Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.
In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.

I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.
Every country that is not named the United States of America is our enemy.
Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.


Idiot 3. There is NEVER a good reason to sell weapons to our enemies.



Idiot 2, grow up and open your eyes.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

=============================

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.
Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

=========================

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all
the relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form,
meaning tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information,
it's not because some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people
very close to him to had an agenda.
You don't have the various intelligence agencies and organizations as
temporary way stations to hold raw information until that raw
information is passed onto the White House. Raw informaiotn is analyzed,
synthesized and summarized and the summary is given to the White House.

Idiot 2.



Who filtered it? According to all reliable sources (no exceptions), no
congressional democrats were ever involved in screening the president's
reports. Only his staff can do that. Only they are capable of touching
it.

Go read up on bureaucracies and come back and give us a report.

Done already. Unlike you, I don't need to hire a private detective to find
the public library.

Only the president's closest people can filter the intelligence he sees.
That means Cheney and Wolfowitz, who we know are not to be trusted.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots
of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before
and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of
that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.
In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.

I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.
Every country that is not named the United States of America is our
enemy. Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.


Idiot 3. There is NEVER a good reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Idiot 2, grow up and open your eyes.



Already done. Business should NEVER be favored over security. No debate is
possible.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

=============================

Hopefully, you also dismissed this when you heard
it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

It's only 11 seconds long. Real easy.
Yeah, and you don't wonder how things would have been different if
Bush had been given all of the relevant information, even the parts
that made Billary look bad? It's hard to play a game if you don't have
a board to start with.

=========================

Based on what we know at this point, our intelligence services had all
the relevant information. It's given to the White House in raw form,
meaning tons of paper. If Bush didn't see the relevant information,
it's not because some congressional Democrat filtered it. It was people
very close to him to had an agenda.
You don't have the various intelligence agencies and organizations as
temporary way stations to hold raw information until that raw
information is passed onto the White House. Raw informaiotn is analyzed,
synthesized and summarized and the summary is given to the White House.

Idiot 2.


Who filtered it? According to all reliable sources (no exceptions), no
congressional democrats were ever involved in screening the president's
reports. Only his staff can do that. Only they are capable of touching
it.
Go read up on bureaucracies and come back and give us a report.

Done already. Unlike you, I don't need to hire a private detective to find
the public library.

Only the president's closest people can filter the intelligence he sees.
That means Cheney and Wolfowitz, who we know are not to be trusted.

Ok, you win.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots
of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before
and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of
that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.
In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.
I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.
Every country that is not named the United States of America is our
enemy. Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.

Idiot 3. There is NEVER a good reason to sell weapons to our enemies.
Idiot 2, grow up and open your eyes.



Already done. Business should NEVER be favored over security. No debate is
possible.



Ok, you win.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:38:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.


FDR sold a lot of stuff to the Soviets in the early 40s. I guess it
never occured to him that they would ever be our enemy. I suppose the
same thing hapened to Reagan when he was selling stingers to the
Afghans or most of Western Europe when they were selling all sorts of
weapons and technology to Saddam.

Political alliances come and go but business goes on forever.

The only problem with this war is we are employing more people in Iraq
than we are here.


We know the Saudis are our enemies, and we still sell them weapons. Not a
good comparison to FDR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...2fighters.html

The Saudi royal families provide direct financial support to clerics and
schools which train these fighters. We pay them to do this through
"commissions" the royals demand for allowing us to sell them weapons.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 18, 7:16*pm, wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:43*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:

Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message

....
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

====================

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

========================

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

====================

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please don't stoop to Harry's level of childish name calling and petty
insults.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 19, 8:24*am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:16*pm, wrote:





On Mar 18, 6:43*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:

Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..

====================

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

========================

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

====================

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please don't stoop to Harry's level of childish name calling and petty
insults.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I was kind of screwing off, but I won't continue;)

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 19, 9:22*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:24 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:43 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message
....
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message
....
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Boats??? I come here for
wrote
in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out
of
work.
Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..
====================
Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?
You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?
========================
It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...
====================
Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please don't stoop to Harry's level of childish name calling and petty
insults.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I was kind of screwing off, but I won't continue;)

It seems appropriate that Loogy is your role model.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why because we both agree that you name calling is petty and childish?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 8:24 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, wrote:





On Mar 18, 6:43 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 2:30 pm, "Brad Darnell"
wrote:

Boats??? I come here for

wrote
in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:57 pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that
trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be
out
of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is
not one
of them..

====================

Do you mean to say that it's OK to keep a war going because it
helps
our
economy? Or, did I misinterpret what you just wrote?

