"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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


The facts he presented? Now you're saying there were some facts?

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


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news:blbtt097v1si6r1u3bimfv7rekfsh59nuc@4ax. com...
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


And there's a tooth fairy, too.

"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.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Thank's to the efforts of underground communist backed demonstrators
who were able to pollute enough young impressionable minds into
thinking we couldn't win, and more to the point that we shouldn't.

Communist backed? Who told you to say that?




The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.


A bunch of suits
from a think tank. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY believed in it by 1970.

Nobody believed what? The domino theory?

Correct. The domino theory. It was a fairy tale by the late 1960s.


Nada.
NOBODY. When the entire theory behind a war has evaporated, why continue
the
war?

I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

In that case, it should be fought only by soldiers who believe the reasons.
Not by draftees. Crank up the pay scale and call it what it is: A mercenary
army.



Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war. At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable. While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging him
to escalate the war. You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

Great. My father bought a photo of Bush, in the same way you bought that
note. You both received thanks from laser printers.

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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



The facts he presented? Now you're saying there were some facts?

Sure, there were facts. Facts alone do not tell the story without
putting them in proper context. It is that manipulation of context,
that creates spin and false perception which drives people to drawing
a false conclusion.

I could give a factual account of a situation, but by omitting key
details or presenting some facts out of context or injected with
editorial opinion, you can change the message.

Let's say that I saw you holding a gun on your front porch, then later
I saw a dog lying dead in the road in front of your house. If I then
report those two facts as "news", one might conclude that you shot the
dog. But by omitting the fact that you were simply cleaning a hunting
rifle, and that a car had actually hit the dog, the whole message
changes.

That is propaganda 101.

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:26:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Thank's to the efforts of underground communist backed demonstrators
who were able to pollute enough young impressionable minds into
thinking we couldn't win, and more to the point that we shouldn't.

Communist backed? Who told you to say that?

Don't tell me you aren't aware of those anti-war groups and who backed
many of them. Look into the FBI files of the time period, and who many
of these radical groups were and what their political beliefs were.


The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.

The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam.


A bunch of suits
from a think tank. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY believed in it by 1970.

Nobody believed what? The domino theory?

Correct. The domino theory. It was a fairy tale by the late 1960s.

Nada.
NOBODY. When the entire theory behind a war has evaporated, why continue
the
war?

I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

In that case, it should be fought only by soldiers who believe the reasons.
Not by draftees. Crank up the pay scale and call it what it is: A mercenary
army.



Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war.

Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president.
The final decision was Nixon's

At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable.

And what wonderful tome told you that?


While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging him
to escalate the war.

According to whom? Facts of course.

You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people
with leftist agendas.

Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me.

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:27:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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

Great. My father bought a photo of Bush, in the same way you bought that
note. You both received thanks from laser printers.

A hand written (not printed) and signed note? Yea, I guess it would be
possible to hand write the basic note and white-out the name part and
copy it 1000 times. But it would be hard to duplicate the flow of the
cursive hand script such that it looked like it was made at the same
time as the original note each and every time.

That's an awful lot of work to do for something so simple.

But you guys who hate Bush so much don't realize is that he is a
personable guy. He tries to connect with the people.

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:19:02 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Communist backed? Who told you to say that?

Don't tell me you aren't aware of those anti-war groups and who backed
many of them. Look into the FBI files of the time period, and who many of
these radical groups were and what their political beliefs were.

I'm sure there was some communist involvement, but your mistake is in
assuming anti-war sentiment was "radical". It was not. It was middle
America slowly coming to the realization that the war was not worth the
cost. Johnson realized this when he refused to run again. Remember the
quote, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost *middle* America."