Says Bush..


The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED NOW !!!


"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

"Richard Ben-Veniste said the memo and other reports and incidents
made up a "substantial body of information" about Osama bin Laden's
possible plans."

The PDB's headline was "Bin Laden is determined to strike within the
United States."

"The CIA was reminding the president -- with the headline ... 'don't
just look overseas for the possibility of this spectacular event that
everyone was predicting,' " Ben-Veniste said.

"It certainly updates the information that bin Laden was determined to
strike within the United States," said Ben-Veniste, a former
prosecutor who worked on the infamous Watergate case in the 1970s. "It
talked about sleeper cells here. It talked about terrorists coming and
going out of the United States. It talked about a support system for
al Qaeda within the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/11/911.investigation/index.html

GOD wrote:

Says Bush..


The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED NOW !!!


"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
GOD wrote:

Says Bush..


The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED NOW !!!


"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

I agree, more focus should be put on why the attack came, not why it wasn't
prevented. The heads have been chopped off all the dandelions but that
doesn't kill the weeds.

Dave

Bob Cain writes:

GOD wrote:

Says Bush..
The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.
BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED NOW !!!
"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating
the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time. Knowing
that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers by any means but
way too much is being made of this.

Right. Boy is the news media making their nickel on this guy.
--
% Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

Not enough is being made of it.

The issue is not whether the memo named a time and place -- it's that a
competent administrator would have immediately asked if the FBI, et al., were
doing enough to track down and disrupt these peoples' operations. That question
has not been satisfactorily answered.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

Not enough is being made of it.

The issue is not whether the memo named a time and place -- it's that a
competent administrator would have immediately asked if the FBI, et al.,
were
doing enough to track down and disrupt these peoples' operations. That
question
has not been satisfactorily answered.


Bush's competency is being questioned????

Anyone else for flogging a dead horse?

David Grant wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

Not enough is being made of it.

The issue is not whether the memo named a time and place -- it's that a
competent administrator would have immediately asked if the FBI, et al.,

were

doing enough to track down and disrupt these peoples' operations. That

question

has not been satisfactorily answered.



Bush's competency is being questioned????

Anyone else for flogging a dead horse?



Incredibly, there are still some out there who still claim he IS competent.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

Not enough is being made of it.

The issue is not whether the memo named a time and place -- it's that a
competent administrator would have immediately asked if the FBI, et al.,
were
doing enough to track down and disrupt these peoples' operations. That
question
has not been satisfactorily answered.


I agree. The argument that the intelligence was not specific enough doesn't
hold water. The hijackers came into the country using passports from
countries that flagged them for review by Powell's office before they were
allowed in. Several of their names were on the terrorist watch list, yet
they still got a pass to enter the country because this administration WAS
NOT PAYING ATTENTION. This WAS preventable, and I'll keep beating that
"dead horse" until this administration is gone, and not before.

Bill Balmer

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
...
Such is not the case in the US. Can anyone tell me what % of the US
population actually votes in an average Fed election ?

The complacency of American voters is an indication of the state of the
"empire". Maybe 51% of Americans vote, which gives slightly over half the
people the power in a country where apparently only 51% represent the
totallity of the possible voter roster. In this country voter registration
also puts one in the jury pool, which I think is an obvious duty just as
voting is. Some think of it as a burden and consequently don't register to
vote.

But it's not the lack of voter enthusiasm that suggest the breakdown of the
American dream, it's that this country's use of the two party system to the
exclusion of all dissenting voices in federal elections has bred disgust
with the offerings of both parties, as evidenced, not by the lack of voters,
but by the fact that the underlying elections are pretty much up to those
who are not affiliated with one or the other parties. Pretty much, America
has become split right down the middle, with 10% of the registered voters
being independants that actually decide Presidential Elections. The
Gore/Bush fiasco is one possible outcome, where a popularly elected person
is not elected and tallies are so close that automatic recounts become
necessary. This has happened often in America because the Electoral system
is based on antiquated necessities of travel time to have the states
represent their election counts to the federal government by riding ****ing
horses from Florida and Maine to the capitol city to present those votes.
Obviously horses are no longer necessary nor the time to ride them, yet our
electoral system remains in place exactly as it did 200 years ago.

