News-Record.com

He certainly looked dumbfounded when he was told the news.* Doug

Not true Doug! Bush was being told about the 2 nd plane poping the twin towers. He had already seen the first plane pop the tower in the back room of the school on their TV, before getting ready to read the little goat story. By the way the photos were release last week by a foreign news service showing him looking at the first plane wack, who were along with the Bush trip and had special access to shoot photos of the President. The White House has neither deny the release of the photos since they ask the news service not to release the photos in the interest of national security 5 years ago.

Republicans reject the "Bush knew" theory by a 7-1 margin -- which means some of them are idiots, too.* Doug

But it's not rational to project his performance now to such a noxious view about 9/11.* Doug

Doug when you explain why TT-7 a 47 story building fell on it's own 6 hours later, than you will be shocked to know that over 30 million Americans now believe that 9/11 was a fake deal and is the faster growing movement in the history of the country whether left or right.

Careful Doug! That is 15% of the Republican base who are normal Americans since they are Republicans and most likely voted for Bush in 2004. By the way Doug, Bruce Willis has left the Republican party after fiquring out that JFK was shot by our goverment finally. In fact, he will be saying a few things about 9/11 next week.

You can't call 40 % of the American public fools for believing in 9/11 as a inside job without catching heat now buddy. It's big Doug! Hugh like Donald Trump says....

Well, there ya have it; conclusive evidence that at least 35% of Democrats are complete idiots.

Jaycee,

Connie Mack proves everyday that our country is full of whack jobs. George Soros and his Move On organization is doing a great job of brainwashing this country. Of course, it doesn't take that much effort to convince some. How people in this country can believe that its president would intentionally kill, or let be killed, 3,000 fellow Americans is just sad, but Connie Mack is living proof of that fact. How long can a great country survive with such hatred for its fellow Americans. Al Queda knows it is just a matter of time until we self-destruct.

Yes, Connie, if 40% of Americans believe this, they are huge fools and nut jobs. There is no proof of any of this and there is no prrof that the government killed JFK. If there is, let's see it.

I am wondering with you, Doug, whether a fair number of that 35% meant Bush "should have known", or that he had been briefed that a major terrorist plot was highly imminent, perhaps even with the idea of planes involved, since there were such warnings circulating.
If the implication is that Bush knew it was a probable event, but not a certainty, yet did not act sufficiently to prevent it, I can see a portion of that 35% clicking on "Bush knew".

But, in a country where 80% or more believe evolution had no large role or no role at all in how life has come to be on earth, I wouldn't put it past being a full 35% who are buying into some nutty conspiracy theory. I am sure similar percentages of Republicans harbor just as silly ideas about their own bugaboos.
We just aren't a very intelligent bunch, we Americans.

Jim,

Please. You've seen the nut jobs on television accusing the president of this crime and speculating on how it happened. Actually, most of them suggest that it was a government plot, not that Bush should have known. They suggest, like Connie Mack, that Bush and his cronies did it. It is a conpspiracy theory. Check out Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen, etc. That are flat-out saying it was a conspiracy. Check out Media Matters, and the other left wing blogs.

Tell a lie long and often enough, and people will believe it. You will note that a large number of the people that believe in the conspiracy are young people. Could it be that they are being brainwashed in our towers of education by our left-leaning professors?

The worst possible thing for these leftists in our country is that France, of all countries, just elected a conservative and rejected a socialist as president. The pendulum in France is moving back toward conservative, and now America is trying to move toward socialism. France and much of the rest of Western Eyrope have found that socialism sounds great, but in practice it doesn't work too well. They are moving back toward capitalism.

Yes, Connie, if 40% of Americans believe this, they are huge fools and nut jobs. There is no proof of any of this and there is no prrof that the government killed JFK. If there is, let's see it!*Stormy

Sure they did Stormy! In fact they murder MLK and RFK and started the war in Nam for the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about. These folks have been very busy for the past 60 years in American and Global affairs in creating false enemies and starting endless wars and slowly converting blooming idiots like you into Bush program robos. You need to get with the conspriacy bunch Americans. They have finally fiqure out what Lenin meant by using useful idiots like you to promote mainstream establishment media myths.

