http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

I guess your point is - since Kennedy, a Democrat did it, it makes it
OK for Bush, a Republican to do it, right?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during
the unh, Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me
here Sanders, he was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.

I agree. However I do think that Sanders carelessness is funny.

From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

There might have not been a missile crisis if we hadn't have blown it so
badly in the years and months leading up to it.

I guess your point is - since Kennedy, a Democrat did it, it makes it OK
for Bush, a Republican to do it, right?

Just is just another example showing how completely stupid and desperate to
troll you really are, Weil. Since you've shown once again that you can't
put two and two together to get anything like four; my point is that
neither Republican nor Democrat administrations have a very good track
record in this area. Posturing fools like you and Sanders tend to distract
people from this simple fact.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:14:51 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during
the unh, Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me
here Sanders, he was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.

I agree. However I do think that Sanders carelessness is funny.

From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

There might have not been a missile crisis if we hadn't have blown it so
badly in the years and months leading up to it.

I guess your point is - since Kennedy, a Democrat did it, it makes it OK
for Bush, a Republican to do it, right?

Just is just another example showing how completely stupid and desperate to
troll you really are, Weil. Since you've shown once again that you can't
put two and two together to get anything like four; my point is that
neither Republican nor Democrat administrations have a very good track
record in this area. Posturing fools like you and Sanders tend to distract
people from this simple fact.

So, does it mean that we just ignore it because "everybody" does it?
Should we give someone a free pass to do whatever they want by using
this sort of logic?

Do we not learn from history?

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

ScottW

On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat". Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here
Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat". Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.


That's right, Kennedy acted on his own, Bush HAD THE Resolution and the
consent of Congress.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here Sanders,
he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.


I agree. It was deplorable that the assasination attempts were so inept,
as was the invasion.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here
Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat".

As Russia viewed Jupiter missiles operational in Turkey.

For all the BS about how great Kennedy handled this
no one recalls that Russia got exactly what they wanted.
Jupiter's removed and no invasion of Cuba.

Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.

More Weil logic.

ScottW

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:53:26 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here
Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat". Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.


That's right, Kennedy acted on his own, Bush HAD THE Resolution and the
consent of Congress.

Only thing is, he didn't have the imminent threat.

And I wonder if the UN meant almost unilateral invasion by the US and
a select few nations when they wrote about "serious consequences".

I tend to doubt it, especially if you actually read the resolution.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:27:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here
Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat".

As Russia viewed Jupiter missiles operational in Turkey.

Absolutely.

For all the BS about how great Kennedy handled this
no one recalls that Russia got exactly what they wanted.
Jupiter's removed and no invasion of Cuba.

Of course they did. It's called states/brinksmanship. What's wrong
with the Soviets wanting those missiles removed anyway (especially if
we didn't want missiles in Cuba either)? Are *we* the only ones who
have the absolute right to put missiles wherever we want?

You forget that there *was* an invasion of Cuba. Just a totally
botched one.

Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.

More Weil logic.

If you insist.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

As usual, the RAO a-holes can't read worth ****. The link in the
introduction talks about a plot among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade
Cuba, and Kennedy's opposition to committing American forces to it. This
plot, by the way, originated with Nixon during the Eisenhower
administration, and Kennedy inherited the problem. He was lied to by the
CIA and the Joint Chiefs about an invasion force of exiled Cubans being able
to successfully invade Cuba and overthrow Castro on their own, then at the
last moment Kennedy was suddenly pressured to provide Air Force cover, which
he refused to do out of principle. And when the CIA/Joint Chiefs' operation
in the Bay of Pigs went badly, they lied to the Cuban exiles and blamed it
all on Kennedy (falsely claiming Kennedy had promised air cover, then
reneged on the promise).

Kennedy distinguished himself by publicly taking responsibility for the
problem, even though it wasn't his fault (following Truman's "the buck stops
here" adage), unlike the current cretin occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
who refuses to take responsibility for anything (all of which is his fault).

The link I provided is not about Kennedy, despite one introductory link to a
Joint Chiefs' plot to assassinate Castro.

