"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
but the National Weather Service said
the closest lightning strike in the area was hundreds of miles
away,
in Maryland.

But....the president repeated that rumor. It must be true. The
lightning
was
purchased secretly on the international arms market. From Africa.


In the unlikely event that it *was* a terrorist attack, we'd be smart
to
blame
it on lightning. Take away the credit for the disaster, and the air is
let
out
of the terrorist balloon double quick.

You want to P off the terrorists? Make sure they stay out of the news.

That would be smart but it certainly wouldn't be the course this
administration would take. You can be certain if there was a whiff of
possibility this could've been attributable to human hands, the White
House
would've used the opportunity to bolster poll numbers.

Then kudos to the White House. They have either made the "smart" move
and denied terrorists any publicity, or they have refrained from using
the incident for political gain.

(Unlike politicians such as Mrs. Clinton, who, before the lights even
came back on, was crying out about how this was the Bush
administration's fault.)

Really? What exactly did she say?

On 26 Aug 2003 19:20:04 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck,
Are you suggesting that the government should have kept the reason for 911
secret from it's citizens?

Those most directly responsible for 9-11 died with their victims. That is a
provable truth. They have co-conspirators who lived, and those co-conspirators
need to be brought to justice.

It is as rational to argue that it was a deranged act of criminal extremists as
it is to argue that we needed to completely revamp our foreign policy to
include first strike preemption throughout the world as a result of the
tragedy. We have used 9-11 to take out Afghanistan. In the last few days before
the actual invasion, Bush beat the 9-11 drum over Iraq. How many more wars and
invasions will we be able to justify over 9-11?

If it were up to me, we would have hunted down Osama Bin Ladin as an
individual, international, criminal terrorist *******. We would have not rested
until he was brought to justice, (rather than after we secured the pipeline
right of way from the Caspain Sea). We practically have the capacity to count
the hair on a man's head from outer space. How hard can it be to find an entire
human being, provided we are truly dedicated to look for him?

*People* can be criminals, not countries or cultures. We destroy countries,
dismantle governments, damage cultures, and yet the friggin ciminals (OBL, SH,
etc) keep on truckin. At what point do we consider that if we keep on doing
what we've been doing so far, we'll just keep on getting what we've
already got? A handful of air. No WMD, no OBL, no SH. :-(

Bring the *criminals* to justice. Few on the left would disagree with such a
program, IMO. Anybody who would use the hunt for the criminals as cover for
other purposes is less than forthright, to put it kindly.

If our leaders are so incompetant that they cannot locate people so high
profile as OBL and SH, they should be replaced. If they are so devious that
they deprioritize locating these criminals, they should be replaced.

Maybe it boils down to "which" lie is told to the American people. And neither
is really acceptable. If we continue to knock off a string of governments and
occupy mid east countries without catching the head of the snake, our problems
will become larger and larger.

IMO, we should bring the criminals to justice and that would solve more than
occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.


Gould - How long did it take to track down the Atlanta Olympics bomber? Even
then, we caught him by accident! Do you honestly think we were not looking?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On 26 Aug 2003 18:45:55 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck - If GWB and his administration can gain so much from the public
perception you speak of, and if, as you and many others have continuously
accused, GWB and his administration are such horrendous liars, then WHY did
he/they not make the claims you speak of?

This government, like all governments before it and all that will follow, does
its best to manipulate information to its own advantage. To understand why some
information is manipulated in a particular manner and other information is not,
cannot be easily guessed by outsiders like you and I.


If the USA can steal all the Iraqi oil from under the watchful eyes of the
whole
entire world, then blaming the electrical outage on terrorist activity should
be
a snap.

If GWB and his administration could manipulate information as you suggest, why
are we hearing about the daily casualties in Iraq? He'd be shooting himself in
the foot allowing the military to report it. Your arguments lose all logic.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

If GWB and his administration could manipulate information as you suggest,
why
are we hearing about the daily casualties in Iraq? He'd be shooting himself
in
the foot allowing the military to report it. Your arguments lose all logic.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Well, there you go John. Thanks for making my point for me, and so easily.
The information is being manipulated because we are hearing *only* about the
combat deaths, not the number of injuries, not the number of deaths by traffic
accident, disease, etc.

Are you under some illusion that only Democratic administrations play fast and
loose with the truth? Please.

Really? What exactly did she say?

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_a...p?article=2751

That could be the most ridiculous item I have read in a long time.

Even the author doesn't claim that Hillary blamed Bush for the blackout. He
claims she said "I don't think that the administration under the current
president is doing enough to make sure we don't have more blackouts in the
future." Is that the same thing as blaming the current blackout on Bush? No. Of
course not.

It gets really good just a paragraph or so down. The author passes along a
supposition that Hillary's "incendiary comments" ("I don't think the current
administration to doing enough to
make sure we don't have more blakcouts in the future") would lead directly to
"cops fighting for their lives in our streets!"

Then, while they're at it, they drag up some old bone from a year and a half
ago
("Did Bush Know"?) and beat her up some more with that. Clearly, these people
are
extremely afraid of HC.