Stormy your political knowledge of history appears to only extend back to Slick Willie second term. Do you really believe that Columbus discover America before the Viking? And that the Great Pyramid was build by cheap Mexican labor from Southern Sudan.

Oh Stormy! I hate to tell you and others in the establishment media Orwellian doublespeak business that the conspriacy nuts outnumber you guys now and vote. So just keep saying that conspriacies don't exist and you will be shocked how many flock to this new and amazing Truth 9/11 movement.

By way Stormy! You don't belong to some secret society group and worship goats do you?

Before proposing Bush hatred as the plausible reason for the 35% of the polled Democrats thinking "Bush knew" (and idiocy as the explaination for the 12.5% of Republicans), we might want to think about the meaning of "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?"

Is the question asking if Bush had a hand in the attacks or a detailed knowledge of the plan prior to 9/11? That's one interpretation. But one might reasonably think the question is asking if Bush had information that an attack was imminent.

I've seen no evidence that, prior to 9/11, Bush had knowledge of dates or operational specifics, but he certainly was informed that an attack was coming and was provided with tactical details.

Bush knew that Osama Bin Laden was determined to attack America on her soil (August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"), that al Qaeda cells were in this country, that activities were consistent with preparations for hijackings and that buildings in New York were being
surveilled  [Ibid].

Bush knew that then-CIA Director George Tenet was warning him about a pending attack by Al Qaeda during multiple meetings prior to the attacks. [Vanity Fair, 11/2004]

Bush knew that there was a surge of warnings during the summer of 2001 in daily security briefings, with titles such as “Bin Laden Planning Multiple Operations” “Bin Laden Network’s Plans Advancing,” “Bin Laden Threats Are Real,” “Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent,” and “Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks.”

In fact, Bush says it was the volume of threat intelligence that led him to request a
briefing from Condoleezza Rice that resulted in the August 6th, 2001 breifing "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." [Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Did Bush have knowledge of dates, times, and targets? There is no evidence to support an answer of yes. Did Bush know that there was an increasing surge of warnings that an al Qaeda attack on US soil was imminent, yes.

So, it comes down to this. If one is warned that an attack is imminent, does that constitute foreknowledge? Yes is not an unreasonalbe answer and certainly cannot be waived off as idiocy or hatred.

Good points, Roch, which I alluded to. That al-Qaida wanted to strike here was known. In fact, al-Qaida did strike here in the first WTC bombing in 1993. Some of the 35 percent might indeed mean that Bush should have known. But the question seems more direct than that: Did Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks, i.e., did he know precisely that aircraft would be hijacked and crashed into the towers and the pentagon on that date? A lot of Americans, as noted by other commenters on this string, do believe that. Would there be more Democrats than Republicans among them because of their animosity toward Bush? That's a reasonable supposition. Of course, if they do believe that, that would explain in large part why they hate Bush. I would hate Bush, too, and push for his impeachment -- indeed, arrest on charges of treason -- if I believed he knew in detail about 9/11 and allowed the attacks to proceed.

Good points, Roch101, and here's a mission for you analagous to the pre-9/11 situation:

There will be a burglary in Greensboro tomorrow.
It will be perpetrated by a young black male.
It will happen in a "major" housing area.

If you don't prevent it you'll be castigated for the next 5 years because you "knew" it was going to happen and you did not prevent it.

Using your thought process, Roch, FDR could be held responsible for Pearl Harbor:

President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.

FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by --
1. denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
2. on November 27 and later, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
3. having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.

Sounds like Bush and 9/11, huh? Which is the biggest conspiracy, Pearl Harbor/FDR or 9/11/Bush?

Connie, do you know who was president in 1968 when the murders of RFK and MLK occurred? Do you know who was president when the Vietnam War began? The answer to both questions is a Democrat, and the Dems controlled government. So, who is the "they"? Again, there is no proof on any of these conspiracy theories, because they are just that "theories".

By the way, Doug. You and Roch are trying to overthink this poll. The poll questions were:

Did the CIA Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?

Yes 29%
No 41%
Not sure 30%

Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?

