On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:28:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

None of them are running for President. I've never labeled Kerry a
traitor. Where did that come from?

Kerry made implications about soldiers serving in Vietnam. I performed
none of his claimed atrocities. None of my soldiers performed those
atrocities (that I'm aware of), and I know of none having been
performed in the division to which I was assigned. I found the My Lai
massacre atrocious and think the officer in charge should have been
hung.

Kerry indicates that "free fire zones" allowed the intentional killing
of women and children. Bull****.


John H

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

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!

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:32:58 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

Night before last I watched a subcommittee hearing on the Haiti mess.
Mr. Noriega, an undersecretary of state for something or other, was
being questioned mostly be Democrats. Most of the Democrats doing the
"questioning" were simply using the time to make derogatory statements
about the administration. They wouldn't allow Noriega to answer
questions, but intimated the answers they desired with the questions
themselves and the statements they made. It was a ridiculous display
and made me ashamed of the whole mess.

I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

If the committee wants sworn answers to questions, then the committee
can submit the questions in writing and get a sworn deposition. This
would preclude the partisan speech making.

John H

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

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:48:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


We disagree on the value to the nation of his actions.

John H

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

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:50:10 -0500, Jim wrote:



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


Even more rationale to hate Bush.
John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:28:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

None of them are running for President. I've never labeled Kerry a
traitor. Where did that come from?

Kerry made implications about soldiers serving in Vietnam. I performed
none of his claimed atrocities. None of my soldiers performed those
atrocities (that I'm aware of), and I know of none having been
performed in the division to which I was assigned. I found the My Lai
massacre atrocious and think the officer in charge should have been
hung.

Kerry indicates that "free fire zones" allowed the intentional killing
of women and children. Bull****.


John H

Perhaps they exaggerated based on an emotionally charged climate. And, I
used the word traitor because I believe it was pivotal earlier in this
thread. But, let's replace that with "despicable", so you can answer the 3
questions I posed for you. Whether someone's running for president is
irrelevant. Unless you subscribe to the deity mentality, they are people who
are equal to you and I.

"John H" wrote in message
news
I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

.....unless the partisans in question are too timid to buy dirty magazines,
and would prefer to hound a president about his sexual exploits. Then the
partisan bull**** is just fine.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:48:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


We disagree on the value to the nation of his actions.

John H

Fortunately, you're not involved in the hiring process for any
mission-critical business or government positions. :-)

John H wrote:
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

Scroll up a bit and note that *I* posted this site at 1:00, your post
is time stamped 1:50. If you're going to claim credit, at least do so in
a different newsgroup.

Also note that in most cases the site quotes respected news sources, and
official press releases. Speculation is identified as such.
Erroneous reports are identified as such.

But there ARE a lot of questions

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.

John H

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