It is about what led up to 9/11.

Of course, the RAO a-holes couldn't be bothered discussing any of that.
Perhaps they're afraid they might actually have to *learn* something for a
change.

Pathetic.

"Sandman" wrote in message

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

As usual, the RAO a-holes can't read worth ****.

If this were really true, you'd point out some errors in how your piece was
read Sanders, but you didn't. Instead, you launch into a discussion of the
history of the time. Nice job of presenting a thesis and then presenting
support for a different thesis.

The link in the
introduction talks about a plot among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
invade Cuba, and Kennedy's opposition to committing American forces
to it.

Which is a nice synopsis of what I said. Thus Sanders, you've disproved your
claim that I can't read.

Kennedy distinguished himself by publicly taking responsibility for
the problem, even though it wasn't his fault (following Truman's "the
buck stops here" adage),

Sanders doesn't get the fact that Truman's "The buck stops here" means that
as the most powerful executive in the government, whatever happens on his
watch is in some sense, his fault.

unlike the current cretin occupying 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue, who refuses to take responsibility for anything

I don't see where Bush is doing anything that Kennedy did in this regard,
and vice-versa. The Bay of Pigs took place on Kennedy's watch, and he took
responsibility for it. The invasion of Iraq took place on Bush's watch and
Bush is taking responsibility for it. Militarily, the Bay of Pigs was an
abject failure. Militarily speaking, the downing of Saddam Hussein was a
military success. I don't see where Kennedy took responsibility for *any*
the intelligence failures that led up to the Bay of Pigs. No matter how hard
some people posture, we should remember that WMD was just one of several
justifications for downing Hussein.

(all of which is his fault).

Horsefeathers.

The link I provided is not about Kennedy, despite one introductory
link to a Joint Chiefs' plot to assassinate Castro.

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Of course, the RAO a-holes couldn't be bothered discussing any of
that. Perhaps they're afraid they might actually have to *learn*
something for a change.

Sanders, it looks to me like I gave you a good lesson in looking at the
footnotes and references in a document that you praise. The question now is,
did you learn anything from my lesson for you?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four. The
discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:53:26 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Feb 2004 11:46:08 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:59:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message


http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

The first reference " [ABC, 5/1/01]" points to
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Ironically, this happened during "the early 60s". This was during
the
unh,
Kennedy administration. And John Kennedy was, now help me here
Sanders, he
was a Republican just like Bush, right?

LOL!

I don't think it's particularly funny how Kennedy dealt with Cuba.
From formulating plans to assassinate Castro to the disastrous Bay
of
Pigs, Kennedy was totally wrong in his handling of Cuba. The only
thing he did right was his handling of the Missile Crisis.

Which didn't include going to the U.N. for permission to embargo.

But *was* a credible and verified "imminent threat". Plus, there
wasn't a specific UN resolution that was being used as justification
for action either.


That's right, Kennedy acted on his own, Bush HAD THE Resolution and the
consent of Congress.

Only thing is, he didn't have the imminent threat.

He had a new thing, he had 9/11 and the determination and the Intel and the
knowledge that given enough time Saddam would be an imminent threat. We
don't want to see the mushroom clouds before we act.

There's no way you can spin the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam into a
bad thing.



And I wonder if the UN meant almost unilateral invasion by the US and
a select few nations when they wrote about "serious consequences".

I tend to doubt it, especially if you actually read the resolution.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:42:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

There's no way you can spin the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam into a
bad thing.

Sure I can. The time, effort and blood should have been spent to
attack the *real* perp of 9/11 - bin Laden.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

As usual, the RAO a-holes can't read worth ****. The link in the
introduction talks about a plot among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade
Cuba, and Kennedy's opposition to committing American forces to it. This
plot, by the way, originated with Nixon during the Eisenhower
administration, and Kennedy inherited the problem. He was lied to by the
CIA and the Joint Chiefs about an invasion force of exiled Cubans being
able
to successfully invade Cuba and overthrow Castro on their own, then at the
last moment Kennedy was suddenly pressured to provide Air Force cover,
which
he refused to do out of principle. And when the CIA/Joint Chiefs'
operation
in the Bay of Pigs went badly, they lied to the Cuban exiles and blamed it
all on Kennedy (falsely claiming Kennedy had promised air cover, then
reneged on the promise).

