On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:06:51 -0500, Jim-- wrote:


I can name many democracies overthrown from the right. Name *one*
overthrown from the left.


Attempted and successful government takeovers by the left:


1923: Spain
Fascists are not leftists.

1926: Italy
Fascists are not leftists.

1926: Poland
Poland wasn't much of a democracy, at the time, but Pilsudski was a
leftist, so I'll give you this one.

1933: Germany
Fascists are not leftists.

1933: Uruguay
Nope, Terra was to the right.

1933: Austria
Fascists are not leftists.

1934: Estonia
Maybe, or maybe the result of outside influences.
http://www.ce-review.org/99/14/amber14.html

1934: Latvia
Ulmanis was neither left nor right.

1935: Ecuador
Nope, not a democracy at the time.

1936: Greece
Not a democracy, and Metaxas was on the right.

1936: Spain
Franco, a leftist?

1938: Czechoslovakia
HITLER

1940: Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway
HITLER

1943: Argentina
Peron was part fascist, part populist, but he killed far too many leftists
to be considered one.

1947: Ecuador
Nope, not a democracy at the time.

1948: Venezuela
Nope, a right wing coup.

1948: Czechoslovakia
Nope, there was no overthrow. The communists actually won the 1946
elections.

1962: Burma
Bingo, Ne Win was a Marxist.

1963: Ecuador
Nope, not a democracy at the time.

1966: Argentina
Nope, a right wing coup

1964: Brazil
Nope, right wing coup.

1967: Greece
Papadopoulos, a leftist?

1968: Peru
One of more than half a dozen coups, and this junta restored democracy.
Still, Velasco would be considered leftist.

1972: Ecuador
Nope, just one of many coups.

1972: Philippines
Marcos was no leftist.

1973: Uruguay
Nope, right wing coup.

1973: Chile
Yup, those lefties at the CIA overthrow a democratically elected Allende.
You have really got to be kidding.

1975: India
What, did Indira overthrow herself?

1976: Argentina
Nope, a right wing coup.

1987: Zimbabwe
Nope, Mugabe was elected. He may never leave office, but he was elected.

1999: Pakistan
Nope, military coup and not leftist.

Will that do?

Thanks, I count two, maybe three. Up until today I didn't know that there
were any.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:17:13 -0500, John H wrote:


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.

I can understand that, and it's importance. IMO, though, 9/11 was so
important that exceptions could be made. The commission is, I believe,
sworn to secrecy. I don't think any testimony should necessarily be
public, but I do want the commission to have access. It might prove
beneficial towards their recommendations.

123 (Butch Ammon) wrote in message ...
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.


NOT THIS VETERAN!!!!!!!! I am absolutely 100%,dyed-in-the-wool, Pro-Bush, all
the way!!!!!

Yeah, regardless of what is good for the economy, the environment, the
joblessness, and the country as a whole. Again, the republicans just
can NOT think anything but Bush, those blinders, you know.

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
123 (Butch Ammon) wrote in message
...
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.


NOT THIS VETERAN!!!!!!!! I am absolutely 100%,dyed-in-the-wool,
Pro-Bush, all
the way!!!!!

Yeah, regardless of what is good for the economy, the environment, the
joblessness, and the country as a whole. Again, the republicans just
can NOT think anything but Bush, those blinders, you know.

Actually, if this NG is any indication, it is the liberals who show
intolerance for anyone disagreeing with their liberal views. Many have also
stated that they hope the economy goes into the crapper just before the
elections and have vowed to vote for anyone else but Bush, apparently
regardless of their qualifications.

On the other hand, I have found several conservatives in this NG who have
admitted they have problems with some of Bush's actions.

I think that you often paint with too broad a brush basskisser.

John H wrote:
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.

A good commander would have cut his losses


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.

I blame the administration for doing nothing, and now trying to impede
the investigation, while using their failure as a symbol of political
"leadership"


That would solve your problem.

Please elaborate


John H

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

9-11 timeline (the day)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../dayof911.html
THe whole plot and following days as is currently known
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

Doug Kanter wrote:
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!

Harry Krause wrote:

I've posted any number of times I am NOT interested in
"debates" or lengthy "discussions" with the right-wing trash here.

The reason you cannot carry on a debate or a lengthy discussion
discussion with anyone who who disagrees with you is because you are
intolerant of any opinion other than your own.

-- Charlie

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!

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:24:49 -0500, DSK wrote:

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

Here's a site with a timeline. You'll love it. It has plenty of
innuendoes and semi-accusations suggesting a conspiracy between the
President, CIA, most of the Cabinet members, the military (including
NORAD), and even down to the actions of specific fighter pilots.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../dayof911.html

Enjoy!

John H

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

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:24:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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!


Go he
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../dayof911.html

Enjoy!
John H

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