No, a refinery disruption at one west coast refinery ONLY caused west coast gas prices to rise. Refinery capacity in other areas of the US couldn't help gas prices on the west coast. If the US had more refineries, a disruption to one refinery wouldn't have such an impact. The US has half the refineries it had 30 years ago due to NIMBY. If there's a shortage on the west coast, excess capacity in other areas of the US don't help much.
share your personal info, save some money OR keep your personal info private and don't.
No, it will be similar to grocery store cards. You need the grocery store card to get the regular price. The airlines regular price will only be available with personal info.
John Kerry (and other Democrats) were on the 9/11 commision and do not share your view. Many of the things you won't believe are testemony in this. John Kerry as a member of the 9/11 commision also "did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure." And that includes Bush. It was John Kerry's (and the rest of the 9/11 commision) to figure out what happened and posssibly assign blame. Not Bush's.
There are many other people who knew exactly what was going on who's testitmony differs Clarke and Beers. Why aren't you listening to them?
The 9/11 commision is not congress. Was there even a congressman on it? You don't know what's going on and you won't listen to anyhting outside your narrow view. If you want to blame Bush for 9/11, darkness and cold go ahead.
So your saying everyone was telling Bush Osama was about to attack and he didn't believe them. That is not what the 9/11 commision found. Your only listening to one side. Most of the senior people dealing with antiterroism were doing the exact same job under the Bush administration as they were under the Clinton administration. This includes Clarke and Beers. If antiterrorism efforts were messed up while Bush was in office then they were also messed up before he took office because nothing changed with antiterrorism when he took office. The budget wasn't cut. There were no people put into positions to repay a favor. The US was doing the same job before and after Bush took office. You will believe what you want to believe and only listen to people saying what you want to hear. How much money did Clark earn for writing his book? Beers was part of the Kerry campaign. The two people you keep quoting have good reasons to be biased. The FBI was unable to connect the dots to give credibility to the terrist threats before 9/11. The intelligence reports warning of 9/11 put the attack in Europe or the Middle East. Every day there are threats agaist the US. There was no credible warning given for 9/11. John Kerry and the rest of the 9/11 commision doesn't agree with your conclusion that there was sufficent warning to prevent 9/11.
Richard Clark and Rand Beers were hired by Clinton and kept on by Bush. Most of the people (Including Richard Clark and Rand Beers) who were combating terrorism for Clinton continued working for Bush. The idea was that Clinton's plan for dealing with terrorism was working so why mess with it. The fact that Richard Clark and Rand Beers were still working in the same post under a different adminstration and a different party underscores the point. Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism.
About the 2nd part, are you trying to say that in the 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 he offended Osama and other Muslims so bad they planned and carried out 9/11? That is just silly. Osama had been at war with the US for years. I don't agree with Bush's policy in Israel and the reason's given for invading Iraq smell funny but, that has nothing to do with 9/11. Whatever Bush did after 9/11 could not have affected 9/11.
Clinton did a good job as president but, he's still just as responisble (or more so) as Bush. Bush was not in office long enough to make the kind of changes it would take to prevent 9/11.
Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism. So if Bush wasn't doing a good job preventing terrorism then neither was Clinton. Bush and Clinton are just as responsible for 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
No, a refinery disruption at one west coast refinery ONLY caused west coast gas prices to rise. Refinery capacity in other areas of the US couldn't help gas prices on the west coast. If the US had more refineries, a disruption to one refinery wouldn't have such an impact. The US has half the refineries it had 30 years ago due to NIMBY. If there's a shortage on the west coast, excess capacity in other areas of the US don't help much.
share your personal info, save some money OR keep your personal info private and don't.
No, it will be similar to grocery store cards. You need the grocery store card to get the regular price. The airlines regular price will only be available with personal info.
I haven't got any spyware since I started using firefox. I don't know whos fault it is but, it's easier to get spyware/virues with IE.
John Kerry (and other Democrats) were on the 9/11 commision and do not share your view. Many of the things you won't believe are testemony in this. John Kerry as a member of the 9/11 commision also "did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure." And that includes Bush. It was John Kerry's (and the rest of the 9/11 commision) to figure out what happened and posssibly assign blame. Not Bush's. There are many other people who knew exactly what was going on who's testitmony differs Clarke and Beers. Why aren't you listening to them? The 9/11 commision is not congress. Was there even a congressman on it? You don't know what's going on and you won't listen to anyhting outside your narrow view. If you want to blame Bush for 9/11, darkness and cold go ahead.
So your saying everyone was telling Bush Osama was about to attack and he didn't believe them. That is not what the 9/11 commision found. Your only listening to one side. Most of the senior people dealing with antiterroism were doing the exact same job under the Bush administration as they were under the Clinton administration. This includes Clarke and Beers. If antiterrorism efforts were messed up while Bush was in office then they were also messed up before he took office because nothing changed with antiterrorism when he took office. The budget wasn't cut. There were no people put into positions to repay a favor. The US was doing the same job before and after Bush took office. You will believe what you want to believe and only listen to people saying what you want to hear. How much money did Clark earn for writing his book? Beers was part of the Kerry campaign. The two people you keep quoting have good reasons to be biased. The FBI was unable to connect the dots to give credibility to the terrist threats before 9/11. The intelligence reports warning of 9/11 put the attack in Europe or the Middle East. Every day there are threats agaist the US. There was no credible warning given for 9/11. John Kerry and the rest of the 9/11 commision doesn't agree with your conclusion that there was sufficent warning to prevent 9/11.
Richard Clark and Rand Beers were hired by Clinton and kept on by Bush. Most of the people (Including Richard Clark and Rand Beers) who were combating terrorism for Clinton continued working for Bush. The idea was that Clinton's plan for dealing with terrorism was working so why mess with it. The fact that Richard Clark and Rand Beers were still working in the same post under a different adminstration and a different party underscores the point. Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism. About the 2nd part, are you trying to say that in the 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 he offended Osama and other Muslims so bad they planned and carried out 9/11? That is just silly. Osama had been at war with the US for years. I don't agree with Bush's policy in Israel and the reason's given for invading Iraq smell funny but, that has nothing to do with 9/11. Whatever Bush did after 9/11 could not have affected 9/11. Clinton did a good job as president but, he's still just as responisble (or more so) as Bush. Bush was not in office long enough to make the kind of changes it would take to prevent 9/11.
Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism. So if Bush wasn't doing a good job preventing terrorism then neither was Clinton. Bush and Clinton are just as responsible for 9/11.