you know that?

What about the deal you presented yesterday? I responded, but you
became mum.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because it's apples and oranges.