You did Joe, and I will not engage you on this subject either,
geetars, boats, but not this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh the stench of fish, the rotting anchor line, the bait. The stench
that follows trolls to the internet. Go for it though, got yours in
the water yet? And just to get things rolling, what is it's power
plant?

========================

It's funny how you abandon conversations when they get too
difficult, or
you
can't explain something you wrote.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is funny is that "everyone" else understood me, you did not,
maybe your drunk again, maybe you are just trolling, or both. Either
way, most here know you can not keep up with political threads, you
are just to uninformed and closed minded, so we don't bother...

====================

Drunk: That's your other bail-out tactic. Why won't you explain what
you
meant? Do you even remember what you meant?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, asswipe, for the very last time, I meant that I did not believe
that was the reason we were staying in Iraq,, asswipe. Go back and
read the frekin' thread you drunken spaghetti arm, fat, bald, slob..
how's that? Now you are back to, "until then" you stupid drunken
troll...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please don't stoop to Harry's level of childish name calling and petty
insults.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I was kind of screwing off, but I won't continue;)

===========================


There are medicines which will help control your strange behavioral
extremes. Perhaps if you you look 2-3 counties away, you'll find a doctor
who hasn't told you never to step foot in his office again.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "that the US knew
in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you
suppose the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA
had its information?


ooops...missing "news thing":

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA
had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden's intent to use hijacked
planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated
Press's John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix
warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools-a
warning that went unheeded."

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "that the US knew
in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:
So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?
My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

Yes.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:
So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?
My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:
So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?
My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:
So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?
My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic
reasons, chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]


Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.


You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3




I like your new signature! It's perfect.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:24:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic
reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "that the US knew
in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?


The measures taken in the aftermath of 9/11 in the airline industry
were "simple"? Are you kidding? TSA? Retro-fitting *every*
commercial airliner with additional security equipment? Air Marshals?
Check-in procedures? Do you live in a cave? Simple?!?

These measures were in place long ago in Israel. They were not exactly a
secret. Why do you suppose they weren't implemented here?



Besides, as you know, the public, congress-critters, and media would
not have allowed such measures be taken without a smoking gun. Many
still seem to think the the measures are ineffective, and not needed.

The Israeli public doesn't seem to have a problem putting up with the
inconveniences. And about that smoking gun: Are you too young to remember
this long list of examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...aft_hijackings



Also, as you and your ilk has regurgitated over and over, nothing we
have done has stopped any future attack from happening. Bush gets no
credit for the lack of attacks from your kind. Now suddenly the
measures implemented by his administration have prevented further
attacks from happening? OK.

It's about time you sobered up.

Buh-bye.

I don't deny that improved airline security has prevented further attacks in
ways that involve airplanes. Where do you imagine seeing me say otherwise?

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:24:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic
reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "that the US knew
in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering
how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?


Just for the record... do you believe as the nutcase John does?

Conspiracy? No. Lame administration? Absolutely.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Mar 19, 7:21*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
m...
John wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:
So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?
My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic
reasons, chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]

Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. *It figures.
Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?
Yes.

You would probably enjoy life in Russia.

Idiot 3

I like your new signature! It's perfect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cool thing is it updates itself by moving up one digit each time
he posts!

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:31:35 -0400, JG2U wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:24:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:08 -0400, "John" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, "John" wrote:

So, what do you think Sandy was hiding from the 9-11 commission?
Something of little importance I presume..
**************************8

Not sure but do you think it was anything of this magnitude?

My point is, we will never know. That's all.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war
September 6, 2003

"...the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in
advance
about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons,
chose
not to act on the warnings."
[LINK]



Our boy "John" is a conspiracy loony. It figures.

Conspiracy looney because I question Bush's actions and inconsistencies
surrounding 9/11?

No, partly because you posted as one of your beliefs "that the US knew
in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for
strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings".

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.


Question for you: Considering the news thing below, **and** considering how
simple it was to prevent FURTHER hijackings after 9/11, why do you suppose
the simple measures were not in place immediately after the CIA had its
information?


The measures taken in the aftermath of 9/11 in the airline industry
were "simple"? Are you kidding? TSA? Retro-fitting *every*
commercial airliner with additional security equipment? Air Marshals?
Check-in procedures? Do you live in a cave? Simple?!?

Besides, as you know, the public, congress-critters, and media would
not have allowed such measures be taken without a smoking gun. Many
still seem to think the the measures are ineffective, and not needed.

