kapkomet

Let's hope they can start moving forward on some issues and this is just not more posturing. It's time to start moving forward... NHL, NHLPA to meet

Linky Link That's really a shame. They should join the UHL. Or I wonder if they will try to locate an AHL team there?!?

So I made my contribution to our fiscally responsible government. I vote that we move election day the first Tuesday past Tax Day. I bet our government would look a lot different then it does today...

You work, Mr. 15,000 posts?

My aren't we touchy this morning Miss CrankyPants...

Work sucks, doesn't it?!? We do disagree on some things but agree on others. I can articulate this better later - one thing I do agree with - and you say that I accept inaction. Not really. But I do like to make arguments from the other side, so to speak. So, back to work *grumble, grumble, grumble*

I know this because I worked in the airline industry. You have no clue how many threats our government receives all the time that we, the general public, don't know. This is BEFORE 9/11 and after. It's pure baloney to sit there in the comfort of our living room and play monday morning quarterback on everything that happens and sit there and say "OH, he should have ASKED." Repeat: there are literally THOUSANDS of threats every single day. So, let me get this straight. Every one of these should hit the president's (leave political party out of this) desk? NO! You have to rely on agencies and people to do their job. And that's all we can ask. The "millenium" catch that the Democrats were so proud of, Janet Reno cracked me up in her testimony. The Dems were up there talking about what a "wonderful job" Clinton's team did, and she (paraphrashing) basically said that they got lucky and one customs agent stopped it because he was suspicious of the guy. The point is, you cannot react to every document, threat, issue, whatever, that hits your desk. We can't know which threat was going to be "THE ONE" and it sure as hell is pretty convenient to sit there after the fact and say "he should have known". Ask yourself this. If the Clinton administration was telling the Bush team about Al Queda and was pressing so hard about it when Bush's team took office, then they MUST HAVE KNOWN MORE THEN THEY ARE TELLING US! So why didn't THEY act on this information if it was so damn important then? But no one wants to talk about that.

Tonight is a case where Colorado got DOMINATED and still won. Colorado will win in 5 now.

On the balance, goaltending is better then it has been in a long time. The guys are bigger and more athletic then ever before, yet another reason why scoring is down. It only takes a hot month or so and they can carry a team... any of them, Kippy, Volkun, Turco, Raycroft, The Wall, Belfour, LaLime, whoever...

Well if that's the case, line up for the nutsack kicking.

Oh my. It's starting to smell in here...

So how about those Preds?

The pics don't show on my machine. What're you up to?!?!

Right now, if I were a bettin' man one week into the playoffs, TORONTO vs. DETROIT. What a ratings hit if that happens.

When they have exclusive contracts in Iraq set up by our government (read: guaranteed government money), of course they can afford it. How else do you think we get to $87 billion to "rebuild" Iraq?

I think by "historical", he means that Rice meant information CONTAINED was historical, not the document itself.

Toward the end of the season the league decided to make the officials blow their whistles on everything. The games at the end of the season were disgusting. No flow, etc. These guys need to decide to call the game according to the rules. You want more scoring? That alone would do it. Anyway, by the time you get to the Conference finals, the refs will have choked on their whistles by then and let the players decide it.

Oh, and one more point. I agree about Cheney and Bush testifying but it having no teeth is hypocritical as well. If he truely beleives that they have done nothing wrong, then show it by testifying about what they really knew under oath.

How does Rice's testimony equate perjury? The document WAS historical. (Hysterical??). Anyway, It didn't say "this was going to happen". And Rice said that the document had historical information leading persons to beleive that an attack COULD take place on American shores. DUH! Everyone already knew that, before 9/11. It drives me crazy when people think that the entire thing rests on Bush's hands. Again, yes, he blew it. But our ENTIRE government blew it. True?!? And you still have not answered the question about Bush acting on intelligence for Iraq and being blasted for NOT acting for 9/11. (I know what my answer would be to this, but I want to see yours).

No 6 OT's. But Dallas was fired up after Otter's OT winner. Let's see how the rest of the series goes... I either want Dallas to get knocked out right now or go all the way, seeing as how I have tickets if they go that far...