This may actually answer more than your posed question, but the fact is that
when some people here in the USA talk about expressed opinions being
devisive and an act of aiding and abetting the enemy (pick the enemy of
today and it's aiding and abetting them), the hyperbole is a fallacy. This
country is split right down the middle, so there are as many "shouter
downers" as there are "I told you so'ers" and a paltry 10% of the registered
voter public make all the decisions in our system.

It makes one wonder whether those 10% of independant voters are on the same
roles as those who got the most money back from the direct federal tax
reductions (which, by the way, drove up state and local taxes, property
taxes, and lost us a ton of services). But that's somebody else's job to
research.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Bush's competency is being questioned????

Anyone else for flogging a dead horse?

As long as said horse occupies the Oval Office...

Can anyone tell me what % of the US population
actually votes in an average Federal election?

It's no more than 50% of those eligible.

The real irony is that people complain they don't like the people running for
office, yet it is precisely the citizens' poor education and lack of interest in
political matters that allows poorly qualified people to run for office.

But it's not the lack of voter enthusiasm that suggest the breakdown
of the American dream, it's that this country's use of the two-party
system to the exclusion of all dissenting voices in federal elections
has bred disgust with the offerings of both parties, as evidenced,
not by the lack of voters, but by the fact that the underlying elections
are pretty much up to those who are not affiliated with one or the
other parties.

The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected a parliamentary system, probably
because they were trying to keep politics _out_ of the election process. They
goofed.

The late Jack Paar liked to tell the joke about the little old lady who never
voted. "It only encourages them."

In article ,
GOD wrote:
The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

Dude... he wasn't elected. It was a bloodless coup. Get over it and
do something useful like complaining about f*cking Nader. That
arrogant little ******* might confuse enough people that we'll have 4
more years of Bush.

Monte McGuire

At my age, four more years of bush sounds nice, although not George Bush!
g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Monte P McGuire" wrote in message
...
In article ,
GOD wrote:
The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

Dude... he wasn't elected. It was a bloodless coup. Get over it and
do something useful like complaining about f*cking Nader. That
arrogant little ******* might confuse enough people that we'll have 4
more years of Bush.

Monte McGuire

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ...

At my age, four more years of bush sounds nice, although not George Bush!

g


Dammit, Roger, you just made me spray my end-of-the-day cocktail all
over the monitor. (Well, it WAS due for a cleanin', but jeez...)

But, you know what they say... 'just because there's snow on the roof
doesn't mean there's not a fire in the furnace'! Cheers, mate...hehe.

Will
WPMusic

"Cossie" wrote in message
...

I agree. The argument that the intelligence was not specific enough
doesn't
hold water. The hijackers came into the country using passports from
countries that flagged them for review by Powell's office before they were
allowed in. Several of their names were on the terrorist watch list, yet
they still got a pass to enter the country because this administration WAS
NOT PAYING ATTENTION. This WAS preventable, and I'll keep
beating that "dead horse" until this administration is gone, and not
before.

But didn't most of them get into the country before Bush took office?

ryanm

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

Of some kind, in some place, by some people, at some time.
Knowing that, then what? I'm no fan of the shrub's handlers
by any means but way too much is being made of this.

Not enough is being made of it.

The issue is not whether the memo named a time and place -- it's that a
competent administrator would have immediately asked if the FBI, et al.,
were
doing enough to track down and disrupt these peoples' operations. That
question
has not been satisfactorily answered.


Nobody's even asking the right questions. Bush sat reading a story to
children and THE JETS WERE NOT SCRAMBLED.

jb

"reddred" wrote ...
Nobody's even asking the right questions. Bush sat reading a
story to children and THE JETS WERE NOT SCRAMBLED.

There is quite likely nobody left in the military that
remembers the last time the continential US was attacked
by air. (50 years ago, here in Oregon). If the US military
depends on the CIC to make every decision, they are vastly
overpaid.

I'd hate to think of what Slick Willy may have been doing
had it happened a year earlier. I just now realized the
double-entrende of that name! :-)

Humm - possible hijacking my terrorists.

Humm - planes hijacked.

Humm - guess it's no real problem - let's not get any planes
in the air to check it out.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
Humm - possible hijacking my terrorists.

Humm - planes hijacked.

Humm - guess it's no real problem - let's not get any planes
in the air to check it out.

Wait... I thought you said the problem was not checking into their
visas?

ryanm

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
Bush's competency is being questioned????

