Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:22:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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.


Not sure I understand the question. Who exaggerated? I have no label
for Kissinger, none for the thousands of other disgusted (and a few
disgusting-) vets, and none for the parents with radicalized
viewpoints. My mother had three of her sons over their. She absolutely
detested Clinton.

If Kerry were not running for President, he wouldn't be the topic of
this exchange. Therefore, his running is relevant. If Edwards were the
nominee, we sure wouldn't be on this subject!

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:24:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Didn't see it, so can't comment.

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:25:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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. :-)

Oh, but I am.

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

John H wrote:
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.
And the cover up? Follows is an extract from a reference 1st posted by
me, then by you

"September 11, 2002: On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, The
New York Times writes, "One year later, the public knows less about the
circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight
than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in
the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." A former police
commissioner of Philadelphia, says: "You can hardly point to a
cataclysmic event in our history, whether it was the sinking of the
Titanic, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Kennedy assassination, when a
blue-ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and, where
appropriate, suggest reforms. That has not happened here."

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:32:09 -0500, Jim wrote:



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


I tend to answer posts in the order that they appear. Doug's post was
read and answered before I got to your post. I claim no credit for
posting the site first. All the "first posting" credit goes to you. I
had been using the site since this morning, so thought nothing of
posting it. I suppose I should have checked all the messages in the
group first.

If you feel as though I stepped on your toes, I apologize. There was
not intent to do so.

You deserve a big pat on the back for being the first to post *and*
claim credit for doing so.

Does one get a prize if one is the first to claim credit?

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


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.


Not sure I understand the question. Who exaggerated? I have no label
for Kissinger, none for the thousands of other disgusted (and a few
disgusting-) vets, and none for the parents with radicalized
viewpoints. My mother had three of her sons over their. She absolutely
detested Clinton.

If Kerry were not running for President, he wouldn't be the topic of
this exchange. Therefore, his running is relevant. If Edwards were the
nominee, we sure wouldn't be on this subject!

John H

Subtract "running for office", and you're talking about nothing but
bare-bones ideology. Do you find Kerry despicable because he was seen in the
same city as a N. Vietnamese flag, and perhaps even touched one? Plenty of
returning soldiers and their families protested the war in shocking ways.
According to my information, two things are true:

1) The domino theory was nonsense invented by a small handful of suits, like
McCarthy, and the war we fought based on the theory turned out to be a total
waste of lives and resources.

2) In order to run for president, you only need to meet certain age &
citizenship requirements. You do NOT have to keep your mouth shut when you
see your country behaving irresponsibly.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:24:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Didn't see it, so can't comment.

John H

Didn't see it? Were you sleeping throughout Clinton's crucifixion by the
partisans who chose to pull their own puds in Congress for a year?

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:25:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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. :-)

Oh, but I am.

John H

Hopefully you don't hire for positions which might put lives at risk.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:55:33 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:
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.
And the cover up? Follows is an extract from a reference 1st posted by
me, then by you

"September 11, 2002: On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, The
New York Times writes, "One year later, the public knows less about the
circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight
than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in
the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." A former police
commissioner of Philadelphia, says: "You can hardly point to a
cataclysmic event in our history, whether it was the sinking of the
Titanic, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Kennedy assassination, when a
blue-ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and, where
appropriate, suggest reforms. That has not happened here."

The fact that I posted a web site does not indicate agreement with
everything on the site.

Isn't there a commission investigating this as we type?

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:25:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


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.


Not sure I understand the question. Who exaggerated? I have no label
for Kissinger, none for the thousands of other disgusted (and a few
disgusting-) vets, and none for the parents with radicalized
viewpoints. My mother had three of her sons over their. She absolutely
detested Clinton.

If Kerry were not running for President, he wouldn't be the topic of
this exchange. Therefore, his running is relevant. If Edwards were the
nominee, we sure wouldn't be on this subject!

John H

Subtract "running for office", and you're talking about nothing but
bare-bones ideology. Do you find Kerry despicable because he was seen in the
same city as a N. Vietnamese flag, and perhaps even touched one? Plenty of
returning soldiers and their families protested the war in shocking ways.
According to my information, two things are true:

1) The domino theory was nonsense invented by a small handful of suits, like
McCarthy, and the war we fought based on the theory turned out to be a total
waste of lives and resources.

2) In order to run for president, you only need to meet certain age &
citizenship requirements. You do NOT have to keep your mouth shut when you
see your country behaving irresponsibly.

While testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
April 23, 1971, Kerry said U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut
off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and
turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at
civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food
stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

Note the generalizations. He didn't limit his comments to "only those
soldiers he knew" or "only sailors on river boats."

Yes, I find his actions despicable. His stance against the war has no
bearing on my attitude towards him. If he wanted to berate the
politicians who got and kept us in the war, he was welcome to do so.
If he wanted to berate his commanders for allowing him to commit
atrocities, that's fine also.

He stated he committed acts "not knowing they violated the Geneva
Convention." Bull****. Is he implying that Navy officers received no
Geneva Convention training? Army officers sure did.

John H

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