On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...

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.

I don't have to know if you've read it or not to know that you haven't
_understood_ it, Nate.

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.

What specific aspects of the PDB do you feel are actionable, Nate? Provide
the wording and the suggested logical action that was not taken. This
isn't the first time I've asked what specifically you think was "missed"
in the PDB.

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.

Oh, so all of the other OBL attacks, which Clinton ignored and which made
OBL that much more bold didn't actually happen? boggle