Kennedy distinguished himself by publicly taking responsibility for the
problem, even though it wasn't his fault (following Truman's "the buck
stops
here" adage), unlike the current cretin occupying 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue,
who refuses to take responsibility for anything (all of which is his
fault).

The link I provided is not about Kennedy, despite one introductory link to
a
Joint Chiefs' plot to assassinate Castro.

It is about what led up to 9/11.

Of course, the RAO a-holes couldn't be bothered discussing any of that.
Perhaps they're afraid they might actually have to *learn* something for a
change.

Pathetic.


Pathetic is the Democrat assholes trying to make people beleive that the
U.S. is the only country who had reason to belive that Saddam had WMD's.
They want us to believe that we acted to grab the oil, or that there was
pressure brought to make things seem worse than the intelligence showed them
to be.

In short it leftist's lying again because they resent people that actually
have principles.

Recent exit polling shows that for Democrats beating Dubya is more important
than agreeing with a particular candidates views. In other words blind
hatred over principle. Again.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the
president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

Here we go again. Why would you ask to prove a negative? The burden of
proof is on those who insist that Bush had credible information on terrorist
threats or that he applied pressure on the CIA to come up with things in
order to sell the idea of war with Iraq. The simple facts are you have no
such proof and that the UN itself was convinced of the threat from Saddam.

First blame the administration for not connectin the dots.

Next blame the administration for connecting the dots.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:55:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the
president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

Here we go again. Why would you ask to prove a negative? The burden of
proof is on those who insist that Bush had credible information on terrorist
threats

There you go. I'm perfectly willing to believe that President Bush's
administration *didn't* have credible information on terrorist
threats.

Thank you for acknowledging his deficiency.

I'm also perfectly willing to believe that he didn't have any
contingency plans about terrorist organizations or military options
about states like Iraq. Problem is, I'm not all that comfortable with
an administration either wingin' it or making it up after the fact.

For a "libertarian", you sure have a blind eye regarding the
Republicans. I think that you should start reevaluating how you lable
yourself, as you've been spouting the Republican partly line virtually
every time you post.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:55:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the
president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

Here we go again. Why would you ask to prove a negative? The burden of
proof is on those who insist that Bush had credible information on
terrorist
threats

There you go. I'm perfectly willing to believe that President Bush's
administration *didn't* have credible information on terrorist
threats.

Thank you for acknowledging his deficiency.

There you go again trying to create a fact that doesn't exist.

He didn't have the information because it was not presented to him. That
hardly makes it his deficiency.

I'm also perfectly willing to believe that he didn't have any
contingency plans about terrorist organizations or military options
about states like Iraq.

I think that would make you ill-informed or stupid.

Problem is, I'm not all that comfortable with
an administration either wingin' it or making it up after the fact.

For a "libertarian", you sure have a blind eye regarding the
Republicans. I think that you should start reevaluating how you lable
yourself, as you've been spouting the Republican partly line virtually
every time you post.

I don't always agree with the Libertarians. I almost never agree with the
Democrats. Given their way they would create havoc every chance they get in
the name of "protecting" us.

The GOP is at least relatively constant in their philosophy.
I think a large part of the anti-Bush sentiment is because the Dems have
lost control of the power they used to weild for so long.

My bottom line with the left is that they don't want it to be possible for
people to not need their help.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:42:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

There's no way you can spin the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam into a
bad thing.

Sure I can. The time, effort and blood should have been spent to
attack the *real* perp of 9/11 - bin Laden.

Exactly. What happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? Two State of the Union
speeches have come and gone now with absolutely *no* mention of him.

