wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:07:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How is that going. The time last I looked BOTH wars are still going on
and Osama is no closer to being captured than he was on Sept 12 2001.

Yeah, thanks GWB for not capturing him when he had the chance. I guess in
some people's mind 8 years = 16 months.

... or Clinton not taking him when Sudan offered him up to us.
(already suspected in the FIRST WTC bombing in 93)

Umm... that's rewriting history just a bit...

The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president
to the CIA, offered in early spring 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place
him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all
three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in
secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at an Arlington, Va., hotel on
March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden and lacking a case to
indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally
gave up on the capture.

Clinton was actually trying to follow US law.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:34:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:07:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How is that going. The time last I looked BOTH wars are still going on
and Osama is no closer to being captured than he was on Sept 12 2001.

Yeah, thanks GWB for not capturing him when he had the chance. I guess
in
some people's mind 8 years = 16 months.

... or Clinton not taking him when Sudan offered him up to us.
(already suspected in the FIRST WTC bombing in 93)

Umm... that's rewriting history just a bit...

The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its
president
to the CIA, offered in early spring 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and
place
him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all
three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in
secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at an Arlington, Va., hotel
on
March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden and lacking a case
to
indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally
gave up on the capture.

Clinton was actually trying to follow US law.


If they used the same level of proof they used on David Koresh they
could have just ambushed him and killed him for resisting arrest.
What you are really saying was the DoJ and CIA was so much asleep at
the switch that they couldn't build a case.

... or was it that they did not want to offend the Saudis?


Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out to be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

I'm not saying anything. The fact is that no case could be made. Clinton
regretted, publically, his failure to do so.

Saudis? I believe bin laden was no longer a citizen at that point.

On 6/18/10 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If they used the same level of proof they used on David Koresh they
could have just ambushed him and killed him for resisting arrest.
What you are really saying was the DoJ and CIA was so much asleep at
the switch that they couldn't build a case.

... or was it that they did not want to offend the Saudis?


Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out to be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change is
the biggest national threat we have.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out
to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out
to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


What if it isn't a positive step. What do you think you'd be for then?

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him
out to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate
change is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


What if it isn't a positive step. What do you think you'd be for then?


I'll take this as a serious question, even though I know it isn't. It's
unclear if a carbon tax is the best way to go. It seems like it would have a
positive short-term effect, but I'd like to hear more (and not some
right-wing screamer).

What if it was proved that all the deep water oil wells are dangerous to the
point of imminent failure? What if we had to permanently shut them down?
Perhaps we need to have a dedicated program and comprehensive energy policy
that looks at our strategic national interest. Not perhaps.. we do. That
would be an even more positive step.

On 6/18/10 5:30 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:17:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.


Don't tell froggy that...he'll "invent" stilts for houses and try to
sell them to Nebraskans.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:17:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate
change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the numbers
you want, but that's a fact.