"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us.
We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in
'96.
The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi,
hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused
deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here.

A more detailed account of what I basically stated.


You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but
seem
quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The
Taliban
offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11.

When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough
up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had
they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to
use the military.

Yet,
bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but
Bush
had hindsight to guide him, and still failed.

The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not
having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking
the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that
he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee,
but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we
gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will
only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed
to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to
that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming
long before that.

Dave


We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40
years:
Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them.
Until we do that, nothing will change.

You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your
neighbors who own dogs.......

Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to
remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence,
and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it.
Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until
either:

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave

Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.