Anyone else for flogging a dead horse?

As long as said horse occupies the Oval Office...

Unfortunately, that particular horse is both living and laced with
puppet strings which are being pulled by far too many borderline
criminals. I wish this horse and puppeteers were all dead enough
to be flogged.

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
Humm - possible hijacking my terrorists.

Humm - planes hijacked.

Humm - guess it's no real problem - let's not get any planes
in the air to check it out.

Wait... I thought you said the problem was not checking into their
visas?

ryanm



Ryan, believe it or not, there is actually more than one person posting in
this thread. I brought up the lack of review upon their entering the
country, not Joseph.

And believe me, my mentioning of that problem wasn't intended to exclude all
of the other screw-ups, lies, and misdirections. What makes you think
ignoring terrorists entering the country and ignoring warnings from the FBI
are mutually exclusive?

Bill Balmer

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
Again, you're mistaken on this. It has nothing to do with horses, and
everything to do with balancing the states with dense urban populations
against the more lightly-populated, rural states. Each state needs equal
say
even though the populations may be drastically different, but at the same
time each person needs equal say despite their state's population (or lack
thereof). The *only* feasable solution was a represenetive (republic)
system, where the reps are voted in and the number of reps varies based on
state population. Just to be clear, this has *less than nothing* to do
with
horses, time limits, or anything of that nateure.

And again, you a missing my point. I know the idea behind the electorate,
devised when it was part of the voting of "the several states" and obviously
not reconciled to technological advances that allow that electoral vote to
be cast based on the "intentions" of the populace. It's not a factor of
"balanced" voting that is a problem, nor has it been. It's the rules that
are adhered to that are antiquated and negate the options of the people to
have their votes counted. I suggest that you look up the ratification of
Amendment XVI in terms of income tax and the now KNOWN fact that the
admendment never passed ratification of the necessary states within the time
frame allowed. And yet we have income taxes that are not supported by the
very framework of the Constitution's directions on the state's ratifications
of Constitutional Amendments. A clear violation of the "intent" of the
Constitution. And I'd suggest that if the Founding Fathers were around
today, they'd find that such Constitutional enactments, such as the
Electoral College, would be antiquated by technological advances.

In the old days, no one knew squat about who was actually going to be
elected because, other than before Congress, there wasn't an actual
representation of the vote, and for all practical purposes, the elector
didn't have to abide by the popular vote. Perhaps, even then as today,
someone that didn't abide by the popular vote for their district wouldn't be
re-elected to their electoral post again, but it wouldn't change the outcome
of the vote, and there is absolutely NO legal recourse to a misapplied
electoral vote.

In today's technologically advanced environment, the capabilities of
communications have antiquated the original approach, which was based on the
abilities of the individual electors to reach the capitol city and lay their
vote before Congress. This meant that there were imposed time frames that
aren't important today but are still binding on Congress as to when they
have to have the votes presented.

Even with the Supreme Court decision that many say "gave" Bush the election,
the idea was that, regardless of the Florida Supreme Court's decision the
questioned votes be recounted, the US Supreme Court determined, in fairness,
that all Florida votes would have to be recounted and in such a time frame
as available, it wouldn't be possible. Therefore, George Bush became the
43rd President of the United States. And the decision was based on the hard
fast date of December 15th, which was the timeframe allowed for individual
electors to reach the capitol city by horseback.

Now by statements made by the presiding lower Florida Court's judge, his
intentions on what would be counted and what would not are known, and even
though the press made much to do about their own recounts of the votes, they
didn't jibe with what the judge's intentions were and had those votes been
recounted as to the judge's intentions, Al Gore would have won by more than
the number necessary to alleviate any additional mandatory recounts. In
today's technological environment with response times being cut down
significantly by negating riding horses to DC, Al Gore would have been
President.

Now I'm not whining that Gore isn't President. I'm saying that it's obvious
200 year old rules and procedures aren't in the best interest of the
populace who are asked to vote for a President and then have to put up with
someone who wasn't THE elected President. It's easy to say "margin of
error" as you did, but when some of those "errors" are imposed from outside
sources such as Jeb Bush's efforts to negate legally placed votes by
ficticious inclusion on a "felons" list, and the recount situation that
could have come to a full audit within days of the "original" time
constrained framework, then it doesn't become a margin of error, it becomes
a miscarriage of the voter's desires.