Also, as you and your ilk has regurgitated over and over, nothing we
have done has stopped any future attack from happening. Bush gets no
credit for the lack of attacks from your kind. Now suddenly the
measures implemented by his administration have prevented further
attacks from happening? OK.

It's about time you sobered up.

Buh-bye.



For JG2U,

If you're too cheap to buy this, ask for it at your local library. It's
at mine and I've already read the book. I'm cheap also but don't drink
or abuse anything sense I gave up smoking cigarettes. That sober up line
is wasted on me.

Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attack, by Clark Kent Ervin.

If you don't recognise the name, he was the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security under the current Bush administration.
I want to repeat, under the current Bush administration.

He quit on his own accord. He knew he was being setup as a scapegoat.

During his tenure in office, His inspectors were able to get radioactive
materials through our ports that should have been detected as weapons
grade materials. Based on this finding alone, the possibility of the
materials could have been here for years waiting to be used for all you
know.

That's just a part of one of the chapters in the book.

Homeland Security remains a joke on people that believe as you do.

I'm not telling you what they smuggled onto planes.

I have a feeling your concentration level might limit your ability to read
a complete book so I have provided you with a link to a number of book
reviews.

Watch out for the line wrap.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=my...vin&btn=Search

HTH

Ta!-Ta!

RLM

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

"RLM" wrote in message
. ..

For JG2U,

If you're too cheap to buy this, ask for it at your local library. It's
at mine and I've already read the book. I'm cheap also but don't drink
or abuse anything sense I gave up smoking cigarettes. That sober up line
is wasted on me.

Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attack, by Clark Kent Ervin.

If you don't recognise the name, he was the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security under the current Bush administration.
I want to repeat, under the current Bush administration.

He quit on his own accord. He knew he was being setup as a scapegoat.

During his tenure in office, His inspectors were able to get radioactive
materials through our ports that should have been detected as weapons
grade materials. Based on this finding alone, the possibility of the
materials could have been here for years waiting to be used for all you
know.

That's just a part of one of the chapters in the book.

Homeland Security remains a joke on people that believe as you do.

I'm not telling you what they smuggled onto planes.

I have a feeling your concentration level might limit your ability to read
a complete book so I have provided you with a link to a number of book
reviews.

Watch out for the line wrap.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=my...vin&btn=Search

HTH

Ta!-Ta!

RLM



I know some here may shoot the messenger, saying this source isn't reliable,
but it's likely the same theme will show up in books, if it hasn't already:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_fear_factory

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

Read that carefully. It doesn't state that Bush was told an attack
might happen, and that it could be done using airplanes, but rather
that our country knew *specifically* about the "September 11" attack,
and for "strategic" reasons allowed it to happen.

In other words, you obviously believe that with specific knowledge of
when and where, and with the ability to stop the attacks, our
government intentially and deliberately allowed the attacks to occur.

You're a nutcase.

Look at the document:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

"Bin Lauden determined to attack inside the United States" could mean a
lot of things. No one ever thought about using airplanes as bombs.

I'm glad he was caught and brought to justice. "Mission Accomplished"

If McCain wins, especially after his statements about Iraq this week,
there is no hope for us. We have become too stupid to be trusted to
make a choice.

Think this has anything to do with the economic problems?
 

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:33:47 -0400, "John" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 10:14 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06 am, HK wrote:
John wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:
Boats are an expense, JimH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...
When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..
*****************
according to Dick Cheney:
Cheney, 3/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, .Weeks rather
than
months."
Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney
claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was
"pretty
well confirmed" that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence
officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was "in fact reconstituting
his
nuclear program" and that the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators."
[Meet
the Press, 12/9/01,
The whole war was based on far fetched lies.....
It's not fair in these arguments to quote people like Cheney or
Rumsfeld
or Bush. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course you dismiss the fact that the same quotes were coming
from all of the most powerful democrats at the time. We will never
really know what happened back then anyway. Between Jamie Garelik and
Sandy Berger working together to hide the truth, it just will never
happen.

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from a statement you made
previously. The quotes from Cheney and Rumsfeld refute your claim. They
both said our involvement in Iraq would be short and relatively
inexpensive. Deny all you like, they said it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, everyone had the same bogus information to work with. If
Billary had not spent so much time hiding it's incompetence, maybe
things would have been different. Until we find out what Sandy Berger
risked everything to hide from the 9-11 commission, the truth will
never come out. So we can all just sit around and point fingers.


***************8

Man you a piece of work!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powel, Rice all told lies to get us in a war and of
course it is all Hilary's fault!!
You probably need to quit listening to Rush and try reading multiple news
sources.



John, do you and Harry live together? Or are you just one and the same?
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)