wrote in message
...
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?

The Republicans?

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.


The Bin Laden family was still a big player in Saudi Arabia and
Clinton was afraid to stir up anything that might have jiggled the
price of oil and crashed his rising economy.

They had disowned him, and even Bush was complicit in flying his family out
after 9/11...

In a more enlightened time we would have just had a foreign national,
working for the CIA, put a bullet in his ear.

Actually bin laden did get CIA (or other? US help) when fighting the
Soviets.

How many lives would that have saved? (Iraqi, Afghani and American)
200,000?

Total agreement there... but we really need to set a good example even if
it's not expedient.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Bin Laden family was still a big player in Saudi Arabia and
Clinton was afraid to stir up anything that might have jiggled the
price of oil and crashed his rising economy.

They had disowned him, and even Bush was complicit in flying his family
out
after 9/11...

Make up your mind, either the family is part of the problem or they
were innocent


It's not my mind that is made or unmade. This was Bush's decision. I think
you'd need to ask him.

In a more enlightened time we would have just had a foreign national,
working for the CIA, put a bullet in his ear.

Actually bin laden did get CIA (or other? US help) when fighting the
Soviets.

Exactly. They knew how to get at him.

Ok... but, they didn't. Your solution is....


How many lives would that have saved? (Iraqi, Afghani and American)
200,000?

Total agreement there... but we really need to set a good example even if
it's not expedient.


That was the point of using a foreign national and having plausible
deniability. I am old enough to remember when we were very good at
that and the world was actually a lot more peaceful place.


Fidel's cigars?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:19:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Bin Laden family was still a big player in Saudi Arabia and
Clinton was afraid to stir up anything that might have jiggled the
price of oil and crashed his rising economy.

They had disowned him, and even Bush was complicit in flying his family
out
after 9/11...

Make up your mind, either the family is part of the problem or they
were innocent


It's not my mind that is made or unmade. This was Bush's decision. I think
you'd need to ask him.

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted, and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.


In a more enlightened time we would have just had a foreign national,
working for the CIA, put a bullet in his ear.

Actually bin laden did get CIA (or other? US help) when fighting the
Soviets.

Exactly. They knew how to get at him.

Ok... but, they didn't. Your solution is....


Ignore the ******* until he gets comfortable and sticks his head up,
then shoot him. I guess you have never been squirrel hunting.

Never... ewww... how could you kill a furry little guy?? I have no doubt
that there is a plan for that if we can't get good ground intelligence to
drop a 500 lbs bomb on his head.


How many lives would that have saved? (Iraqi, Afghani and American)
200,000?

Total agreement there... but we really need to set a good example even
if
it's not expedient.


That was the point of using a foreign national and having plausible
deniability. I am old enough to remember when we were very good at
that and the world was actually a lot more peaceful place.


Fidel's cigars?

If Eisenhower was still president in 1961, Fidel would be a footnote
in the history books. No missile crisis, no embargo, no Angola war and
no Granada war.
That guy knew how to get things done covertly and efficiently.

If we hadn't had the Granada "war", we wouldn't have had that movie with
Clint Eastwood, old but cool hunk of hunks.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted,
and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.

The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly
terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom.

Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution has
been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't
powerful enough to win.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants
to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted,
and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.

The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly
terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom.

Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution has
been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't
powerful enough to win.


Tell me again while you are submitting to an electronic strip search
at the airport or when you have to jump through the hoops to renew
your driver's license after your state passes "real ID"
Women take a worse beating than men in that, like having to produce
certified copies of all of their marriage licenses and divorce
decrees.
All I seem to need is my DD214.

Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:32:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million
families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who
wants
to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really
over-reacted,
and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.

The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly
terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom.

Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution
has
been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't
powerful enough to win.


Tell me again while you are submitting to an electronic strip search
at the airport or when you have to jump through the hoops to renew
your driver's license after your state passes "real ID"
Women take a worse beating than men in that, like having to produce
certified copies of all of their marriage licenses and divorce
decrees.
All I seem to need is my DD214.

Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists won?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:38:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening
where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who
you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists won?


I guess that means you have never had a messy divorce. I guarantee
you, most of those ****ed off wives threw away their marriage
certificates, burned the pictures and don't really want to think about
it anymore.

As for the scanner, is there a health issue? We won't know for 20
years if any of the other hazards are any indication, even if you
don't mind being electronically strip searched. I assume the most
interesting people will be saved on cell phone cameras to be laughed
at later or posted n the internet.
I am not even happy about having to take my shoes off. Every time I go
to an airport I know the terrorists won. We are terrorized or we
wouldn't put up with this ****.

The messy divorces that I know about, my friend framed her final papers.

Try different socks....