Yes 22%
No 55%
Not sure 22%

The questions are fairly clear. Of course, we have no idea what the people that responded were thinking when they voted. We can only know how they voted. So, developing scenarios like you and Roch have done serves no purpose. A large minority of people surveyed thought that the CIA and Bush knew about the attacks. The question really is whether a poll of 800 people is representative of the thinking of hundreds of millions of people. We do not know how the participants were selected or whether the poll was properly conducted. We just know what a couple of hundred people think, based on the question asked.

Good analogy, jaycee. Let's flesh it out a bit to make it more closely mirror Bush's knowledge and culpability.

During the course of one spring and summer, a certain individual becomes aware that men of Middle Eastern decent, who are known to belong to a bank-robbing gang are threatening to rob banks in America. The individual becomes aware that the gang is planning something spectacular. He learns that the gang is scoping out targets in the only city where they had previously robbed an American bank. He learns the gang is making active preparations for a bank robbery and possible methods for its execution.

The bank-robbing gang successfully pulls off a murderous heist. They hit the Farmers Credit Union in the city the individual knew they were surveilling and using the methods he knew they might use. Everyone in the bank is killed. It comes to be known simply as "FCU."

What would the law's view of this be? Would the individual be let off the hook because he "didn't have prior knowledge of FCU?" Or would he be held accountable for not taking action on what he did know? Based on what he knew, could the individual be shown in court to have had prior knowledge of a crime and therefore, because of his inaction, be guilty of a crime himself?

Let's add one more similarity to the analogy: The individual in question had more power and resources than anyone else in the world to stop the events before they unfolded.

Stormy,

If you sourced some documentation to back-up your FDR analogy, it would have some meaning. As it stands, it's fantasy. The facts I laid out are documented and verifiable -- in fact, they are only a mouse-click away.

Coming to an understanding of the facts about what Bush knew is not the same thing as some make-believe about FDR.

Law enforcement agencies investigate hundreds of possible threats to public safety every day. Police know that certain types of crimes are likely to be committed in certain areas on any given day.

Does that mean they can prevent every single one of those crimes? Of course not, nor is it realistic to expect they can.

Sure, the feds knew that terrorists would like to do something bad to us. That's just common sense. But there's absolutely no evidence to indicate that President Bush or anyone else in power had and ignored any specific, credible information about impending attacks. None.

I also think it's unfair when Monday morning quarterbacks blame President Clinton for not "doing something about Bin Laden" when he was in office. Like he had a crystal ball or something.

What happened on Sept. 11th was an act of evil, not a failure by our government. Let's not turn the deaths of so many innocent people into a political football (well, no more than it already has been).

Connie, do you know who was president in 1968 when the murders of RFK and MLK occurred? Do you know who was president when the Vietnam War began? The answer to both questions is a Democrat, and the Dems controlled government. So, who is the "they"? Again, there is no proof on any of these conspiracy theories, because they are just that "theories".* Stormy

Sure do Stormy! Man are you beating your republican Orwellian brains out over conspriacy theories that don't exsist. Surely " They" are reading your e-mails without a warrent, that should be enough for you to understand what the term conspriacy means to a simple minded establishment fool like you. I hope " They" will get your attention with this little story below. You never did answer which red state fascist goat you worship Stormy?

This is the remarkable true story of St. John Hunt and his father E. Howard Hunt, the infamous Watergate burglar and CIA spymaster. It is the story of a father's last confession to his son about the CIA, Watergate, and the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. It is also the story of a family destroyed by the national tragedy of Watergate, of a son who lost his mother in a mysterious plane crash at the height of the scandal, and lost his father to prison in the wake of that scandal. It is a story of loss and redemption, of secrets and their consequences.

In Howard Hunt's near death confession to his son St. John, he revealed that key figures in the CIA were responsible for the plot to assassinate JFK in Dallas, and that Hunt himself was approached by the plotters. These men included the CIA's David Atlee Phillips, Cord Meyer, Jr. and William Harvey, as well as future Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis. Sturgis later discussed the whole plot with Hunt, when they were both in prison after Watergate. Hunt also revealed that LBJ was both behind the plot and had recruited the CIA men to carry it out. This is an incredible true story, which has never before been told from an inside, authoritative source.

