> Bill wrote:
> LOL i think you misunderstood. I enjoy the music i always buy their
> albums and i bought more to support them because they got a bum rap.
> :P
>
Yeah, well, I kind of blame the Dixie Chicks for the rise of Ann Coulter.
As Triumph said, "Ann Coulter. I nailed her. They arreste
gt; >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "SStewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "CF-Community"
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:04 PM
> >> Subject: RE
he has a point
On 8/29/05, SStewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well there is Southeast DC...
~|
Purchase Flash MX Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate
and support the CF community.
http://www.houseof
sheep
carcass... and thus the Pipes were born"
the Scottish Rogues
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:56 am
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
Importance: Low
> Brian wrote:
> So the quick military succes
"10.) A buttload of ammo."
You would think right? Not so much.
Of course I only know about post Iraqi Freedom.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:56 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: I
> Brian wrote:
> So the quick military success was surprising. A country clear of terrorists?
> Drug prod near zero? Secure borders? HA...we can't even do that at home.
>
He he, well, truth be told, there're no areas of the US where local
warlords make the law although some people consider Chicag
I guess what astonished me is that the US was able to do in 4 days what the
Soviets had been unable to do in 8 years.
I was really worried when we first went into Afghanistan.
So the quick military success was surprising. A country clear of terrorists?
Drug prod near zero? Secure borders? HA...
I heard someone say it's like a bank robber, if they say I fit the
description and I'm in th area then I'm don't mind them stopping and
questioning me.
The weirdest thing was going to a London airport after 9/11 and having
all the heavily tanned people with turbans searching me.
On 8/26/05, Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> But terrorist weighting should differ from SPAM filtering in that we
> should lean towards less false negatives even if that means more false
> positives. (As long as the false positives aren't treated with as much
> finality as the London guy.)
>
EXCELLENT point! Well said.
~~
I'll agree with that, to a point. Though I do feel bad for the
peaceful Muslim men out there. The point comes when we start diverting
aircraft because someone named Islam has boarded and the president is
low in the polls.
Dana
On 8/26/05, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who, you must a
Who, you must admit, are just not as prevelent as the Mohammads and Alis.
I look at it a lot like a SPAM filter. Not just one criteria should
necessarily flag something as spam, but certain criteria have been
shown to be much more reflective of a terrorist than others.
Each criteria should be wei
> Sam wrote:
> My daughter has been searched every time and she's not on the list.
I thought once you were on the neo-fascist list the only way off was a dirt nap?
:-D
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's custom
> Dana wrote:
> brown-skinned, and overlooks the timothy mcveighs and john lindts.
>
But it's certainly more effective than what we do now. If we searched
EVERY Muslim and Arab and then a random sampling of others, it would
be very difficult for Al Quaeda.
Brob's got a good point though: you co
My daughter has been searched every time and she's not on the list.
Something about being wrapped in a blanket I think.
On 8/26/05, Maureen wrote:
> When those in charge of national security have secured the airports,
> harbors, trains, hospitals, and borders using the more than adequate
> laws
mmm I'm more likely to escape a search on that basis, but I am just
thinking that I'd find it easier to accept a search based on being the
tenth in line or even a name match than because I am female or because
the name is Irish, for example. Also, "muslim" comes to mean anyone
brown-skinned, and ov
s sympathy (not alot less!). hehe
- Original Message -
From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Ethnic Profiling (WAS: Inside 9/11)
>> Dana wrote:
>> ethnic profiling? really?
&g
---Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:20 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
>
> babies have been used before by terrorists and smugglers. However, the
> only good reason to search them is because the adult w
Have you ever had kids? :0 I don't know about 10 months but by 2 - 4
years old terrorist is often an apt description.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:20 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
babies have been used befo
> Dana wrote:
> ethnic profiling? really?
>
Why not? I've never understood the problem with any type of profiling
as long as it's based on probability. Let's face it, Muslims are more
probable terrorists than Jews so how about a little religious
profiling there?
That doesn't mean you use it as
Baby formula is a popular hiding place for drugs...
--- On Friday, August 26, 2005 12:20 PM, Dana scribed: ---
>
> babies have been used before by terrorists and smugglers. However, the
> only good reason to search them is because the adult with them
> matches, not because they do. A ten month old
blue faced Pict stepped on a bloated sheep
carcass... and thus the Pipes were born"
the Scottish Rogues
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:20 pm
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
Importance: Low
babies have been
ethnic profiling? really?