The truth is, our Commander in Thief chickened out in December, 2001 during
the Tora Bora mountain mission, when they had Bin Laden cornered in a cave
tunnel, and rather than send our troops in, he sent in a bunch of rag-tag
locals who let Bin Laden get away. Next thing you know, Bush is trying to
distract us all from that act of cowardice by talking about an "axis of
evil" which has nothing to do with Bin Laden or 9/11.

Meanwhile, al queda grows in numbers as a result of Dubya's Iraq diversion,
and the *wrong* man (Hussein, who posed absolutely *no* threat to us, and
had absolutely *nothing* to do with 9/11) is in captivity.

And guess what - our tax money which should be protecting our borders, our
ports, and strengthening and equipping police and firefighters on the front
lines around our country has gone into the pockets of Dubya's fatcat donors,
as our soldiers and guardsmen continue to be sitting targets for the
terrorists BU**SH** attracted to Iraq.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:42:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

There's no way you can spin the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam into
a
bad thing.

Sure I can. The time, effort and blood should have been spent to
attack the *real* perp of 9/11 - bin Laden.

That changes nothing about the correctness of removing Saddam. It was the
right thing to do given the intel.

It is possible to do two things at once. Osama will be found and there's no
need to send a force such as the one deployed in Iraq to find one guy.

Exactly. What happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? Two State of the Union
speeches have come and gone now with absolutely *no* mention of him.

I heard news reports in the last 2 weeks that say he'll likely be caught
before the end of the year.

The truth is, our Commander in Thief chickened out in December, 2001
during
the Tora Bora mountain mission, when they had Bin Laden cornered in a cave
tunnel, and rather than send our troops in, he sent in a bunch of rag-tag
locals who let Bin Laden get away. Next thing you know, Bush is trying to
distract us all from that act of cowardice by talking about an "axis of
evil" which has nothing to do with Bin Laden or 9/11.

I don't recall all the details of that incident but cowardice is hardly the
correct word. Bush's stock would have gone through the roof if Bin Ladin
had been caught.

Meanwhile, al queda grows in numbers as a result of Dubya's Iraq
diversion,

More correctly they are being killed or captured in larger numbers. Imagine
what would have happened if we had done nothing.



and the *wrong* man (Hussein, who posed absolutely *no* threat to us, and
had absolutely *nothing* to do with 9/11) is in captivity.

And millions of Iraqi's are better off. Where was your outrage when Clinton
sent troops to Bosnia, a country that was no threat to us. He said they'd
be back in a year.

How about Haiti? No threat, no outrage. Is it only wrong when a Republican
goes to war?

And guess what - our tax money which should be protecting our borders, our
ports, and strengthening and equipping police and firefighters on the
front
lines around our country has gone into the pockets of Dubya's fatcat
donors,

So, you're saying they should be going to the fatcat donors from the
Democrats?

as our soldiers and guardsmen continue to be sitting targets for the
terrorists BU**SH** attracted to Iraq.

And the overwhelming majority of the troops support Bush and hated Clinton's
guts. The only real cuts in spending Clinton made were in the military
budget.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:17:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:55:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the
president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

Here we go again. Why would you ask to prove a negative? The burden of
proof is on those who insist that Bush had credible information on
terrorist
threats

There you go. I'm perfectly willing to believe that President Bush's
administration *didn't* have credible information on terrorist
threats.

Thank you for acknowledging his deficiency.

There you go again trying to create a fact that doesn't exist.

He didn't have the information because it was not presented to him. That
hardly makes it his deficiency.

I see. He didn't have the information. Just what I want in an
administration.

I'm also perfectly willing to believe that he didn't have any
contingency plans about terrorist organizations or military options
about states like Iraq.

I think that would make you ill-informed or stupid.

That seems to be what you're claiming.

Problem is, I'm not all that comfortable with
an administration either wingin' it or making it up after the fact.

For a "libertarian", you sure have a blind eye regarding the
Republicans. I think that you should start reevaluating how you lable
yourself, as you've been spouting the Republican partly line virtually
every time you post.

I don't always agree with the Libertarians. I almost never agree with the
Democrats. Given their way they would create havoc every chance they get in
the name of "protecting" us.