I now not only foresee additional problems in Florida for this election
cycle, as evidenced by the 2002 interim elections, but the addition of the
same in Maryland and other states who are implementing electronic voting
without a paper trail. Unless the opportunity to have unbiased qualified
programmers verify the code that "counts" the votes, we are going to see
even more serious "margins of errors". Again, if the margin of errors
becomes an error of margins due to outside influences that cannot be
verified and are not allowed to be verified (an "intellectual property
rights" thing), than the rights of the people to vote for their chosen
leader will be negated, possibly with impunity. But both Florida and
Maryland, along with other states, are going forward with electronic voting
machines whose programming is not subject to outside verification as to it's
authentication capabilities, and are suspect because of that fact.

In other words, we can't be involved with antiquating the manual ballots
that have served for some number of years without negating the antiquated
elements involved with the time constraints implied by 200 year old
processes and procedures. Implementing a new complex system based on
terminology and time constraints from 200 years ago incorporates new
breakdown points within the new complex system. But complex systems is a
discussion for another day.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"ryanm" wrote in message
...

But didn't most of them get into the country before Bush took office?


No. The following dates and events are taken from "FreeRepublic.com" - a
self-described conservative news forum.

- The two Al-Shehri brothers arrived in the US on 4/1/01

- In January the CIA learns Almidhar was involved in the bombing of the US
Cole, but doesn't put him on the watch list until August - after he has
enetered the US

- On 4/13/01, because he IS on the watch list, Jarrah is detained in Dubai
while changing planes from Afghanistan. But since he has a valid US visa,
he is released. He re-enters the US on 4/13/01, goes abroad again and
re-enters again on 8/4/01.

- 2/23/01 - Moussaoui arrives in the US for the first time

- Mohammed Atta travelled quite a bit. He is in the US at the beginning of
2001, but travels to Germany on 3/11, Toronto also during March, Prague on
4/8, returns to the US on 4/9, travels to Germany again on 4/20, returns to
the US, Goes to Madrid and Rome beginning on 7/8, and returns to the US
again on 7/19.

- Al Shehhi is in Amsterdam on 4/18

- Al-Ani is expelled from the Czech Republic for violating the terms of his
visa in April.

- Between 4/23 and 6/29, the "Jeddah Thirteen" arrive in the US. Some
arrive clandestinely, but confirmed a Mohand AL-SHEHRI, Waleed AL-SHEHRI,
Hamza ALGHAMDI, and ALNAMI enter the U.S. sometime in May; Saeed ALGHAMDI,
ALOMARI, and Salem ALHAZMI enter the U.S. sometime in June

- On or about 7/1/01, Atta, Al-Shehhi, and Hanjour all make separate trips
abroad.

- 7/17 - INS approves Atta's student visa (which is finally delivered--to a
flight school--in the spring of '02)

- 8/16 Moussaoui is interviewed at a flight school in Florida by the FBI.
When they question his presence in the USA, he says he is simply interested
in learning to fly. He tells them that, upon competing training, he
"intended to engage in sightseeing in New York City and Washington." He
insists that he is a successful salesman, but when they ask what company, he
can't recall the name (Infocus Tech) of the firm he works for. He is then
placed under arrest for visa irregularities. He is found with: two knives;
one pair of binoculars; flight manuals for the Boeing 747 Model 400; a
flight simulator computer program; fighting gloves and shin guards; a piece
of paper referring to a handheld Global Positioning System receiver and a
camcorder; software that could be used to view pilot procedures for the
Boeing 747 Model 400; a notebook listing two German telephone numbers,
including the Duesseldorf number that MOUSSAOUI called on July 29th; a
manual for a crop-duster; the name "Ahad Sabet," and a laptop computer (see
August 18-20). Letters indicating that MOUSSAOUI is a marketing consultant
in the United States for Infocus Tech; a computer disk containing
information on the aerial application of pesticides; a handheld aviation
radio. For three weeks, Moussaoui, 33, sits in jail in Minnesota with
"no-one coming near him", according to the administrator of the jail.

- August 19, 2001-ATTA is finally put on the Watch List for Terrorists

- August 23, 2001-ALMIDHAR and NawaqALHAZMI are put on the FBI terrorist
watch list to prevent them from entering the country-only twenty months
after they were recorded plotting the Cole bombing, and when they had
already been in the country for a month and a half. The FBI has no idea
where they are. The San Diego FBI office is not notified of the two
hijackers' change in status until September 13.

