On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:37:34 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
What's even more funny is catching you guys on the left

???


In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you
have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now.


Carter's policies were unable to correct the situation. Coincidentally
not too long after Reagan took office, the economy improved
significantly.

Yeah, about 3 years after Reagan took office.

What? You think these changes can happen quickly. It takes time to
reverse economic trends.

Our economic recovery is slow right now, but I'll be willing to bet
that if Kerry does win in November that he'll be first to claim the
credit for the recovery which had its seeds sewn during the Bush
administration.

Dave

"basskisser" wrote in message

Please show the last time a passenger airliner, with crew training and
equipment standards up to date crashed into a highrise building.

High-rises and mountains are somewhat similar in aviation, in that they are
both large, tall, and easy to miss - one would think. They both become more
crucial when taking off or landing, as these activities bring you closer,
with less 'wiggle room'.

The following rough list for the most part contains only accidents involving
substantial loss of life. There have been some others.


1992 El Al 747 impacted an apartment building in Amsterdam.

1995 Dec. 20, nr. Cali, Colombia: American Airlines Boeing 757 crashed in
Andean Mountains.

1996 Feb. 29, near Arequipa, Peru: Faucett Airline Boeing 737 crashed into
mountain as it prepared to land.


1998 Feb. 2, Mindanao, Philippines: Cebu Pacific Air DC-9 crashed into a
mountain;


2003 Feb. 19, nr. Shahdad, Iran: Iranian military Ilyushin Il-76MD
crashed in the Sirach Mountains. All 276 on board were killed.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

In the last 50 years, please list those modern passenger airliners flown
by a major US=flag airline that on a bright, sunny day, crashed into a
major office building in a major US city.

????

Arbitrarily adding more and more restrictive conditions only shows your lack
of knowledge of aviation operations and the aviation industry.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh is right. You know virtually nothing of aviation.



The point is, while there are a relatively small number of airliner
crashes each year, you cannot cite any in the last 50 years that
involved a modern US-flag airliner that crashed into a major office
building in a major US city on a bright, sunny day, other than, of
course, those involved in the 9-11 horrors.

Of course. In fact, I don't believe it has ever happened since the early
days of aviation, if at all, which of course does not mean that it
couldn't -- and if such a thing were going to occur, New York would be a
probable locus, with its mix of three major and three other airports and
likely the largest concentration of high-rises in the world.

Bush's continued reading for 6 or 7 minutes is naught but a red herring, a
Michael Moore entree. All the people with the responsibility and the
capacity to check and respond to such events were already in motion. There
was nothing additional the President - any President - could have added to
the mix except an additional reporting requirement. The only reason for the
President to make an obvious exit would have been if he were concerned with
downline political appearances. Perhaps Bill or Al would have acted thus.
Perhaps John Kerry would. Perhaps Democrats have become so accustomed to
such men that the political response is the first thought, with tactical
issues occurring only as an afterthought.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Uh-huh. Must be a bitch, spening one's life rationalizing Bush's
screw-ups and failures.

Bingo!!!

We know you've run out of material when we get standard retort (C).

LOL

John Gaquin wrote:
Bush's continued reading for 6 or 7 minutes is naught but a red herring

That's possible, but OTOH it certainly does not support the idea that
Bush is a bold leader.


... All the people with the responsibility and the
capacity to check and respond to such events were already in motion.

Now *that's* utter malarkey. The truth is (and if you don't believe me,
read the Sept 11th Commission report) that the air traffic controllers
fumbled uselessly & flailed pointlessly, the Air Nat'l Guard controllers
sat around and waited for orders, and the bottom line is that an hour
and a half went by before anything substantial was being done.

... There
was nothing additional the President - any President - could have added to
the mix except an additional reporting requirement.

Bull****. A decisive, intelligent President could have gotten in touch
with the air control network, expedited the relay of info to the ANG,
and ordered interceptors aloft. It's just barely possible they could
have brought down that second plane, and very likely splashed the one
that hit the Pentagon.

Instead, Bush sat around and waited, and then he fled.

Fact- President Bush took NO active role controlling or containing the
tragic events of Sept 11th, 2001.

Fact- President Bush's spin machine started spewing fog that same day...
babble about assasination attempts, planted mines in DC, etc etc.

It's all part of history.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message news:a%oWc.8278

Bull****. A decisive, intelligent President could have gotten in touch
with the air control network, expedited the relay of info to the ANG,
and ordered interceptors aloft. It's just barely possible they could
have brought down that second plane, and very likely splashed the one
that hit the Pentagon.

In your dreams, Kimo-sabe


Instead, Bush sat around and waited, and then he fled.

Fact- President Bush took NO active role controlling or containing the
tragic events of Sept 11th, 2001.

Fact- President Bush's spin machine started spewing fog that same day...
babble about assasination attempts, planted mines in DC, etc etc.

Do you get the DNC talking points faxed to you every morning?

"DSK" wrote
... It's just barely possible they could
have brought down that second plane, and very likely splashed the one
that hit the Pentagon.

John Gaquin wrote:
In your dreams, Kimo-sabe


Don't believe me, don't take my word for it. That is the conclusion of
the bipartisan Sept 11th investigating committee.

The air defense network basically did not function as it should. The
President has the authority to speed these kinds of things up, *if* he
has the initiative, the intelligence, and the balls. Considering that
there were known threats involving airliners, and that the WTC was a
known favorite target, doesn't it seem like *somebody* in charge should
have gotten the point a little sooner?



Instead, Bush sat around and waited, and then he fled.

Fact- President Bush took NO active role controlling or containing the
tragic events of Sept 11th, 2001.

Fact- President Bush's spin machine started spewing fog that same day...
babble about assasination attempts, planted mines in DC, etc etc.


Do you get the DNC talking points faxed to you every morning?

Nope. It's all plain fact, easy to remember *if* you have a few
functioning brain cells, and aren't totally hoodwinked by the
Bush-Cheney fog makers.

But let's see what *you* think of President Bush's actions on Sept 11th?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message news:iepWc.8283


...the bipartisan Sept 11th investigating committee.

.....doesn't it seem like *somebody* in charge should
have gotten the point a little sooner?


...It's all plain fact, easy to remember *if* you have a few
functioning brain cells,

Don't cause a stampede in your rush for more kool-aid.

John Gaquin wrote:
Don't cause a stampede in your rush for more kool-aid.

What an intelligent, well-thought-out, logical, and well documented reply!

No wonder you find it so easy to convince people of the validity of your
viewpoint!

DSK