Cops "fighting for their lives in our streets" because HC thinks the
administration could be doing more to prevent future blackouts? Puh-leeze.

What's Yiddish for ridiculous drivel?


??Not two hours after the lights went out in the Northeast last Thursday, Sen.
Hillary Clinton
was in front of the microphones doing what she does best: carping, criticizing,
dividing. Her
first thoughts in a time of crisis were not about how she might help her
constituents in their
time of need, but about how she might exploit the situation for selfish
political gain.

While other, far more responsible, elected officials were offering consolation
and advice to a concerned citizenry, Hillary was in full campaign mode. While
those affected by the power
outage were worried about relatives, friends and fellow citizens trapped in
high-rise elevators
or sweltering subway cars, Hillary had more important matters on her mind.

“I don’t think,� she told reporters, “the federal administration under
this president is really focused on making sure we don’t have these problems
in the future.�

New York Republican Congressman Peter King, a pragmatic sort whom even Hillary
would
never link to the vast right-wing conspiracy roaming the attic of her
overactive imagination,
described the comments as “absolutely disgraceful,� not least because of
their incendiary
potential.

“There could have been some incident last night,� King told radio host Sean
Hannity during
an interview on Friday, “and then you attach that to what she’s saying and
you get out of
control and, before you know it, you have cops fighting for their lives in this
city.�

Hillary delivered herself of her shrill commentary just as the darkness of
night was
enveloping a city that found itself with neither lights nor — on an
oppressively hot August
evening — air conditioning.

“We didn’t know what was going to happen,� King told Hannity. “And all
you need is
someone who’s supposedly a national leader, trying to sow the seeds of
division — and you have
the police out there trying to keep order in the streets — and you have an
elected official
basically trying to divide the country, I mean, it’s irresponsible to do
that.�

NewsMax.com’s Carl Limbacher, author of the new book Hillary’s Scheme which
argues
that Sen. Clinton is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004,
writes that “Given
her outraged tones,� most Americans “would never know that she’s been a
leader in opposing
energy independence for New York State, preferring instead to champion
environmental cause
celebs like fighting acid rain and closing the Indian Point nuclear plant.�

Limbacher notes that a year ago, “Clinton slammed a Bush administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more punishing
environmental
regulations. She warned of ‘dirtier air and rising temperatures’ that would
expose citizens ‘to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain and
mercury-tainted
fish.’�

Limbacher contrasts Clinton’s position to that of former New York City Mayor
Rudy
Giuliani, “who was making the case that New York needed more power plants as
far back as
1999. ‘If we don’t increase significantly the amount of power in the city
of New York, we will
have happen to us what happened in California,’ Giuliani said after a
blackout in upper
Manhattan.�

Hillary’s behavior brings to mind her performance on the floor of the Senate
in May 2002.
A New York Post story on U.S. intelligence pre-9/11 carried the terribly
misleading headline
“Bush Knew.� As the story itself made clear, Bush in fact did not know that
massive terrorist
attacks against the U.S. were planned for Sept. 11, 2001, but Hillary saw her
opportunity:

“I am simply here today, on the floor of this hallowed chamber, to seek
answers to
questions,� she intoned. “Questions raised by our newspapers in New York,
such as the one
with the headline ‘Bush Knew.’ The president knew what? My constituents
would like to know
the answers to those questions....�

Hillary was well aware that the newspaper account to which she referred did not
at all
justify her innuendo, but she was determined to squeeze the non-story for every
last drop of
political juice.

Note To Readers: Radio talker Michael Savage, whose program was terminated
by WABC, has been hired by WOR (710 AM) to host a show weeknights from 8 to 10
p.m.

Jason Maoz can be reached at

Gould - How long did it take to track down the Atlanta Olympics bomber? Even
then, we caught him by accident! Do you honestly think we were not looking?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


Not the same thing at all, John. There was
a task force of probably a couple dozen guys trying to find the Atlanta
Olympics bomber. Yeah, they probably looked for him some everyday.

The difference here is that we don't have to first wonder who the culprit is.
We know who he is. We've narrowly missed him a couple of times. If we spent
half the manpower, money, and technology we dedicated to invading Iraq to
finding OBL, there isn't a rock on the planet where the guy could hide.

It's a question of priorities. What are we spending in Iraq, to protect
American citizens from terrorism? I've heard figures of about a billion a week-
but let's fudge the numbers all the way down to a billion a quarter and even
the most ardent Bush supporter would reluctantly admit that's way low.

We got Udai and Kusai ratted out for $30mm. A few days' expense, even at a
reducd rate of a billion every 90 days.

Would $100 million rat out OBL? $200 million? $300 million, a US green card,
and a total plastic surgery makeover for the informant and his family? There's
a price that would buy OBL, and it's probably a lot cheaper than the course
we're on.....*if* our intention is to catch the criminal ******* at the head of
the organization that blew down the WTC etc.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
. net...
Chuck,
I think you are in the wrong job, we need someone like you in Washington
to solve all of our problems.


