PDA

View Full Version : On July 10, 2001......



Losthwy
05-05-2011, 11:11 PM
On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.
Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.
For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance -- Black called it an "out of cycle" session, beyond Tenet's regular weekly meeting with Rice -- would get her attention.
Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/img/ad_label_leftjust.gif

He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."
But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.
Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."
Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.
The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent, the two men told Rice. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain "voodoo" but said it was often this voodoo that was the best indicator.
Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.
As they all knew, a coherent plan for covert action against bin Laden was in the pipeline, but it would take some time. In recent closed-door meetings the entire National Security Council apparatus had been considering action against bin Laden, including using a new secret weapon: the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, that could fire Hellfire missiles to kill him or his lieutenants. It looked like a possible solution, but there was a raging debate between the CIA and the Pentagon about who would pay for it and who would have authority to shoot.
Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.
Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. "Adults should not have a system like this," he said later.
The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about.
Philip D. Zelikow, the aggressive executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and a University of Virginia professor who had co-authored a book with Rice on Germany, knew something about the July 10 meeting, but it was not clear to him what immediate action really would have meant. In 2005 Rice hired Zelikow as a top aide at the State Department.
Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.
Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."
Editor's Note: How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's "neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that "what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."
Washington Post Oct. 1, 2006
More on same subject, Richard Clarke White House Counterterroism Official
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

subroc
05-06-2011, 05:14 AM
So, you’re saying, former President George W. Bush knew which planes the hi-jackers were going to hi-jack. He knew the time and date the hi-jackings would occur. He knew the names of the hi-jackers. He knew the targets the hi-jackers were going to target. And then he did nothing?

road kill
05-06-2011, 05:32 AM
So, you’re saying, former President George W. Bush knew which planes the hi-jackers were going to hi-jack. He knew the time and date the hi-jackings would occur. He knew the names of the hi-jackers. He knew the targets the hi-jackers were going to target. And then he did nothing?

You forgot about Vice President Cheney planning & coordinating the whole operation as well.:D




RK

subroc
05-06-2011, 05:49 AM
You forgot about Vice President Cheney planning & coordinating the whole operation as well.:D




RK

with haliburton...

badbullgator
05-06-2011, 06:03 AM
Hummmmm........I wonder if this as any bearing on this story....

Clarke also cites the same plea in his new book.

I am sure everyone would flock to buy his book without a story like this.

Damn Roger, er I mean lost.....you really found something there and that proves it is Bush's fault

Hew
05-06-2011, 06:59 AM
Since we're looking through our hindsight glasses....

Clinton passed on 8 to 10 opportunities to get bin Laden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe5BFWgGgeY (hopefully CBS News passes muster with the liberal Source Police here on POTUS)

Losthwy
05-06-2011, 11:02 AM
Gleam from it what you will. For me it was those in the CIA such as Tennet and Clark went to lengths to raise concern and awareness of a pending attack in the immediate future. Those concerns were dismissed by President Bush and C. Rice. The administration was preoccupied with preparations for the upcoming war with Iraq. They were in the process of formulating anti-terrorist strategy to be implemented in the future. But the day the planes went into the World Trade Center Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were not on the "front burner".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

(page 2 of above article)The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

Cody Covey
05-06-2011, 11:23 AM
Gleam from it what you will. For me it was those in the CIA such as Tennet and Clark went to lengths to raise concern and awareness of a pending attack in the immediate future. Those concerns were dismissed by President Bush and C. Rice. The administration was preoccupied with preparations for the upcoming war with Iraq. They were in the process of formulating anti-terrorist strategy to be implemented in the future. But the day the planes went into the World Trade Center Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were not on the "front burner".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

(page 2 of above article)The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

So you think that Bush was planning the Iraq war all along and that's why he missed the warnings?

Losthwy
05-06-2011, 11:34 AM
So you think that Bush was planning the Iraq war all along and that's why he missed the warnings?
In short yes.


, Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)'s Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Iraq) and Saddam Hussein (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Saddam_Hussein). Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".[10] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-9) After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.[11] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-10)[12] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-11)
From- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Roger Perry
05-06-2011, 11:36 AM
Gleam from it what you will. For me it was those in the CIA such as Tennet and Clark went to lengths to raise concern and awareness of a pending attack in the immediate future. Those concerns were dismissed by President Bush and C. Rice. The administration was preoccupied with preparations for the upcoming war with Iraq. They were in the process of formulating anti-terrorist strategy to be implemented in the future. But the day the planes went into the World Trade Center Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were not on the "front burner".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

(page 2 of above article)The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

You can show the righties here all the documentation in the world and they will deny it. But if Clinton or Obama were in office on 9/11/01 that is all they would talking about. Too bad they are all in denial.;-)

DMiller
05-06-2011, 02:27 PM
The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was in the works well before Sept 11. The attack on the twin towers just provided an opportunity to launch the Iraq War, which is what the Bush White house wanted. Below is a link to a letter from The Project For The New American Century to President Clinton. The 1998 letter urges Clinton to attack Iraq. Several of the letter's signers were key players in the Bush Whitehouse.

There was no legit connection between Saddam and 9/11, but 9/11 did provide cover to launch the ill conceived war.



http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Losthwy
05-06-2011, 03:15 PM
The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was in the works well before Sept 11. The attack on the twin towers just provided an opportunity to launch the Iraq War, which is what the Bush White house wanted. Below is a link to a letter from The Project For The New American Century to President Clinton. The 1998 letter urges Clinton to attack Iraq. Several of the letter's signers were key players in the Bush Whitehouse.

There was no legit connection between Saddam and 9/11, but 9/11 did provide cover to launch the ill conceived war.



http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of the Project for the New American Century. It was signed, though the list is not limited to these names.
Richard Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Scooter Libby
William Bennett
Paul Wofowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Marvin S
05-06-2011, 03:37 PM
The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was in the works well before Sept 11. The attack on the twin towers just provided an opportunity to launch the Iraq War, which is what the Bush White house wanted. Below is a link to a letter from The Project For The New American Century to President Clinton. The 1998 letter urges Clinton to attack Iraq. Several of the letter's signers were key players in the Bush Whitehouse.

There was no legit connection between Saddam and 9/11, but 9/11 did provide cover to launch the ill conceived war.



http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

You don't believe his potential WMD's, as most (from both sides of the aisle) believed he had them, were sufficient reason? But I do believe it poorly planned & executed, correct war - wrong players in charge :).

I see little difference in what is being done in Libya compared to Iraq. & aren't we still in Bosnia?

Roger Perry
05-06-2011, 04:04 PM
NamePosition(s) heldElliott Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams)Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council))Richard Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician))Deputy Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Secretary_of_State) (2001–2005)John R. Bolton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton)Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations) (2005–2006)Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) (2001–2009)Eliot A. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen)Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Policy_Board) (2007–2009)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-Kessler-59)Seth Cropsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Cropsey)Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Broadcasting_Bureau) (12/2002-12/2004)Paula Dobriansky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky)Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama)Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President%27s_Council_on_Bioethics) (2001–2005)Zalmay Khalilzad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad)U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ambassadors_to_Afghanistan) (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ambassadors_to_Iraq) (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations) (2007–2009)I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby)Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_Staff_to_the_Vice_President_of_the_United _States) (2001–2005)Richard Perle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle)Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Policy_Board_Advisory_Committee) (2001–2003)Peter W. Rodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Rodman)Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld)Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense) (2001–2006)Randy Scheunemann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann)Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Institute)Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz)Deputy Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Secretary_of_Defense) (2001–2005)Dov S. Zakheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_S._Zakheim)Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) Comptroller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comptroller) (2001–2004)Robert B. Zoellick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zoellick)Office of the United States Trade Representative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Trade_Representative) (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Secretary_of_State) (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_Group) (2007–Present)

Does anyone still not think that the Iraq war was being planned from the first day that GW Bush was "elected"?????????????? WMD or no WMD????????????

