NOYB wrote:

So which coast would you have stationed the trucks on? The East or West
coast of Florida?

Many of the trucks that were heading here needed to be diverted to the East
coast, and the middle of the state (Clewiston, etc). Of course, although we
were hit harder than the east coast, we prepared better for it.



You were better prepared for it? I guess we could have cut down every
tree, removed every pool enclosure, fence, mailbox, traffic sign,
billboard...

Dan

We;re blowing $2 billion a week on Iraq. A brand new reefer truck with a
horse will run about $120,000. If we weren't blowing our wad on Iraq,
we'd have enough money to help almost every area of the nation set up
and maintain proper disaster relief hardware and systems.

Aw now, Harry. If we were'nt "Blowing our wad" In Iraq, we'd surely be
"Blowing our wad" somewhere else.

The US Governement is alergic to saving money! Always has
been...always will be.

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
nk.net...
NOYB wrote:

So which coast would you have stationed the trucks on? The East or West
coast of Florida?

Many of the trucks that were heading here needed to be diverted to the
East coast, and the middle of the state (Clewiston, etc). Of course,
although we were hit harder than the east coast, we prepared better for
it.



You were better prepared for it? I guess we could have cut down every
tree, removed every pool enclosure, fence, mailbox, traffic sign,
billboard...


We had heavy machinery clearing the roads the same day that Wilma hit.

And our long lines at the gas station were on Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday *before* Wilma hit...when people smartly prepared by fueling up in
advance.

We also stocked up on water and food, so we didn't have the ridiculously
long lines at the "free" handout stations just one day after the storm.

That's what I meant by "better prepared".

wrote:

I am not sure why it is the government's job to wage a war it got into
because the President of the United States lied.

Do you believe that if *you* repeat a lie enough times, it will make it
true?

The President didn't lie about anything. That little grandstanding episode
yesterday by the Dems was laughable. The report from "Phase II" of the
investigation into the build-up to the Iraq war was due to come out in the
next couple of weeks anyhow. So I'm not quite sure what the Dems were
asking for.

Regardless, here's what "Phase 1" of the committee investigation revealed:


Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained
the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it
was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking
uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and
other available intelligence.

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger,
disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the
Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report
lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and
Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment
that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.


(BLACKED OUT) Conclusion 77. The Intelligence Community relied too heavily
on United Nations (UN) BLACKED OUT information about Iraq's programs and did
not develop a sufficient unilateral collection effort targeting Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction programs and related activities to supplement
UN-collected information and to take its place upon the departure of the UN
inspectors.

(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that
Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts
to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capabilities.


(U) Conclusion 90. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam
Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to
conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.

(U) Conclusion 92. The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of
contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a
possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach
to the question.

(BLACKED OUT) Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and
objectively assessed in Iraqi Support/or Terrorism that the most problematic
area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in
the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological
weapons. BLACKED OUT

(U) Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on
safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad
and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.

U) Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam
Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global
reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was
reasonable.

U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other
people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change
their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however,
analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to
avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the
scale of 9/11.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
wrote:

I am not sure why it is the government's job to wage a war it got into
because the President of the United States lied.

Do you believe that if *you* repeat a lie enough times, it will make it
true?

The President didn't lie about anything.

Thanks. I needed a giggle this morning.

Bush lies about just about everything. Including his reasons and rationale
for invading Iraq.

The reasons and rationale that Bush provided for invading Iraq are no
different from the reasons and rationale behind Congress's passing (and
Clinton's signing) of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law
105-338) just 7 years ago.

If the Dems want to pick this fight, they're going to look foolish when the
media starts rolling out quotes (and voting records) from Democrats dating
back to the mid-to-late 90's.

NOYB wrote:
"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
nk.net...

NOYB wrote:


So which coast would you have stationed the trucks on? The East or West
coast of Florida?

Many of the trucks that were heading here needed to be diverted to the
East coast, and the middle of the state (Clewiston, etc). Of course,
although we were hit harder than the east coast, we prepared better for
it.




You were better prepared for it? I guess we could have cut down every
tree, removed every pool enclosure, fence, mailbox, traffic sign,
billboard...



We had heavy machinery clearing the roads the same day that Wilma hit.

The damage here was far worse. The trees alone will take months to haul
away. By now you have seen that on the news.

And our long lines at the gas station were on Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday *before* Wilma hit...when people smartly prepared by fueling up in
advance.

I did the same but that fuel doesn't last long - I was back at work on
Tuesday. About 1/3rd of the stations are still not open now. The port
also didn't have power to fill the trucks that did have stations to ship
gas to.

We also stocked up on water and food, so we didn't have the ridiculously
long lines at the "free" handout stations just one day after the storm.

I'm with you here. People bitching about bottled water and ice the day
after the storm? People still bitching three days later when they had
potable water? Worse were the Mercedes, BMW's, Lexus's (Lexi??), etc.
in line for a bag of ice.

That's what I meant by "better prepared".

This was a 50 year event for Broward. The left coast learned the ropes
from Charley last year.

Dan

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:56:05 GMT, Dan Krueger
wrote:


This was a 50 year event for Broward. The left coast learned the ropes

from Charley last year.
The reality was Charley broke up most of the old trees, non-code
conforming houses and bad polles last year so we were a little harder
target.
The wind came from the other direction so some things Charley missed
took a direct hit this time.
We still have a lot of tree debris. Probably half of what Charley did.
Last time I filled a semi from my yard alone, This year it is about
half that. The rows on the side of the road are only 3-4 feet high
instead of 7 or 8. It is like that all over. They still haven't firmed
up a removal plan. I think they are going to make a few sweeps with
the regular recycle trucks and see what they can get. If the
holmeowner is willing to cut and bale the stuff up they will take it
but some of this stuff will need a claw truck. I had some tree trunks
I had to drag around front with the car.

You make a good point. If we are hit with another storm like this next
year, the weak trees would already be gone and power would certainly be
less effected.

I also have enough to fill a trailer unless they chip it on the spot. I
wasn't home when they came by this week so I don't know how they are
handling all of it. I'll be dragging the rest to the curb this weekend.

Dan