With the amount of time old Chuck spends here and the time he takes to write his
liberal political rants (have you ever read a reply of his that was less than 1,000
words?), you have to wonder if he even has a life. Going to Washington DC would do him
good as it would get him out of the house.

But a liberal used boat salesman in Washington? I guess we could do worse. We could
get Harry.

Gould 0738 wrote:

A serious question: Do you actually believe that this blackout WAS the
result of terrorism or, as has been suggested, a breakdown of
infrastructure?

Dave


I seriously believe that if I was Al Quaida, I'd try to take credit for every
bit of bad news in the US from forest fires in the NW to seasonal outbreaks of
the Hong Kong flu.


Or that 3.8 ricter earthquake that hit central NJ yesterday?

Your point illustrates nicely how terrorists will try exactly that.
Further evidence that they are in fact not responsible, absent other
evidence.


I also believe that if I were in charge of such decisions in the government,
I'd make darn sure the terrorists never got credit for diddly squat- whether
they did it or not. Even take 9-11 for example: the govt could have portrayed
those tragic events as the deranged act of a group of
criminal extremists, and who would have been able to dispute it? (Surgically
remove the head of the snake if vengeance is required or desired). Instead we
get maybe WW III, and the only difference is how we choose to react.

So you are advocating that the government mislead us then? Hmm, imagine
what would happen if the left got wind that the Bush administration held
out "the truth" from us. It would be a political free-for-all, with the
predicatable Bush haters calling for his head on a platter.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe that it's in the best
interest of this country to NOT know all the gory details, then you
can't complain when they do it.

Dave

On 27 Aug 2003 00:27:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If GWB and his administration could manipulate information as you suggest,
why
are we hearing about the daily casualties in Iraq? He'd be shooting himself
in
the foot allowing the military to report it. Your arguments lose all logic.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Well, there you go John. Thanks for making my point for me, and so easily.
The information is being manipulated because we are hearing *only* about the
combat deaths, not the number of injuries, not the number of deaths by traffic
accident, disease, etc.

Are you under some illusion that only Democratic administrations play fast and
loose with the truth? Please.

Oh crap! There have been several reports of soldiers who have been killed in
accidents. If there were deaths by 'disease', we'd for sure be hearing about
them. My son-in-law talks to his wife almost daily. Don't you think the word
would get out pretty quickly? You are not being rational.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Gould 0738 wrote:

Chuck,
Are you suggesting that the government should have kept the reason for 911
secret from it's citizens?

If it were up to me, we would have hunted down Osama Bin Ladin as an
individual, international, criminal terrorist *******. We would have not rested
until he was brought to justice, (rather than after we secured the pipeline
right of way from the Caspain Sea). We practically have the capacity to count
the hair on a man's head from outer space. How hard can it be to find an entire
human being, provided we are truly dedicated to look for him?

Do you think you might be overestimating our ability to "track" people?
It would seem that people who want to be hidden, can do so for quite
sometime. Look at Eric Rudolph, who lived on the lam for 5 years, with
only his wits to guide him.

Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


*People* can be criminals, not countries or cultures.

But cultures can breed a mindset which results in "criminal" behavior
being carried out against those which they've been indoctrinated to
belive, are their sworn enemies.


We destroy countries,
dismantle governments, damage cultures, and yet the friggin ciminals (OBL, SH,
etc) keep on truckin.

You turn over enough rocks, and you're bound to eventually find the
snake. It also sends a message to other people, that it would not be a
wise idea to "F" with us.

Bring the *criminals* to justice.

Easy to say. Far harder to do.

Few on the left would disagree with such a
program, IMO.

And even fewer on the left could come up with a comprehensive plan of
just how to do it. The left is full of people who are long on criticism,
and far short on rational, and practical solutions.


Anybody who would use the hunt for the criminals as cover for
other purposes is less than forthright, to put it kindly.

I'd agree. I'd also point out that people who jump to that conclusion,
based on little more than speculative musings, are doing their country a
disservice.


If our leaders are so incompetant that they cannot locate people so high
profile as OBL and SH, they should be replaced. If they are so devious that
they deprioritize locating these criminals, they should be replaced.

Again, I think you are overestimating our "locating" ability, or
underestimating the resolve and innovative skill of those who terrorise
us.


Maybe it boils down to "which" lie is told to the American people. And neither
is really acceptable. If we continue to knock off a string of governments and
occupy mid east countries without catching the head of the snake, our problems
will become larger and larger.

When the snake is free to hide in countries who are not motivated to
oppose it, we will never get it completely. At some point we have to
step on some toes if we are truly motivated in erradicating the mindset
of terrorism.


IMO, we should bring the criminals to justice and that would solve more than
occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

For every OBL and SH we bring to justice, there are many others ready to
step up to take over. OBL is not the end all of terrorism. In fact, it
really matters little except as a technical point and a morale boost to
actually find these guys. It's far more important to stamp out what they
stand for.

Dave