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Losthwy
05-06-2011, 04:51 PM
Did President Bush push for the facts or did he push for the facts that supported his views?
1.
Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".[10] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-9) After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.[11] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-10)[12] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-11)
From- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
__________________
2. Pilllar- Washington Post
Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.
The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."
The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.
They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."
Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."
____________
3."Curveball"
Despite CIA technicians and weapon experts finding major flaws and inconsistencies with the designs and systems he asserted the military was developing, this information made it to the American government and although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant's reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Biological_agents) in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 112 United States government (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_States_government) reports between January 2000 and September 2001.[17] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-globalsecurity-16) His assertions eventually made it into United States Secretary of State (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State) Colin Powell (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Colin_Powell)'s February 2003 address to the United Nations (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_Nations) detailing Iraq's weapons programs.

In response to public criticism, U.S. president (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/President_of_the_United_States)Bush (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/George_W._Bush) initiated an investigative commission (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Iraq_Intelligence_Commission) who released their report on March 31, 2005. Bush's investigative commission came to many conclusions including:

Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a "congenital liar", and a US physician working for the Defense Department who travelled to Germany to take blood samples seeking to discover if Anthrax spores were present was stunned to find the defector had shown up for medical tests with a "blistering hangover",[19] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-18) and he "might be an alcoholic".[20] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-Observer-19)
While there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative (younger brother) of one of Ahmed Chalabi (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi)'s Iraqi National Congress (INC) (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress) top aides,[7] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-VV-6)[21] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-Guardian-20) the investigative commission stated that it was "unable to uncover any evidence that the INC or any other organization was directing Curveball."[22] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-LATIMES-21)
The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible, but it was theorised that this wall was temporary. "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring_Verification_and_Inspect ion_Commission) (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements."[23] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-UNMOVIC-22) Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing.[24] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-23)

subroc
05-06-2011, 06:37 PM
Losthwy

in your view, is former President George W Bush personally responsible for the 3000 killed on 911?

Losthwy
05-06-2011, 07:42 PM
Losthwy

in your view, is former President George W Bush personally responsible for the 3000 killed on 911?

No of course not, Bin Laden and AL Qaeda are responsible.
Did he fail to recognize and address the concerns brought to him by members of the intelligence community leading up to 9/11, yes.
President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.
The administration was focus on a broader "strategic" plan for the region, chiefly the invasion of Iraq. When the CIA brought them info on an imminent attack. Which they believed immediate attention was required they did not act.

June 30, 2001, top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

Tenet and Black told C. Rice the problem was serious...and the problem needed to be addressed immediately.

subroc
05-07-2011, 06:31 AM
No of course not, Bin Laden and AL Qaeda are responsible.


Thank You....

badbullgator
05-07-2011, 06:58 AM
Wow I bet roger made a mes of his keyboard on this thread

Roger Perry
05-07-2011, 07:33 AM
Wow I bet roger made a mes of his keyboard on this thread

You must get your rocks off by personal attacks and induendos.

Losthwy
05-07-2011, 05:47 PM
Thank You....
I sincerely appreciate your civility.

gman0046
05-07-2011, 05:57 PM
Post #20 shows the intelligence of Roger Perry as he continues with his personal attacks. I feel sorry for this impaired individual.

Losthwy
05-07-2011, 06:16 PM
This thread is beginning to auger in.

Roger Perry
05-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Post #20 shows the intelligence of Roger Perry as he continues with his personal attacks. I feel sorry for this impaired individual.

And another personal attack by gman. Can't you post anything without resorting to name calling????????????????????

As vindictive as you are toward me, you don't see me calling you names or belittling the time you spent in the Air Force. Your hatred for those that do not agree with you knows no bounds.

Uncle Bill
05-08-2011, 11:04 AM
You must get your rocks off by personal attacks and induendos.



Now, Now, Now,...lets not get lewd and promiscuous.:rolleyes:



UB

Uncle Bill
05-08-2011, 11:09 AM
This thread is beginning to auger in.


That was my view when you initiated it. What WAS your purpose? That is such OLD gossip, you could only have one purpose in posting it...and most of us see it.

You lefties are truly bankrupt of ideas.

UB

road kill
05-08-2011, 01:27 PM
That was my view when you initiated it. What WAS your purpose? That is such OLD gossip, you could only have one purpose in posting it...and most of us see it.

You lefties are truly bankrupt of ideas.

UB

It's obvious, Uncle Bill, she is a truther!!!:D


RK