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 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

"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 =---

"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.

"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.