On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:23:33 -0500, Jim wrote:

In no way do I attempt to diminish the actions of the passengers. But
the question remains

WHERE WAS OUR MILITARY? We were a nation under attack, and not 1 plane
was taken out by those assigned the job!

Charles wrote:

Jim wrote:



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



That plane that went down due to the heroic actions of those on board,
who understood what was happening, is nothing more than knife in your
hand to attack others. How pathetic is that.

How contemptible you are. You'll never rise to level of those on board
that plane who gave their lives for the good of others. Yours is a banal
horizon, the installed in power of some political double-talker who has
beguiled you.

-- Charlie

Jim, not one military plane was assigned the job of blowing a
passenger filled airliner from the sky.

It sounds like you want to blame the Bush administration because the
towers were hit and the Pentagon was hit. Why not just say that Bush
knew about the attacks in advance and had arranged that the military
take no preventative action.

That would solve your problem.

John H

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

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:23:24 -0800, jps wrote:

In article .net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:10:02 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

You're a fool. An assassination threat was made on the President's life
the
same day 4 planes were hijacked, and flown into the WTC, and a building
in
close proximity to the President's residence.

One of the resident Bush cheerleaders, John H, claimed "Bush did a
superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme." Bush is commander in
Chief, but in a very dark day for this nation, he turned into
commander in Chicken. John H's claims about how Bush acted are
outlandish.

So you say it's worse if the victims say it's worse? Ok, then let's
apply
your logic and apply it to what these "victims" have to say:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

You want to use a lunatic right wing fringe group web site to back up
your argument? You may buy into it Nobbie, but the public isn't.

Bush has used 9/11 shamelessly to prop up his failed administration
and it looks like the citizens of this country are getting a little
tired of it.

Let's just see the way enlisted men and veterans vote in November...

Well, since most of the troops who've gone to war in Iraq are not
"enlisted men and veterans" I'd venture a guess that Bush will lose big
time among active troops.

Second, I'd also venture a guess that veterans would probably cotton to
Kerry before Bush. Kerry went to war and fought gallantly while Bush
enjoyed his exclusive status as a political scion.

I expect most veterans can feel that in their bones.

Most of the troops who went to war in Iraq *are* enlisted men. A high
percentage of them *are* veterans of one conflict or another.

This veteran, and those with whom I associate, place John Kerry right
up there with Jane Fonda on our list of despicable people.

Your comments display a lack of knowledge of active forces and the
national guard.

John H

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

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:07:07 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:47:21 -0500, John H wrote:



Of course, you may be one of those who proclaim he knew about the attack
in advance and was probably involved in the planning. Then I could
understand your position.


I don't believe GWB, or anyone in his administration, knew about the
attack in advance. That being said, I am troubled by the administrations
apparent lack of cooperation with the 9/11 inquiry. What are your
thoughts?

Purely un-researched opinion: Bush wants to maintain the privacy of
certain actions of the Executive Branch, such as morning coffee
remarks, or whatever, and not establish a precedent which detracts
from the rights of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, I don't think
the topic of the inquiry has any bearing on the privacy desire.

John H

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

I believe it was Newsweek which described a timeline that shows that Bush
was on his way to an elementary school - literally pulling up in the big
car. The story seemed to indicate that some of his party heard about the
attacks, and perhaps Bush, but he continued into the school anyway.

I have no idea about the next thought, but I'd hope there are enough
independent thinkers in the military to begin doing SOMETHING, rather than
wait for a president to think fast.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
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!

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.

And that's just one of several ongoing stonewall jobs. The Bush Administration is
the most secretive in history. GWB is going to have to appoint a lot of judges
willing to throw out court orders before he's in the clear. Maybe it will work for
him, it didn't for Nixon



There are a lot of websites supporting theories that he knew in advance.
I don't subscribe to this,

Me neither. If GWB had known about it in advance, he wouldn't have been so scared.


but there ARE a lot of conflicting reports
as to his actions, and many unanswered questions.

Sure. How about the Bush family's long business association withthe Bin Laden
family? How about the free passes issued to the Bin Ladens after Sept 11th? How
about all the intel on Al Queda that the Bush Administration was handed over by the
outgoing Presidential cabinet, which BushCo apparently threw in the trash?



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

Oh, come now. Just because these neocons rant about responsibility and
accountability, you don't expect them to actually DO anything about it? That would
take some balls & some integrity. Hiding and lying are much easier... and so far,
more profitable.

DSK

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:17:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"ecr" wrote in message
. com...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:raL1c.4540

Surely you don't believe that Bush's presence was any benefit to the
country
in the minutes, days and months after 9/11, do you? If he'd perished in
flames, better men would've stepped up. Matter of fact, Rudy's
popularity
rating were far higher than Bush's.


Wow! How can a, a, ... citizen make such a response?

Do you think POTUS presence (regardless of politics)is not required
during an attack on the US mainland?

Can you imagine the state of the country at this point if POTUS had
been killed?
(POTUS didn't go to DC because it(he) was deemed a probable target).

Do you think the "bad guys" would not have kept up the attack?

I fear for my country.

1) In terms of morale, Bush was only important to people who had respect for
him. I wouldn't hold the door for him if he were on crutches, so for me, his
existence was meaningless.

There is always the 10% extreme. Bush's approval rating went to 90%
(according to my secret Google sources) immediately following 9/11.
His actions must have impressed and had an affect on most of the
population.

Perhaps his actions did nothing more than prevent a *widespread*
reaction against Muslims.

I can see how one who detests the man would be angry every time he was
on television. I feel the same way about Kerry and Daschle.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
news
This veteran, and those with whom I associate, place John Kerry right
up there with Jane Fonda on our list of despicable people.

Possible trap - please step in it:

1) What labels do you have for Henry Kissinger during the time when Kerry
was doing the things which you feel made him a traitor? And, could you
please refresh me on what activities you feel made him a traitor?

2) What labels do you have for thousands of other vets who came home from
that war totally disgusted with our government and its policies?

3) What labels do you have for the parents whose political viewpoints were
radicalized by the foolishness of that war?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Hiding and lying are much easier... and so far,
more profitable.

Yes. Especially with gas prices which may hit $2.00 a gallon by summer.
Isn't that interesting? They go down as the war winds down (as predicted).
They go up as...what? Someone needs a new limo?

"John H" wrote in message
...

There is always the 10% extreme. Bush's approval rating went to 90%
(according to my secret Google sources) immediately following 9/11.
His actions must have impressed and had an affect on most of the
population.

"His actions" is a 99% empty phrase. None of the "actions" were his own.

Perhaps his actions did nothing more than prevent a *widespread*
reaction against Muslims.

That's the 1% I will admit were valuable.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



I've not deleted anything, crap-for-brains. In fact, I don't even
know
how one would do that, since doing so is of no interest to me.

Harry, you need a translator on retainer. When someone like Jim says
you
deleted your old posts, it means he's unable to figure out how to
find
them
with a google search.



Ahhh..thanks. Sometimes I find it difficult to understand the dribbles
of the terminally stupid, like "Jim," aka Dennis.

Thanks for making my point (the fact that you always reply to those
disagreeing with you with a childish insult) once again.



Well, Dennis, *you* make one unfounded, d.f. accusation after
another...if you can't take it, don't try to dish it out, eh?

Unfounded? Perhaps you can show me some of my unfounded accusations.

As far as dishing it out it normally comes after several of your attacks on
me.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly take whatever trash you want to throw
at me Krause. I am just making an observation about your childish insults
in each post you make and you keep proving it for me.

Have a nice day.