LMAO. That's the only series I've made sure I can watch all I can. What a series. And I don't count Ottawa out yet.

Your baseball analogy is pretty good. Look, I certainly won't dismiss the fact that part of the problem is GWB's arrogance. He's one of the most arrogant presidents we have ever had (or at least doesn't hide it like some of the others). That is GWB's downfall that will lead him to Crawford in November, not that he "didn't do anything" about 9/11. That is, if Kerry ever decides to take a stand about something, but that's a different subject. You are still not directly answering one question though. Why is it ok to NOT act in Iraq, but we HAD to act on intelligence for 9/11? Remember: again: the US had intelligence for the Cole, had intelligence for the Kenya bombings. They went "ignored" by Clinton, so it's the same logic. These kind of briefs have come across since just after the WTC bombings in 1993. NOTHING changed. THEY ALL did NOTHING. Not just Bush. And again: he ACTED on intelligence for WMD, and got his ass toasted for it. So, what if there WERE WMD's in Iraq? Would it still be "wrong" to have gone in? It's the exact same principle... still have not gotten a "respectable, to the point" answer from anyone on this question. And, Plllluuuuueeeze. I hate (nothing personal against you...) it when "dems" support the notion that "repubs" were fixated on oral sex regarding Billy C. To me that whole deal was lying under oath and perjuring himself. I could give a rat's ass about Monica. But Billy C. lied his ass off to cover it UNDER OATH. Bush lies. Hell yea, he's a politician, and so does John Kerry. That's fine - we all know it. But it is NOT under oath. Just had to clarify that. And I agree 100% with you that the entire government was asleep at the wheel during that time frame and thus why partisian politics really sucks.

So we all agree he did nothing. But I guess what I'm trying to ask is, would anyone else have done anything? CONGRESS had the same intelligence. NO ONE in Congress did anything. There was intelligence suggesting the bombing of the Cole. Clinton did nothing. There was evidence suggesting the Marines would get bombed in Beruit. Regean did nothing. So, we're using scale here. 9/11 matters more, because of the scale of the attack? What?!?! So now, Bush has intelligence suggesting WMD's in Iraq. WAIT!! HE DID SOMETHING!!! But Holy s***, that's WRONG!!!!! Hypocritical. Very hypocritical. Bush is hypocritical too. I know that. I agree fully with that. But I just can't see how you can speak out of both ends of your mouth here. He ignored intelligence for 9/11, he didn't on Iraq, and he's wrong for both? I just don't understand that logic.

Relax. I was kidding. I know you care because that's why you posted this to begin with. I seriously do want to know... for all the back and forth, what would have been done different by any other sitting president? Do you *KNOW* that Bush didn't ask anything else? Did Clinton? Did Bush I? Did Reagan? He said that he didn't have information to stop the airplanes flying into the trade centre, but he knew of the "general" threats, hence why there were plans finally finalized right before 9/11 to take care of Al Queda, but more in a covert way. By your logic, NONE of these people are fit for office because NO ONE asked questions like these before 9/11. Everything was taken for face value. Bush f'ed up. But Al Gore would have too. It didn't matter who was in there. You can't be pretentious enough to sit there and say that anyone would have done anything different. Where was f'in Congress? They had the same general intelligence. Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, they all had the same general information. So why didn't THEY ask? As far as I am concerned, every damn one of them should get thrown over the bus, but we know that won't happen. So why do some people get a free pass, but damn it, Bush HAS to go? BTW, one more comment. The agencies reporting intelligence for the Middle East were the same basic arms of the CIA. It wasn't the exact same people for the WMD arguments for Iraq. But there was some collaborative efforts assessing the terrorism threats, and Saddam was in that group by nature of the WMD against the US arguement. Let's not fool ourselves and compartmentalize that issue for political gain because in the end, the information flow ends up being the same and it's quite ironic how we were supposed to jump up and down like hell on the 8-6-01 memo, but sit on our ass on anything having to do with WMD's. Nice and convenient to say they were different, but it's the same thing in the end.

As with anything else, it's what's REPORTED. What about those who are not a part of the "survey"? Just sayin.