- August 27, 2001-Allegedly, the CIA sends a message coded "IMMEDIATE" (the
second-highest priority) to the FBI, Justice Department, and Customs warning
that ALMIDHAR and ALHAZMI are in the country. The FBI later claims that it
took "aggressive action" in response to the warning. The LA Times later
pointed out that the FBI's "aggressive action" did not include checking
California drivers' license records or VISA card records (the VISA cards are
used the same day to buy Flight 77 tickets), on both of which the two were
listed under their own names. ALHAZMI was listed in the 2001 San Diego phone
book.

There's a lot more, but if this doesn't convince you of the Bush
administration's cavalier attitude toward terrorism prior to 9/11, nothing
will. See the full timeline for yourself at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts.

Bill Balmer

ryanm wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...

Humm - possible hijacking my terrorists.

Humm - planes hijacked.

Humm - guess it's no real problem - let's not get any planes
in the air to check it out.


Wait... I thought you said the problem was not checking into their
visas?

That's wasn't me.

Cossie wrote:

- 8/16 Moussaoui is interviewed at a flight school in Florida by the FBI.
When they question his presence in the USA, he says he is simply interested
in learning to fly. He tells them that, upon competing training, he
"intended to engage in sightseeing in New York City and Washington." He
insists that he is a successful salesman, but when they ask what company, he
can't recall the name (Infocus Tech) of the firm he works for. He is then
placed under arrest for visa irregularities. He is found with: two knives;
one pair of binoculars; flight manuals for the Boeing 747 Model 400; a
flight simulator computer program; fighting gloves and shin guards; a piece
of paper referring to a handheld Global Positioning System receiver and a
camcorder; software that could be used to view pilot procedures for the
Boeing 747 Model 400; a notebook listing two German telephone numbers,
including the Duesseldorf number that MOUSSAOUI called on July 29th; a
manual for a crop-duster; the name "Ahad Sabet," and a laptop computer (see
August 18-20). Letters indicating that MOUSSAOUI is a marketing consultant
in the United States for Infocus Tech; a computer disk containing
information on the aerial application of pesticides; a handheld aviation
radio. For three weeks, Moussaoui, 33, sits in jail in Minnesota with
"no-one coming near him", according to the administrator of the jail.

All of this - yet they couldn't put two and two together???

Any same operative would think he was planning to use a plane in
an illegal manner - either to spray chemicals or something simmilar.

- August 27, 2001-Allegedly, the CIA sends a message coded "IMMEDIATE" (the
second-highest priority) to the FBI, Justice Department, and Customs warning
that ALMIDHAR and ALHAZMI are in the country. The FBI later claims that it
took "aggressive action" in response to the warning. The LA Times later
pointed out that the FBI's "aggressive action" did not include checking
California drivers' license records or VISA card records (the VISA cards are
used the same day to buy Flight 77 tickets), on both of which the two were
listed under their own names. ALHAZMI was listed in the 2001 San Diego phone
book.

Well, is *is* California we're talking about here.

In rec.audio.pro ryanm wrote:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...


Actually, it doesn't work like that either. It's not as if there is a
certain 10% who can change the direction of an election. It will be a
different 10% every time. Last time it was the 10% in Florida. See, because
of the (nicely balanced) way that the electoral college works, they only
have to get a majority of the state to get all the electoral votes for the
state. So even if 49% of Texas voted against Bush but 51% voted for him,
Bush gets *all* of the electoral votes for Texas, even though he only won by
a small margin. In this way, you eliminate the possibility of ever needing a
nationwide recount, you would only ever have to recount states that were too
close to determine, such as Florida in the last election.

This isn't completely true. The manner in which electors are assigned is
decided by the states and does not have to be "winner takes all". In Maine
and Nevraska they choose their electors using a district popular vote. In
this system, the winner of each congressional district wins an electoral
vote, and the at-large winner of the entire state gets an additional two
electoral votes. The Constitution leaves the method to be used in the hands
of the state legislatures.


--
Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer

JF4-4-C5
phone: 503-712-3212

Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"reddred" wrote ...
Nobody's even asking the right questions. Bush sat reading a
story to children and THE JETS WERE NOT SCRAMBLED.


