Rep vs. Dem Differences

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...

Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
children, and did not leave immediately.

Even if that was the case (and it contradicts the news reports I was
watching at the time), what else should he have done about it? Immediately
ask for the football and launch missiles? Hold a conference and tell
everyone who was working to deal with the situation to stop whatever they
were doing and immediately give him a report? Any action taken at that
moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. In fact,
everything that could be done was being done.

Has Kerry said he would have done anything different? No. He just sees fit
to criticize and armchair quarterback with the hindsight of several years,
but he still can't come up with anything else the President could have done
even after all this time to think about it.

Bill Denton wrote:

There's nothing wrong with me, I'm firmly grounded in reality.

However, I would question the state of someone who believes the President
was told that "the country was under attack".

You have no idea what Bush was told...

But the guy who told him, Andrew Card, should know what he was told.
His recollection was (SF Chronicle, 9/11/02):

"So I was very uncomfortable about interrupting the president during one
of his events ... so I wanted to think, how can I convey to the
president the situation? And I made a conscious decision to state the
facts and to offer editorial comment. And the facts, as I knew them,
were -- since he knew about the first plane, I said, 'a second plane hit
the second tower.' Those were the facts. And the editorial comment was,
'America is under attack.'"

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...

Obviously you don't have very young children...


What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???


I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
front of a bunch of television cameras.


So???

He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong with

you?

"Michael 182" wrote

Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in
a
car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On
the
way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked!
Aside
from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.

Michael

*****************************
Just a small difference here. I don't suppose you have a whole government,
several layers of defense and protocol in place, to care for any situation
that comes up involving your wife, do you?

The president does. He is an administrator, not a sole caretaker.
--
Jim in NC

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:17:10 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.
I
would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

"Sorry kid's got to cut this short, I'll try to come back sometime
soon" Comes to mind.

And what would he have been able to do right away? Invade Afghanistan?

You've been watching too much TV / Hollyweird.

People have been deluded by Hollyweird on how the military/intelligence
services/police/government really works.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183148/posts

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Odd, isn't it, that the left wing countires are the most brutal and
repressive in recent history?

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered more
than Germany could ever hope to.

Spin that!!

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
itself.

That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...-wing_politics

"Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
tenet of Nazi fascism."

Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing

"... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
right"."
"Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
Communists, and Socialists."

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
loyalties."

"Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
borrows concepts and practices from all three."

Bad definition since Fascism, under both Mussolini and Hitler, were strongly
influenced by Marx.

"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the

ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first

premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_


I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.

The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into

practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had

only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in

because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of

democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could

have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

--Hitler to Rauschning



http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing

"... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
being of the right, and communism being of the left."

Actually, communism is considered "progressive", the antithesis of
"conservatives".

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...

Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
children, and did not leave immediately.

Even if that was the case (and it contradicts the news reports I was
watching at the time), what else should he have done about it? Immediately
ask for the football and launch missiles? Hold a conference and tell
everyone who was working to deal with the situation to stop whatever they
were doing and immediately give him a report? Any action taken at that
moment would almost certainly have been the wrong one. As a pilot, one of
the first things you learn about emergencies is to wait and see what the
emergency is before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. In
fact,
everything that could be done was being done.

First thing to do in an emergency is to fly the airplane.

Has Kerry said he would have done anything different? No. He just sees fit
to criticize and armchair quarterback with the hindsight of several years,
but he still can't come up with anything else the President could have
done
even after all this time to think about it.

Someone recently made a point about the old adage that "hindsight is
20/20" -- it isn't. It's terribly myopic. It doesn't teach one to make
decisions when there are so many unknown variables afoot during the original
decision making process.

Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would have
to
do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

Which is precisely by design, and is precisely the way we wanted it to be.

You want a heavily armed Canadian military on our northern border? You want
a militarized Europe again? Probably not.

One thing many people forget is that the U.S. set up the world this way
quite purposefully, after World War II. The thought was that it was better
to keep our troops in forward bases, and fight the next war "over there"
rather than waiting for it to come "over here." We firmly limited the size
of the former Axis' powers militaries, and created NATO in order to protect
Europe.

At first the Europeans chafed under the "restrictions" -- but over time they
discovered that they could really live it up, with all that disposable
income from their former military budgets.

We bought the peace, but at an incredible price to our own people.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:qbSYc.262537$eM2.184@attbi_s51...
Hardly. The Canadians and Europeans depend on the US for their security.
They provide token forces, but nothing anywhere near what they would
have
to
do if they were fully responsible for their own security.

Which is precisely by design, and is precisely the way we wanted it to be.

You want a heavily armed Canadian military on our northern border? You
want
a militarized Europe again? Probably not.


No, of course not. However, neither should they be so disrespectful of what
we have bought for them at such a high price.