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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

You're a nutcase.


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


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

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

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

It's about time you sobered up.

Buh-bye.



For JG2U,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch out for the line wrap.

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

HTH

Ta!-Ta!

RLM

"RLM" wrote in message
. ..

For JG2U,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch out for the line wrap.

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

HTH

Ta!-Ta!

RLM



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

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

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

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

You're a nutcase.

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

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

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

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

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


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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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


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

Man you a piece of work!

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



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