You don't understand. The president doesn't have to give the word, when
there is a hijacking, jets go in the air. The president needs to give
authorization to shoot down the hijacked plane, but the air response is
supposed to be automatic. Where was it?

jb

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...

Even with the Supreme Court decision that many say "gave" Bush the
election, the idea was that, regardless of the Florida Supreme Court's
decision the questioned votes be recounted, the US Supreme Court
determined, in fairness, that all Florida votes would have to be
recounted and in such a time frame as available, it wouldn't be possible.
Therefore, George Bush became the 43rd President of the United States.
And the decision was based on the hard fast date of December 15th,
which was the timeframe allowed for individual electors to reach the
capitol city by horseback.

But that wasn't the deadline (the Federal one) they were held to, the
deadline they were held to was in Florida's own law. It was *Florida's*
deadline that they had to meet. Then they wanted to change that Florida law
to allow the recounts, and the SC said they couldn't change voting laws in
the middle of an election. It wasn't the Federal law that was the problem,
it was the State law.

Now I'm not whining that Gore isn't President. I'm saying that it's
obvious 200 year old rules and procedures aren't in the best interest
of the populace who are asked to vote for a President and then have
to put up with someone who wasn't THE elected President. It's easy

I don't see that as obvious (let alone true) at all. I think the
electoral college *is* in the best interests of the people it represents.

I now not only foresee additional problems in Florida for this election
cycle, as evidenced by the 2002 interim elections, but the addition of the

Well, no one bothered to change the "offending" laws in Florida, so it
seems evident that the same problem witll occur again.

In other words, we can't be involved with antiquating the manual ballots
that have served for some number of years without negating the antiquated
elements involved with the time constraints implied by 200 year old
processes and procedures. Implementing a new complex system based on
terminology and time constraints from 200 years ago incorporates new
breakdown points within the new complex system. But complex systems is
a discussion for another day.

I'm with you, but I just don't think the federal time limit has ever
been a problem. Regardless of how quickly we *can* collect votes, why jack
with a schedule that has always worked? Who cares why the schedule was
originally implemented, I would rather have extra time between each step
than to shorten the process and end up running over the newly established
deadlines when there's a problem.

ryanm

"Cossie" wrote in message
...

And believe me, my mentioning of that problem wasn't intended to
exclude all of the other screw-ups, lies, and misdirections. What
makes you think ignoring terrorists entering the country and ignoring
warnings from the FBI are mutually exclusive?

Ah, but wasn't that particular screw-up presided over by Clinton? Didn't
most of them enter the country while he was president? I'm just trying to
get a handle on your position. Everyone likes to make these soundbyte-like
statements, but as soon as I raise a question the story usually changes.

ryanm

Yeah, right, blame it on Clinton. If you've been watching anything of the
9/11 committee testimony in the last couple of days you'll see that the real
"wall" that Ashcroft tried so hard to pin on Clinton was brought on by
actions taken during the Reagan years when intelligence was screwing up
actual prosecution of foreign agents by doing some decidely non-American
things in their efforts to gain more intelligence, not of the purpose of
prosecution, but to get the info on additional foreign agents. The courts
took it as a un-constitutional effort that could be used by prosecutors, so
the "wall" was built to protect the prosecutor's abilities to actually put
the bad guys in jail.

It's the reason that, even though the information from Mousousei's computer
was deemed necessary, the mid-level FBI management wouldn't try for the
warrant, and, in fact, this guy's name never even got up to the upper levels
of management in the FBI.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Cossie" wrote in message
...

And believe me, my mentioning of that problem wasn't intended to
exclude all of the other screw-ups, lies, and misdirections. What
makes you think ignoring terrorists entering the country and ignoring
warnings from the FBI are mutually exclusive?

Ah, but wasn't that particular screw-up presided over by Clinton?
Didn't
most of them enter the country while he was president? I'm just trying to
get a handle on your position. Everyone likes to make these soundbyte-like
statements, but as soon as I raise a question the story usually changes.

ryanm

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...

Yeah, right, blame it on Clinton.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just wondering aloud if it's appropriate to
try to pin that part of it on Bush. This is the Land of Opportunity (tm),
and anyone with the right money or connections can get in or out whenever
they want to, it's not like our borders are exactly secure.