It is also the story of a uniquely dysfunctional American family caught up in the great tragedies and scandals of our era.

The Hunt family, living in a compound called "Witches Island" outside of Washington, became victims of forces they could not have imagined. As a teenager, St. John Hunt discovered his father was a CIA agent, ultimately helping him in destroying evidence and smuggling cash to be used for hush money in the wake of the Watergate break-in.

His alienation from, and subsequent reconciliation with his father in the years after Watergate mirrors the struggles that our nation has gone through in the past decades. It is a remarkable and very American story.

Key revelations and allegations in the book include the following:

• Hunt asserts that LBJ recruited Cord Meyer in 1962 for the plot against JFK.

• LBJ met with Richard Helms of the CIA at his ranch prior to the assassination.

• In 1963, Meyer discussed the plot with David Phillips of the CIA, who brought in CIA official William Harvey and Cuban exile leader Antonio Veciana.

• Sturgis brought Morales, a CIA hit man, to a meeting with Hunt
where the "Big Event" (the assassination of JFK) is discussed.

• CIA official William Harvey was working with the Mafia, and was the mastermind of the plot.

• Jack Ruby was ordered by the Mafia to kill Oswald.

• Naming the actual assassin of President Kennedy who fired from behind the picket fence
atop the "grassy knoll".

Excerpt From Bond of Secrecy:

In 1972, when Watergate exploded, my father had already trusted me in helping him with sensitive and illegal tasks, like destruction of evidence, and hiding large sums of unreported cash from the White House. For me, and a trusting nation, Watergate was the portal that led to doors that had been locked and buried, unknown to a naive public for decades.

The proverbial Pandora's box was opened and the ghosts of 'coverts past' were unleashed. Watergate led to all things conspiratorial. By its very nature the Watergate conspiracy was part of a much larger conspiracy, already in place, running smoothly, and functioning as if it were standard procedure.
The cast of players, already wallowing in the murky world of black bag jobs, plausible deniability, money laundering, and assassination plots, were there to be assembled.

Fueled by paranoia, driven by greed, sustained by fear, those that were in a position to uphold our nation's values, ultimately destroyed the almost blind trust that a nation's people had bestowed upon its government. Watergate was the critical event that showed that the emperor had no clothes.

From the coup on Guatemala, through the Bay of Pigs invasion, the assassination plots against
Cuban president Castro, the militant Cuban exile groups and Mafia lords,
through the Kennedy assassination and into Watergate,
the thread that linked all these events was one man - my father, E. Howard Hunt.

My fathers' importance in these events can best be underscored by reading the Nixon Presidential transcripts of June 23 rd , 1972. On that tape, Nixon said, "Hunt will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things...This involves those Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves...this will open up that whole Bay of Pigs thing...
it's going to make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad,
and is likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing..."

(H.R. Haldeman wrote in his memoir, "The Ends of Power",
that when Nixon referred to "the Bay of Pigs thing",
he was in reality referring to the Kennedy assassination.)

BOND OF SECRECY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Introduction

• Watergate

• Destroying the Evidence

• Tale of the Typewriter

• Mistake or Murder?

• The End of "Witches' Island"

• Picture on a Poster

• Outlaw Life

• Summer 2002

• August 2003

• Secrets Revealed

• The Last Confession

• The Window of Truth

• The Window Closes

• A Glimmer of Hope

• In Perspective

• Eulogy for E. Howard Hunt

Let's flesh this out a bit more, Roch101.
There are more than 10,000 flights legs every day in this country. Ten-thousand.
If someone told you something was going to happen "involving planes" should we hold you personally responsible because you didn't do anything even though you didn't know which plane, which airline, which city, what day, what week, what year, what time of day, what part of the country, or what the action was to be?
The Chief of Police knows a bank will be robbed in Greensboro "sometime" in the future. Is he personally responsible when the next one gets robbed?
Now you're just being silly, Roch1010.