I kind of agree with you on the rest of this though. I don't like
cameras in public places, but hmm, I have to admit they were useful in
the London bombings
Dana
On 8/26/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > I"m on the liberty side of the fenc
babies have been used before by terrorists and smugglers. However, the
only good reason to search them is because the adult with them
matches, not because they do. A ten month old is obviously not a
terrorist.
Daana
On 8/26/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Though, i don't think i'll eve
> Brian wrote:
> Actually, a kid that small, can't we just run em through
> the x-ray machine :)
>
It didn't seem to hurt Tommy Lee when he climbed through one so that
he didn't have to take off all of his piercings.
~|
Find out
If your failure to see the positives in Afghanistan is not blindness, then
it must be by choice...which is almost worse.
> There is nothing blind about my hatred. It is based on careful
> observation of the damage done to the United States by those who have
> been entrusted with her well-being.
> Brian wrote:
> failure to find Bin Laden is a disaster. But the overall operation in
> Afghanistan has been an astonishing success.
>
"Astonishing"? I would define astonishing as:
1.) Taliban defeated/UBL captured
2.) Country clear of terrorists
3.) Gov't democratic, stable, and self-support
> Brian wrote:
> I"m on the liberty side of the fence too. But I admit that doing so pretty
> much guarantees that another terrorist attack will take place
Well here is where I think the Bush Administration has really failed -
they've basically pushed a solution as if it's either nothing or that.
I think its an unwritten law somewhere that this quote must be dusted off
when discussing the Patriot Act. Which is not to say I don't agree with
it.
I"m on the liberty side of the fence too. But I admit that doing so pretty
much guarantees that another terrorist attack will take place, and
Maureen,
Remember that OBL and his group were considered a part of the Taliban.
We gave the then government of Afghanistan enough time to turn over
OBL and the rest of Al Queda. They refused and identified the Al Queda
as part of the government. Going into Afghanistan was quite justified.
Doing a
Oh, I can see the positives. I just know there would be substantially
more positives with someone with a clue had been in charge.
On 8/26/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If your failure to see the positives in Afghanistan is not blindness, then
> it must be by choice...which is almost worse.
>
+1
Though, i don't think i'll ever grant them that it's necessary to search a
10 month infant. Actually, a kid that small, can't we just run em through
the x-ray machine :)
> When those in charge of national security have secured the airports,
> harbors, trains, hospitals, and borders using t
When those in charge of national security have secured the airports,
harbors, trains, hospitals, and borders using the more than adequate
laws that existed before the Patriot Act was passed, then they can
come and get my library records, and I'll concede their right to
search 10 month infants who
There is nothing blind about my hatred. It is based on careful
observation of the damage done to the United States by those who have
been entrusted with her well-being.
On 8/26/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even you blind haters must see that.
~~
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said we shouldn't have
retaliated against those who carried out 9/11. But I feel that the
action taken was insufficient and not necessarily aimed at the right
people. After all, how many Afghans flew those planes? And I doubt
those 200,000 people living
So we should have enacted zero retaliation on the Taliban government? Our
failure to find Bin Laden is a disaster. But the overall operation in
Afghanistan has been an astonishing success.
Even you blind haters must see that.
> Not the way he did. OBL is still free, and the warlords in control
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security" ~ Benjamin Franklin
On 8/26/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You really have to decide what you want. The Patriot Act is a terrific way
> for the US to combat the possibility of another
Not the way he did. OBL is still free, and the warlords in control in
Afghanistan now are only marginally better than the Taliban. We're
stuck in the mire there and will be for years. There are almost
200,000 Afghan's who are displaced from their homes, and the
situation is so bad in some place
>I was Republican until this administration. I am not opposed to
> republicans as a group nor am I as opposed to Democrats as I once was.
You were probably conservative, more so than republican. Bush is republican,
but hardly conservative.
> (Just as Bush's war in Iraq has created more terroris
> Hated him then, still hate him now. Among my first thoughts on 9/11
> was "OMG no, not with Shrub in office." He hasn't done a single thing
> right.
>
You wouldn't have removed the Taliban government from Afghanistan?
~|
Fl
Absolutely. The image of the president reading a book to a bunch of
schoolchildren, then flying off to hide out in a hold in the ground
was just what I needed to see while the country was being attacked.
Gives me a warm cozy feeling just thinking about it.
On 8/23/05, SStewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Yeah, I could show you some posts from this list where I got totally
flamed for daring to suggest that Shrub was anything but the perfect
President.
Hated him then, still hate him now. Among my first thoughts on 9/11
was "OMG no, not with Shrub in office." He hasn't done a single thing
right.