The GOP is at least relatively constant in their philosophy.
I think a large part of the anti-Bush sentiment is because the Dems have
lost control of the power they used to weild for so long.

Bottom line is - the White House, up until Bush the latter, has been
equally occupied by both parties since 1961.

My bottom line with the left is that they don't want it to be possible for
people to not need their help.

Baseless bull****, of course.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote:

Exactly. What happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? Two State of the Union
speeches have come and gone now with absolutely *no* mention of him.

I heard news reports in the last 2 weeks that say he'll likely be caught
before the end of the year.

This from the same idiot who told us last summer that Mr. Kay was about to
announce that all the WMD's the Bush administration lied about were about to
be found!

BWAHAHAHA!

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...

The truth is, our Commander in Thief chickened out in December, 2001
during
the Tora Bora mountain mission, when they had Bin Laden cornered in
a cave tunnel, and rather than send our troops in, he sent in a
bunch of rag-tag locals who let Bin Laden get away. Next thing you
know, Bush is trying to distract us all from that act of cowardice
by talking about an "axis of evil" which has nothing to do with Bin
Laden or 9/11.

I don't recall all the details of that incident but cowardice is
hardly the correct word. Bush's stock would have gone through the
roof if Bin Ladin had been caught.

It's called "a made-up story". Remember, this is Jim Sanders speaking. Yup,
the same guy whose political contributions show up on lots of web sites, but
he can't be bothered to tell us their URLs.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote:

Exactly. What happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? Two State of the
Union
speeches have come and gone now with absolutely *no* mention of him.

I heard news reports in the last 2 weeks that say he'll likely be caught
before the end of the year.

This from the same idiot who told us last summer that Mr. Kay was about to
announce that all the WMD's the Bush administration lied about were about
to
be found!

BWAHAHAHA!


If Bush lied then so did Clinton (sort of a redundancy, I know) about WMD's
as well. So did the UN and so did France, Germany and a host of other
countries.

Finding a needle in a haystack is tough also.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

If Bush lied then so did Clinton (sort of a redundancy, I know) about WMD's
as well. So did the UN and so did France, Germany and a host of other
countries.

Finding a needle in a haystack is tough also.

I see. So we invaded for a needle instead of a world-threatening
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

OK.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

If Bush lied then so did Clinton (sort of a redundancy, I know) about
WMD's
as well. So did the UN and so did France, Germany and a host of other
countries.

Finding a needle in a haystack is tough also.

I see. So we invaded for a needle instead of a world-threatening
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

OK.

How large do you suppose a stockpile of chenical or bioological weapons
might be?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:17:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:55:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:14:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

It is about what led up to 9/11.

That would be 8 years of Clintonian weasel-politics.

Didn't you talk previously about "the buck stops here"? Didn't
you
talk about what happens on one's watch?

Again Weil you show your inbability to add two and two and get
four.

I have no inbability of any kind.

The discussion of "the buck stops here" related to actions that the
president
approved. Awaiting proof that Bush approved of 9/11.

Prove that Bush didn't make any decisions on intelligence gathering,
nor had *any* knowledge of potential terrorist threats. You might
also
ask if he knew the name Osama bin Laden.

Here we go again. Why would you ask to prove a negative? The burden
of
proof is on those who insist that Bush had credible information on
terrorist
threats

There you go. I'm perfectly willing to believe that President Bush's
administration *didn't* have credible information on terrorist
threats.

Thank you for acknowledging his deficiency.

There you go again trying to create a fact that doesn't exist.

He didn't have the information because it was not presented to him. That
hardly makes it his deficiency.

I see. He didn't have the information. Just what I want in an
administration.


Good, then you support reducing the size of government.

I'm also perfectly willing to believe that he didn't have any
contingency plans about terrorist organizations or military options
about states like Iraq.

I think that would make you ill-informed or stupid.

That seems to be what you're claiming.

Problem is, I'm not all that comfortable with
an administration either wingin' it or making it up after the fact.

So you support this adminstration.