Let's flesh this out a bit more, Roch101.
There are more than 10,000 flights legs every day in this country. Ten-thousand.
If someone told you something was going to happen "involving planes" should we hold you personally responsible because you didn't do anything even though you didn't know which plane, which airline, which city, what day, what week, what year, what time of day, what part of the country, or what the action was to be?
The Chief of Police knows a bank will be robbed in Greensboro "sometime" in the future. Is he personally responsible when the next one gets robbed?
Now you're just being silly, Roch101.

Roch,

OK, here you go. http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=11491

I would post the full contents, but it would eat up hundreds of pages on Doug's site. Is it a conspiracy theory? Yes, it is, but it is a documented theory. It actually has much more documentation than your conspiracy theory did. For the record,I don't buy it any more than I buy yours. Anyone can string a set of documented happenings together and draw a conclusion from them. That's how conspiracy theories happen. They are all like Connie Mack's reality, theories that you choose to believe, nothing more. Lets' face it, you can't have a good conspiracy theory without some documented facts to string together and make a conclusion. However, it usually is a case of 2 + 2 = 3.

Roch, it sounds to me like you want to believe the the Bush did nothing to save 3,000 people theory, and that's your right to do so.

Stormy,

Thanks for the link -- to a book description. It doesn't offer any verifiable documentation of your FDR fantasy.

There is no need to argue against my supposed "conspiracy theory" because I haven't posited any theories. I posted a series of documented facts. If the facts I cited are wrong, please offer a correction. All I'm interested in discussing with you are the facts. If you think they are wrong, we can discuss, but I have no desire to engage you in flights of fantasy.

This is strategic answering. No, 35% of Democrats don't think that Bush knew about 9/11, but 35% of them are willing to agree with any negative statement about him. Their thought process is about like this: "I hate Bush. He's ruined the country. Here's a chance for me to be on the record showing my revulsion for him. I'm not about to let him off the hook, even though I doubt he knew about 9/11." Just as the 70% of African Americans who said OJ was innocent hardly believed he was innocent: they were simply articulating a sense of group grievance.

Roch's argument is ingenious, but specious, IMO. The plain sense of the question is very different from the elaborate mindwork required to refigure it in the way Roch suggests.

OK Roch,

Here it is: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

I would post the full text, but Clark would kick me off. You wil note that it is full of veritable documentation. The conclusion may be fantasy, but the facts are not.

"So, it comes down to this. If one is warned that an attack is imminent, does that constitute foreknowledge? Yes is not an unreasonalbe answer and certainly cannot be waived off as idiocy or hatred."

Roch, this sounds like at least the hint of a conspiracy theory to me. Otherwise, what are your pertsistent posts about, academic rhetoric?

Roch101, the idea that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance is no more or less of a fantasy than the notion that W. had advance warning of the Sept. 11 and did nothing.

In 1941, U.S.-Japan relations were strained, to say the least. We had an embargo against Japan and they were an aggressive (to say the least) military power. Pearl Harbor is our largest Naval base in the Pacific, meaning it was an obvious target for attack.

FDR knew all of this, yet the attack happened anyway. Does that make it his fault or indicate that he somehow dropped the ball? Of course not.

Presidents and governments aren't omnipotent - they can't prevent every sneak attack, whether it comes via a fleet of Japanese planes or a cell of suicidal hijackers.

Look, if you don't like the Bush presidency, that's fine - I'm sure you have plenty of company. But criticize the man on legitimate grounds, not these "tin foil hat" conspiracy theories.

Okay, Stormy, you think the facts support a conspiracy involving FDR. Fine. But that's a red hearing, it has absolutely zero bearing on the facts of what Bush knew.

So, let's get back to those facts. You have not offered a single contradiction of the facts. Can you? Other than your characterizations of the information, can you show were any of it is in error? Simply labeling something you don't like as "academic rhetoric" or a "conspiracy theory," is a cop out -- a way to dismiss the facts without refuting them.

Here's another thing I wouldn't mind discussing that can be grounded in facts. You said it sounds like I want to believe that Bush did nothing to save 3,000 people. What did he do? Anything you can document or even anything you can remind me of that is common knowledge?

just saying, please read for comprehension. I haven't criticized Bush. I've presented a series of documented facts. You apply the label "tin foil hat" to excuse yourself from discussing those facts, but that still leaves the facts un-refuted.