O
well we *know* who is crafting it so why the secrecy? It's so stupid.
Dana
On 8/25/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ken wrote:
> > Lack of transparency:
> >
>
> The Bush administration has made a significant point of "taking back"
> Executive priviledge. I don't agree with that -
> Ken wrote:
> Lack of transparency:
>
The Bush administration has made a significant point of "taking back"
Executive priviledge. I don't agree with that - for example I think
US citizens should understand where their energy policy is coming from
and who the President is consulting to craft it.
Hmmm, makes me think calling someone a neo-fascist is kinda pointless.
On 8/25/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
> I was Republican until this administration. I am not opposed to
> republicans as a group nor am I as opposed to Democrats as I once was.
> (Just as Bush's war in Iraq has created more terrori
years ago, a blue faced Pict stepped on a bloated sheep
carcass... and thus the Pipes were born"
the Scottish Rogues
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 04:16 pm
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
Importance:
I was Republican until this administration. I am not opposed to
republicans as a group nor am I as opposed to Democrats as I once was.
(Just as Bush's war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has
eliminated, his policies have lead to more people turning to the
democrats for the future of th
> Stewart wrote:
> "I voted for Bush" bumper sticker
Ever see a car with the "Vote Union, Live Better" bumper sticker?
It's always on a junker which I find hilarious.
~|
Stay Ahead of Hackers - Download ZoneAlarm Pro
http://www.
> Matthew wrote:
> Local Republicans (at least in my area) seem to be much more fiscally
> conservative.
>
Yup, locally I'm all Republican; our Republican gov is awesome.
Nationally I'm Democrat while Mr. Bush is in office, but that would
change for Mr. McCain or a few of the other Republicans r
"And typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism:
The Confederates, I mean Democrats, boast more KKK members than the
Republicans. Are they still flying the Confederate flag down there?"
Heh... you've obviously never been to Virginia, where every tobacco spittin',
gun totin', "chri
can't stand the Bush regime.
Matthew Small
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:56 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
> Sam wrote:
> Democrats prefer raising taxes to support social programs - i.e.
> socializ
> Sam wrote:
> Democrats prefer raising taxes to support social programs - i.e.
> socialized health care
Republicans prefer bankrupting children, i.e., every single
appropriations bill Mr. Bush has signed. How many pork bills has he
vetoed? Oh, yeah: zero.
~~
I'm not even going to bother..
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:58 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic con
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.
Let's break it down:
A system of government marked by central
> Dana wrote:
> Wasn't what his aide whispered "America is under attack"??
>
I've heard the quote was, "Mr. President, the country may be under attack."
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:50 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
>
> It may be humanly *understandable.* But no, it isn't good, I agree. My
> opinion is that he should have sa
he was informed after the *second* plane hit the trade center.
On 8/24/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was being a bit flippantbut since you can
> > "guarantee" that didn't happen.what did happen?
>
> I don't know what happened, but I can guarantee that someone didn'
Maybe not. I can't point to specific operational knowledge but at that
point the plane headed for the White House was still in the air,
correct? So there was a time factor. I seem to recall that there was
debate post-9/11 as to whether it would have been appropriate to shoot
it down. So that policy
It may be humanly *understandable.* But no, it isn't good, I agree. My
opinion is that he should have said kids, it's been fun, but I have to
go now. And exited stage right while getting people started on a
response.
Bush gets the benefit of the doubt way to often. What would I do? I
don't know, b
what's your definition of a neo-fascist?
On 8/24/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because the Democrats with their social policies tend to be much more
> neo-fascist than the Republicans
~|
Sams Teach Yourself Regular Express
I was in Galveston and some homeless guy stopped me on the street and
told me that two planes crashed into the World Trade Center. I thought
he was nuts and made soothing noises as I backed away ::sigh:: in
some ways it's sad I that I would probably no longer do that.
On 8/24/05, Gruss Gott <[
Wasn't what his aide whispered "America is under attack"??
Dana
On 8/24/05, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to play devil's advocate. The first plane was looked at as an accident
> by anybody outside of the air traffic control center, until the second plane
> hit some 20 minutes
but he wasnt gathering facts... he was sitting there thunderstruck.
> plane hit we did not know what was going on. It took a few minutes to
> gather the facts and make an educated assumption as to what was
> happening.
--
He don't understand that sometimes a man
Has got to fight for what he bel
For a long time it was just a fire with rumors of a plane crash
On 8/24/05, G wrote:
> I sure thought it was an accident. I remember i was reading my morning paper
> online when it ran a little blurb: "breaking news, plane crashes into WTC".
