Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:52:13 -0400, Al Reid wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:

The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
administration had been more on the ball.

The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?

Do you think that nate has actually read the 911 report and the August 8th PDB? Probably not.

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
haven't read.

One thing that is interesting, in relation to the President always
being on vacation crap, is that the 911 report documents cases
where Tenet and others traveled to Crawford to deliver PDB's and
to provide other briefings.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

What actual facts do you dispute? That the government missed multiple
warnings leading up to 9/11? Including the PDB as well as several
others? That is in fact pretty well established.

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.