Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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?

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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?

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"ecr" wrote in message
om...
"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.

2) In terms of solid, material results in the time immediately following the
attack, he was of no consequence. He doesn't possess the intelligence to
understand the spectrum of responses to an attack like that. Any and all
responses were dictated at the time by real people, not Bush.

3) Whether the bad guys continued the attack or not was in no way related to
anything the president could've done. If they had 5 more planes targeted and
in the air, there still would've been some sort of trouble on those planes,
successful or not.

4) If Bush had been 4 blocks away from the WTC, with a perfect view and
access to all emergency communications occurring at the time, he still could
not have expressed anything coherent about the events, unless it was
previously scripted for him. Better men took care of keeping the public
informed. There were fire and police officials who better able to put ideas
together during impromptu interviews.

5) A real man would've told the public that the best information was coming
from the mayor of NYC.

Sorry, but I don't believe in deities, and I especially don't attribute
god-like qualities to humans. You're welcome to do that, though.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...

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

You want to talk to two of my brothers-in-law? They were over in Vietnam
and
fought, survived, and came home. There were countless stories going
around
among all the services. I can tell you this... Kerry is *DESPISED* by
Vietnam
vets!!

Yes, I believe he is despised. Most traitors are.

Polls indicate that Vietnam vets are widely mixed as far as where they fall
on the political spectrum. This is nothing new. It's been that way since
they began returning from Vietnam. Better not make any assumptions.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:10:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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!

I may be wrong, but I believe we still have an ANG base on Long Island. A
path straight north would intercept a plane about halfway between Boston and
Manhattan.

That could have been possible, but no one had knowledge of anything
going on until after the first tower was hit. Even then the incident
was being described as an accident. Only after the second tower was
hit was a "purposeful" connection made.

Air National Guard folks tended to drill primarily on weekends. They
didn't normally have armed fighters on ready alert, i.e. sitting at
the end of the runway with a pilot ready to take off. We had no reason
for this prior to 9/11.

John H

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


That could have been possible, but no one had knowledge of anything
going on until after the first tower was hit. Even then the incident
was being described as an accident. Only after the second tower was
hit was a "purposeful" connection made.

Even after just ONE hit, it should've looked fishy. Anything's possible, but
the whole neighborhood's surrounded by open water. Any normal pilot would've
tried very hard to hit water in such a situation. Oh well. Hindsight blah
blah blah.....

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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?

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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?

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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.

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

"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. :-)

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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

Bush shows his ignorance yet again
 

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!