>
> I remember chuckling to myself thinking "some drunk
Because the Democrats with their social policies tend to be much more
neo-fascist than the Republicans
On 8/24/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
> I've been sitting here trying to figure out how Sam's twisted logic lead
> him to believe that I was referring to a Democratic Fundraiser. Then it
> dawned on
> Kevin wrote:
> I wouldn't expect the Chancellor of my University to do diddley if we
> fell under a concerted hacker attack. I would expect the IT managers
Oo! Good example.
So I'd expect the Chancellor to want to know immediately once somebody
was free to tell him and then to meet with a lia
>
> I thought the same thing until I flicked on the TV and saw the damage
> - then I knew something was up. I dropped what I was doing and
> started wrapping things up.
>
> Maybe I should've waited 7 minutes ... ha, ha j/k :)
heh heh :)
What did you start wrapping up, out of curiosity? I remem
> Jerry wrote:
> Of course, had he stood up and screamed "We're all gonna die", that
> would have been worse.
>
LOL!
> Or had he asked for the football, that would have been worse.
>
> But it sure wasn't good nor presidential. Nor was the hiding later in
> the day. But he got his staff and him
> Brian wrote:
> I remember chuckling to myself thinking "some drunk pilot crashed his cessna
> into a skyscraper...hahaha!"
>
I thought the same thing until I flicked on the TV and saw the damage
- then I knew something was up. I dropped what I was doing and
started wrapping things up.
Maybe
I sure thought it was an accident. I remember i was reading my morning paper
online when it ran a little blurb: "breaking news, plane crashes into WTC".
I remember chuckling to myself thinking "some drunk pilot crashed his cessna
into a skyscraper...hahaha!"
*sigh*
> Just to play devil's advo
On 8/24/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want my leader to be out of his chair and directing immediately upon
> notice of a crisis. It's what I do, it's what I expect my people to
> do, and it's what every colleague I know does.
Directing what? I don't see it as a difference in expe
son why we
don't do that.
Matthew Small
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:00 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
How come you still think the economy is a failure when everything is
good? Even the deficit is going
I was being a bit flippantbut since you can "guarantee" that didn't
happen.what did happen?
>
>> Wonder how long it takes to get that
>> information...maybe 7 minutes??
>
> That's a really lame argument.
>
> I find it hard to imagine that the only information available at the
> time w
Just to play devil's advocate. The first plane was looked at as an accident by
anybody outside of the air traffic control center, until the second plane hit
some 20 minutes later.
--
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
www.BloodSource.org
Sacramento, CA
"C code. C code run. Ru
blicans
fall in that group, just most of the current administration)
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:51 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
Why would I invite you to a Democratic fundraiser?
On 8/24/05, Ken Ketsdever w
He was informed after the second plane hit (when it was obviously an
attack and not an accident).
Of course, had he stood up and screamed "We're all gonna die", that
would have been worse.
Or had he asked for the football, that would have been worse.
But it sure wasn't good nor presidential. Nor
> On 8/24/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> Oh I can think of a number of things off the top of my
>> head... Call
>> your wife, make sure she and the kids are okay. Make sure
>> the car is
>> ready for cross-country travelling. Pack up some food.
>> Back up work to
>> CD or a colo server somewhere aw
How come you still think the economy is a failure when everything is
good? Even the deficit is going down faster than planned.
Yes, we're not producing as many engineers as China and India but
how's that this administrations fault?
Maybe your upset Paul O'Neil was wrong again?
On 8/24/05, Gruss
I take it he hasn't read his own writing.
larry
On 8/24/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time
>
> Wow! Considering the vast amount of stupid things you read, that's an
> accomplishment.
>
>
~~
> Ken wrote:
> Damn it Gruss,
> You've put me into a position of defending Bush.
> Sam will never let me live it down.
LOL! Yeah, sorry about that :-D
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help D
On 8/24/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time
>
> Wow! Considering the vast amount of stupid things you read,
I know, right! This list is a cornucopia of stupid left-wing ramblings
> that's an accomplishment.
So are you honored? :)
~~~
> I was being a bit flippantbut since you can
> "guarantee" that didn't happen.what did happen?