For a "libertarian", you sure have a blind eye regarding the
Republicans. I think that you should start reevaluating how you lable
yourself, as you've been spouting the Republican partly line virtually
every time you post.

I don't always agree with the Libertarians. I almost never agree with
the
Democrats. Given their way they would create havoc every chance they get
in
the name of "protecting" us.

The GOP is at least relatively constant in their philosophy.
I think a large part of the anti-Bush sentiment is because the Dems
have
lost control of the power they used to weild for so long.

Bottom line is - the White House, up until Bush the latter, has been
equally occupied by both parties since 1961.

And therefore what?

My bottom line with the left is that they don't want it to be possible
for
people to not need their help.

Baseless bull****, of course.

Historical fact. All the programs the Dems love are those that take away
from earners and give to the lowest earners or non-earners. Their whole
premise is that somehow it wrong for some to have more than others.

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:27:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
For all the BS about how great Kennedy handled this
no one recalls that Russia got exactly what they wanted.
Jupiter's removed and no invasion of Cuba.

Of course they did. It's called states/brinksmanship. What's wrong
with the Soviets wanting those missiles removed anyway (especially if
we didn't want missiles in Cuba either)? Are *we* the only ones who
have the absolute right to put missiles wherever we want?

You forget that there *was* an invasion of Cuba. Just a totally
botched one.


I found an interesting website by a person that took part
in the installation of Jupiter missiles in Turkey in 1961.
He has some great color photos of the event.

This is one of the events that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis
less than a year later.

The URL of his website is:

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/ht...ssiles-Pg1.htm

Interesting logo on the side of the U.S. Jupiter missile in addition
to the Turkish flag.


My Jupiter IRBM History Website is at this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/jupiter_irbm/index.html


- Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

Rusty B wrote:

I found an interesting website by a person that took part
in the installation of Jupiter missiles in Turkey in 1961.
He has some great color photos of the event.

This is one of the events that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis
less than a year later.

The URL of his website is:

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/ht...ssiles-Pg1.htm

Interesting logo on the side of the U.S. Jupiter missile in addition
to the Turkish flag.


My Jupiter IRBM History Website is at this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/jupiter_irbm/index.html

Thank you for these interesting links Sir.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

If Bush lied then so did Clinton (sort of a redundancy, I know)
about WMD's as well. So did the UN and so did France, Germany and
a host of other countries.

Finding a needle in a haystack is tough also.

I see. So we invaded for a needle instead of a world-threatening
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

OK.

How large do you suppose a stockpile of chenical or bioological
weapons might be?

As big as his brain, it seems.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
news
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

There you go. I'm perfectly willing to believe that President Bush's
administration *didn't* have credible information on terrorist
threats.

Thank you for acknowledging his deficiency.

There you go again trying to create a fact that doesn't exist.

He didn't have the information because it was not presented to him. That
hardly makes it his deficiency.

Pass the buck..


--
No, the buck stopped at Saddam's doorstep.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

..the UN itself was convinced of the threat from Saddam.

Potential threat. Potential threat. Potential threat.


--
After 9/11 we no longer have the luxury of waiting for it go beyond that.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Pathetic is the Democrat assholes trying to make people beleive that the
U.S. is the only country who had reason to belive that Saddam had WMD's.

Most countries *suspected* Saddam had WMD's. Few were stupid enough to
make an outright claim.



Most countries beleived he had them, they had more than suspicions.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :


..the UN itself was convinced of the threat from Saddam.

Potential threat. Potential threat. Potential threat.


--

After 9/11 we no longer have the luxury of waiting for it go beyond that.

Then if WE don't have the luxury, I guess it means the rest of the
WORLD doesn't either, right?

Considering how much of a potential threat to the world we are,
I suggest they start bombing us flat tommorrow in order to save
humanity.

Oh - wait - I forgot - the argument for use of force only applies
one way. Lol.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

..the UN itself was convinced of the threat from Saddam.

Potential threat. Potential threat. Potential threat.

On Dec 6, 1941, Japan was a 'potential' threat.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---