On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then
enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted
nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

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.

Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE
reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you?

Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't
have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could
find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to
an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic
criminal justice system.

Dave

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:45:48 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned
about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's
operation. But they had other priorities.


Dave Hall wrote:
According to what credible source?

A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission.

There was nothing so blatant in the 9/11 report. There was plenty of
blame to go around INCLUDING the previous administration.


Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.


I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in
office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the
best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal
loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong.

No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the
department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive
to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the
first disgruntled employee to do that......

Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons
alone.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.


I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in
office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the
best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal
loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong.

No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the
department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive
to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the
first disgruntled employee to do that......

Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons
alone.

You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you
value blind loyalty before truth. If he was lying, I'm sure the White House
would've begun legal proceedings by now.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first
run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten
Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then
enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted
nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

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.

Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE
reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you?

Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't
have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could
find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to
an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic
criminal justice system.

Dave


When our politicians and the Saud family are taking warm showers together
(as you know they are), all rules are off the table. THAT is why we did not
go after bin Laden.

Doug Kanter wrote:
Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must
remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the
people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV.


Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!?

Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy &
hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and
Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will
cling to his fantasy.

Regards
Doug King

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.

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:44:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must
remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the
people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV.


Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!?

Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy &
hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and
Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will
cling to his fantasy.


Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president
thanking her for her support in the campaign. That's the closest that
I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader.....

Dave

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:14:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first
run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten
Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then
enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted
nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

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.

Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE
reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you?

Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't
have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could
find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to
an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic
criminal justice system.

Dave


When our politicians and the Saud family are taking warm showers together
(as you know they are), all rules are off the table. THAT is why we did not
go after bin Laden.


OBL has been renounced by his family. THEY are not him, any more than
you can be held responsible for the acts of one of your cousins.

Dave

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:12:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.


I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in
office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the
best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal
loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong.

No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the
department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive
to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the
first disgruntled employee to do that......

Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons
alone.

You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you
value blind loyalty before truth.

He was not in the position to know the whole truth. Absent of the
truth, I do value loyalty. That's what created this country in the
first place, and has driven our military ever since.

If he was lying, I'm sure the White House
would've begun legal proceedings by now.

On what grounds? Everyone is entitled to an opinion (You know, the
first amendment). In most cases, it's not what facts he may have
presented, but the spin that he placed on them, and the context that
they were presented in, that tells his story.

If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading
information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab
right now.

Dave