Do you want to illuminate our knowledge with some substantiated refutation of the facts as presented or are you content to let them stand while you resort to vague and unsubstantiated characterizations.

just saying, please read for comprehension. I haven't criticized Bush. I've presented a series of documented facts.

**********

If you aren't criticizing the President, you certainly are working mightly hard to lead people to the conclusion that President Bush knew of the Sept. 11th attacks beforehand and did nothing.

And as for your facts, they go a little something like this...:

"A dead body was found in an alley."
"A car was seen near the body."
"George Bush owns a car - draw your own conclusions."

Sure, those statements may be factually true. But it requires a great leap of logic to draw the conclusion you intend people to draw.

just saying, if you will scroll up a bit, you will find my first post. It is populated with documented and sourced facts that don't require any speculation or characterization. You avoid addressing those facts and instead prefer to argue against your own concoctions. Why?

Roch,

Never mind. I provided the documentation that you said needed to be provided to take it out of the fantasy range, and now you are still not satisfied. It is a conspiracy theory, and a well documented one. Let's see you provide as much documentation for your little conspiracy theory, that isn't a conspiracy theory. You are the one living in a fantasy world and won't shut up. Either you are sugesting a conspiracy about Bush and 9/11 or you are not. Which is it?

Stormy, I presented facts about what Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. Despite multiple requests, you have not confronted a single one of those facts, insisting instead on confining your comments about them to matters of opinion.

You also ignored my request that you provide some information that demonstrates Bush did anything to prevent 9/11.

I undertand your opinion of the facts--that they constitute "academic rhetoric" and a "conspiracy theory." Fine. I understand your opinion. But you still have not refuted a single fact that you find objectionable. Why is it so impossible for you to refute facts you say are wrong with information instead of opinion? Would I be wrong to assume that it is because you find the facts irrefutable?

It's really very, very simple, are the facts I provided above true or untrue? If untrue, what is the contradictory evidence? If Bush did anything to try to prevent the 9/11 attacks, what did he do?

Bush is likely receiving the same kind of briefings today: so-and-so group is planning an attack on America. Every other president in recent memory has received the same kind of briefing. If they take steps to try to stop them, they're accused of Gestapo-like limitations on civil liberties; if the attacks actually occur, they're accused of not doing enough. (Just think if Bush had tried to install the Patriot Act prior to 9/11!)

That Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks with any specificity is nonsense. That he knew OBL was planning a generic attack is obvious. Some will take the latter fact and fabricate a conspiracy theory around it. Many more will believe it. It's the nature of things.

Here's the thing, Roch101: We have addressed your "facts" time and time again. And they don't prove anything.

Let's try this again: Every president receives security briefings every day. They receive constant reports (often contradictory) of potential threats to the U.S. But without specifics, those reports are just speculation.

No one has a shred of evidence that Bush had any specific knowledge of the Sept. 11th attacks. None.

It's very easy to point fingers after the fact. It's also disingenuous.

No one has a shred of evidence that Bush had any specific knowledge of the Sept. 11th attacks. None.*just saying

What makes you think he did have one shred of evidence and had specific knowledge of 9/11 attacks AND did nothing about it? After all, your leader was sure that Iraq was up to their eye teeth with WMD'S and cause 9/11!

just saying, you have "addressed" the facts only by characterizing them with your opinion. You are entitle to your opinion, not your own facts. Nobody here can or will dispute the facts, so I'm moving on. It was a wasted effort to try to have a discussion about those things Bush knew before 9/11 with people who insist on having a discussion about their impressions rather than the facts themselves.

What people are disputing is the logical disconnect between your "facts" and the conclusion you draw.

Sorry we unenlighted masses couldn't see the error of our ways, though. Maybe next time.

just saying, what conclusions? Please point to the "conclusions [I] draw." Are you talking about something I wrote or something you've imagined?

Thanks, guys. I think you've hammered this nail all the way through the board.

MSN I NIIPET
MSN