Dave, you're just being an asshole. When in doubt, right wing freakazoids
blame Clinton. There was a significant difference. Clinton didn't alienate
the entire muslim world. Bush did. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush
lied about a war. Clinton was an articulate president, capable of speaking
without notes on just about every subject. Bush is inarticulate to say the
least (even Reagan was better, which isn't saying much). Bush has to be
coached on everything. He trying to appeal to the "common man," by
claiming he doesn't read newspapers, which is another lie. He does. So,
he's again lying.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 23:05:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Dave, don't be an ass. Clinton was in office a bit over a month.
Seems to me, it would have been planned on Bush Sr.'s watch.

Oklahoma was perpetrated by an inbred sociopath. While he
was a terrorist, he really did it pretty much on his own, unless
you're now claiming that he an Osama were buddies.

Actually, Jonathan, I was simply addressing Oz's absurd claim that there
is
a significant difference in favor of Clinton in the degree of protection
against terrorism provided by either President before 9/11. There wasn't.
And just as the first WTC bombing was no doubt planned to a large degree
on
Bush Sr.'s watch, the 9/11 attack was planned to a large degree on
Clinton's
watch. Al Qaeda didn't just say on January 20 "Bush is President now, so
let's fly planes into the WTC. Oh, and better get some people into pilot
training so they'll be ready in time."

As to OC, a terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't make any difference
whether
he has a foreign accent or talks like a hillbilly when you make the body
count. The point again is not that that attack could have been prevented
(though there are law enforcement types whose job is to prevent such
things). Rather it's that Oz's statement is simply absurd on its face.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27