I don't know what happened, but I can guarantee that someone didn't
tell the president that something happened with absolutely zero
information about the event... If absolutely nothing else, the
w what was going on. It took a few minutes to
gather the facts and make an educated assumption as to what was
happening.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:29 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
> Kevin wrote:
&g
On 8/24/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> Oh I can think of a number of things off the top of my head... Call
> your wife, make sure she and the kids are okay. Make sure the car is
> ready for cross-country travelling. Pack up some food. Back up work to
> CD or a colo server somewhere away from the ac
Why would I invite you to a Democratic fundraiser?
On 8/24/05, Ken Ketsdever wrote:
> Damn it Gruss,
>You've put me into a position of defending Bush.
> Sam will never let me live it down. Crap next thing you know I'll be
> invited to his kids birthday party or some $1,000
> Sam wrote:
> That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time
Wow! Considering the vast amount of stupid things you read, that's an
accomplishment.
~|
Get Instant Hacker Protection, Virus Detection, Antispam & Personal Fir
>> The nation is under attack - it doesn't matter if it's
>> Russians,
>> Cubans, Terrorists, etc. And the President had no idea
>> who it was at
>> the time anyway. The process is the same: What, when,
>> where, how,
>> who's responding.
> It matters greatly who is attacking. What, when, where
> Kevin wrote:
> Gruss, you're ranting.
You're probably right - I guess we all have different ideas of leadership.
I want my leader to be out of his chair and directing immediately upon
notice of a crisis. It's what I do, it's what I expect my people to
do, and it's what every colleague I know d
> That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time :)
> What'd you do, run down to the bunker?
Oh I can think of a number of things off the top of my head... Call
your wife, make sure she and the kids are okay. Make sure the car is
ready for cross-country travelling. Pack up some food. Back up
Damn it Gruss,
You've put me into a position of defending Bush.
Sam will never let me live it down. Crap next thing you know I'll be
invited to his kids birthday party or some $1,000 a plate benefit for
some neo-fascist running for office. :)
Confidentiality Notice: This
> The nation is under attack - it doesn't matter if it's Russians,
> Cubans, Terrorists, etc. And the President had no idea who it was at
> the time anyway. The process is the same: What, when, where, how,
> who's responding.
It matters greatly who is attacking. What, when, where, how and who's
Gruss, you're ranting. You know I'm no Bush fan, but in all truth, his
reaction time was irrelevant. The reaction time of the FDNY, NTSB, Air
National Guard, etc. THOSE were critical. None of them were dependent
on the President to move them to action. They are all empowered to
deal with emergency
We clearly have a difference of opinions. I don't know what was said
between Bush and his advisors. But I cannot fault a man for trying to
run through all the possibilities before committing to action. I
wonder what FDR did for the first 7 minutes after Pearl Harbor was
bombed. Do think there wa
> Greg wrote:
> computer security != national security. I don't see why you're having
> a hard time trying to understand that Gruss.
>
Dudes,
A crisis is a crisis and they can all be dealt with the same way. You
find out, what's going on, who's doing it, what damage has been done,
what resourc
That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time :) What'd you do,
run down to the bunker?
You're Bush hating rhetoric is getting so bad you're not making sense.
Just about every day you attack Bush about something, don't you see
you have a problem? Didn't they set up support groups for people t
computer security != national security. I don't see why you're having
a hard time trying to understand that Gruss.
On 8/24/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > Criticize the President for his actions in the months and years following
> > the tragedy, i'll be right there w
> Brian wrote:
> Criticize the President for his actions in the months and years following
> the tragedy, i'll be right there with yabut calling his immediate
> reaction in the minutes following a "revealing character moment", i just
> don't think is accurate or fair.
>
The nation is under at
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:34 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
Contrast GW's initial reaction (deer-in-the-headlights, go into hiding)
to Tony Blair's reaction to 7/7 (immediate press conference and
immediate return to London). One looked lik
esday, August 24, 2005 8:15 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Inside 9/11
> Brian wrote:
> He took 7 minutes of stunned silence to collect himself and begin
acting.
> SEVEN MINUTES
>
I know I sure as hell didn't sit stupid for 7 minutes. I had some
people and things to loc
My dislike of Bush especially pertaining to the war in Iraq is well
documented. However, What exactly did you expect him to do when he
heard the news of 9/11?
I don't care about the stupid look on his face. We have no insight as
to what he was told or what he said. Maybe he makes stupid, emot
>
> I know I sure as hell didn't sit stupid for 7 minutes. I had some
> people and things to lock down which I did the minute I heard about
> the first plane hitting via a phone call - my reaction was probably
> about 1.5-2 seconds versus Mr. Bush's 420.
Are you in charge of 300 million people?
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