I'm also not saying it's *not* Bush's fault, I'm just wondering if
there's any good reason to pin it all on him, or if it's just convenient.

ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Cossie" wrote in message
...

And believe me, my mentioning of that problem wasn't intended to
exclude all of the other screw-ups, lies, and misdirections. What
makes you think ignoring terrorists entering the country and ignoring
warnings from the FBI are mutually exclusive?

Ah, but wasn't that particular screw-up presided over by Clinton?
Didn't
most of them enter the country while he was president? I'm just trying to
get a handle on your position. Everyone likes to make these soundbyte-like
statements, but as soon as I raise a question the story usually changes.


I can appreciate your attempt to get the facts right, and your unwillingness
to take at face value everything you hear or read. But if you read this
entire thread, you will see that I have already rebutted the argument that
most of the hijackers came into the US on Clinton's watch. It was a long,
research intensive post with a timeline of the hijackers' movements taken
from conservative sources on the 'net, and I won't post it again. Go back
and read it.

Bill Balmer

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:56 -0500, "ryanm"
wrote:

"Cossie" wrote in message
...

And believe me, my mentioning of that problem wasn't intended to
exclude all of the other screw-ups, lies, and misdirections. What
makes you think ignoring terrorists entering the country and ignoring
warnings from the FBI are mutually exclusive?

Ah, but wasn't that particular screw-up presided over by Clinton? Didn't
most of them enter the country while he was president?

No, although 6 of them did come and go before 2001. 13 of 19 arrived
for the first time in 2001:

"The 19 hijackers entered the United States a total of 33 times. They
arrived through ten different airports, though more than half came in
through Miami, JFK, or Newark. A visitor with a tourist visa was
usually admitted for a stay of six months. All but two of the
hijackers were admitted for such stays. Hanjour had a student visa and
was admitted for a stay of two years, and Suqami sought and was
admitted for a stay of 20 days.

The four pilots passed through INS and Customs inspections a total of
17 times before 9/11. Hanjour came to the United States to attend
school in three stints during the 1990s. His final arrival was in
December 2000, through the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
airport. The other three pilots, Atta, al Shehhi, and Jarrah,
initially came in May and June 2000. They arrived for the last time
between May and August 2001. All made a number of trips abroad during
their extended stays in the United States.

Of the other 15, only Mihdhar entered the United States, left, and
returned. Nawaf al Hazmi arrived in January 2000 with Mihdhar and
stayed. Al Mihdhar left in June 2000 and returned to the United States
on July 4, 2001. Ten of the others came in pairs between April and
June 2001. Three more arrived through Miami on May 28."

" Staff Statement No. 1: Entry of the 9/11 Hijackers into the United
States," National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United
States

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...tatement_1.pdf



--

Jacob Kramer

"Cossie" wrote in message
...

I can appreciate your attempt to get the facts right, and your
unwillingness
to take at face value everything you hear or read. But if you read this
entire thread, you will see that I have already rebutted the argument that
most of the hijackers came into the US on Clinton's watch. It was a long,
research intensive post with a timeline of the hijackers' movements taken
from conservative sources on the 'net, and I won't post it again. Go back
and read it.

Yeah, this post was older than the one you replied to with the timeline.

ryanm

They say Satan has many guises. **** off.


"GOD" wrote in message
m...
Says Bush..


The fact that this idiot was elected as president may have cost 3000
plus Americans their lives. And that was just 911. Time goes on,
soilders die, jobs tank.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED NOW !!!


"Also Sunday, a member of the independent commission investigating the
9/11 attacks said the memo -- the president's daily briefing or PDB
--should have alerted the president to the strong possibility of such
an attack."

"Richard Ben-Veniste said the memo and other reports and incidents
made up a "substantial body of information" about Osama bin Laden's
possible plans."

The PDB's headline was "Bin Laden is determined to strike within the
United States."

"The CIA was reminding the president -- with the headline ... 'don't
just look overseas for the possibility of this spectacular event that
everyone was predicting,' " Ben-Veniste said.

"It certainly updates the information that bin Laden was determined to
strike within the United States," said Ben-Veniste, a former
prosecutor who worked on the infamous Watergate case in the 1970s. "It
talked about sleeper cells here. It talked about terrorists coming and
going out of the United States. It talked about a support system for
al Qaeda within the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/11/911.investigation/index.html