Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ.


NOYB wrote:
I remember that too.

Really? Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?

... And being the wonderful politician (but terrible
President) that he was, he read the polls, put his tail between his legs,
and quit pursuing the guy.


You're talking about Bush, right? When he decided to pull troops away
from pursuing Osama Bin Laden in order to invade Iraq?

DSK

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:27:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:


How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?


Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a
hijacking. Did we have such a policy?

At the time it wold have been an airline policy, subject to
interpretation of the Captain. I'd like to think that if I were
captain, I would not sacrifice my plane and passengers for a stewardess.
(yes i would feel guilty about the decision, and it would bother me for
quite a while, but as with a ship captain, the safety of the vessel and
passengers comes before one of the crew.

At the time it was *not* the policy to allow the throat-slitting of stewardesses
to prevent a hijacking.

At the time, you would have had no reason to think your aircraft was about to be
used as a missile.

John H

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months?

And at the time, the cockpit bulkheadds would NOT have prevented it. The
mindset and training in dealing with hijackings prior to 9-11 was to
cooperate, fly them where they wanted to go, and negotiate a peaceful
resolution. The rules changed on 9-11.

But then the liebrals have always been revisionist historians.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:54:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months?

Don't be so defensive. I was just answering a question. FWIW, I don't
hold Bush *or* Clinton responsible for 9/11, neither had a crystal ball
nor did they have the benefit of our terrific hindsight. I do hold bin
Laden responsible and the last I heard he is still roaming free.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:51:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the
terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of
the investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, a top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks,
to escape capture in Qatar.

Your hindsight is quite remarkable, but I believe it's been four years
since 9/11 and bin Laden is still free. Perhaps, if this CIC was
distracted by Iraq, the most powerful country on earth would have captured
the SOB.

As for the CIA, it seems you have more faith in it than the present
administration. They are eviscerating it as we speak.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:39:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the
proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly
by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all
indications were that it was directed by bin Laden.

The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the
three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin
Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had
to track down bin Laden, before 9/11.

Congratulations to John in his new job. Will he be earning 'union rates'
for his services?

NOYB wrote:
Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened.

And the perpetrators were, for the most part, in jail... and still are.

... Soon after the
proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly
by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all
indications were that it was directed by bin Laden.


thunder wrote:
The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the
three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin
Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had
to track down bin Laden, before 9/11.

He was practicing reading "My Pet Goat."

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
.... bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he
declared war on the US.


So why hasn't Bush captured him yet?

Different circumstances. bin Laden was operating in public soon after his
declaration of war. The Sudanese had him and offered him to us.




Fact: Approx four years after Bin Laden had "declared war" on the US, his
organization was unable to carry out an attack on US soil.

But he was targeting Americans with attacks that came approximately once
every 6 months...while he was training terrorists to carry out the 9/11
attack.



Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth
killed.

That's not a fact. That's an opinion.


Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Could be another opinion. Where is he?


Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism

There are dozens of proven links...but you've chosen not to believe them.

Just when the neo-cons think they're making progress in converting
America to a nation that will be more easily controlled (by neo-cons,
of course), some "activist judge" steps forward with the Constitution
and some quaint, old-fashioned, idea that political expediency doesn't
usurp legal principles about due process, (including the right to a
fair and speedy trial).

Whatever Padilla might have done, it could not possibly damage the
country any more than adopting a policy under which the government
locks people up simply because the government thinks they might be
guilty and if the government decides it can't find or manufacture
enough evidence to prevail in court the "suspect" is then left to rot
in jail, without trial, for the rest of his life.

Gulag justice has no place in a free society.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
.... bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he
declared war on the US.


So why hasn't Bush captured him yet?

Different circumstances. bin Laden was operating in public soon after his
declaration of war. The Sudanese had him and offered him to us.




Fact: Approx four years after Bin Laden had "declared war" on the US, his
organization was unable to carry out an attack on US soil.

But he was targeting Americans with attacks that came approximately once
every 6 months...while he was training terrorists to carry out the 9/11
attack.



Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth
killed.

That's not a fact. That's an opinion.


Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Could be another opinion. Where is he?

It is not necessarrily a bad thing that he is still alive......significant
resources are being used to protect him, resources that otherwise could be
used to attack us.




Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism

There are dozens of proven links...but you've chosen not to believe them.

So why hasn't Bush captured him yet?


Different circumstances. bin Laden was operating in public soon after his
declaration of war. The Sudanese had him and offered him to us.


Ah well, it was "different circumstances" wasn't it? For one thing, he
had not committed any crimes against the U.S. as yet.

Just like the "different circumstances" that Bush ordered US troops out
of eastern Afghanistan where they were pursuing Bin Laden... after he
had claimed responsibility for Sept 11th let me remind you...

Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth
killed.


NOYB wrote:
That's not a fact. That's an opinion.


That was not expressed well... the President of the U.S. does not have
the legal authority to simply order any person earth killed. The term
for that is "murder" and it's frowned on.




Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden


Could be another opinion. Where is he?


Oh right.


Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism


There are dozens of proven links...but you've chosen not to believe them.


Wrong. There are no proven links. None. That's why, instead of offering
proof and having everybody say, "Oh you were right, so sorry" and that's
the end of the issue, you are continuing to rant & rave.

You have chosen to believe a fairy tale, and to stretch back 20+ years,
in the attempt to justify Bush's invasion.

DSK

Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Could be another opinion. Where is he?


P.Fritz wrote:
It is not necessarrily a bad thing that he is still alive......significant
resources are being used to protect him, resources that otherwise could be
used to attack us.


That's the smartest thing any of you "neo-cons" have had to say on the
subject. You should suggest that to the White House press office,
they're running short of half-plausible excuses.

It's still a lame excuse, though. Why did President Bush say "We *will*
get those responsible" and then just shrug it off? Doesn't that carry
*any* weight with you people?

DSK

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:39:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the
proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly
by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all
indications were that it was directed by bin Laden.

The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the
three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin
Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had
to track down bin Laden, before 9/11.

This occurred before Bush took office:

"The CIA's Afghan assets reported on about a half a dozen occasions before
9/11 that they had considered attacking bin Ladin, usually as he traveled in
his convoy along the rough Afghan roads. Each time the operation was
reportedly aborted. Several times the Afghans said that bin Ladin had taken
a different route than expected. On one occasion security was said to be too
tight to capture him. Another time they heard women and children's voices
from inside the convoy, and abandoned the assault for fear of killing
innocents"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2004-03-24.htm

"Drones were flown successfully over Afghanistan 16 times in fall 2000. At
least twice the Predator saw a security detail around a tall man in a white
robe whom some analysts determined was probably bin Ladin. " (why didn't
Clinton have boots on the ground to get him?)

Here's the really damning evidence against Clinton:

" When the American destroyer, the U.S.S. Cole, was bombed in Yemen in
October 2000, al Qaeda was immediately suspected of having struck again. The
Counterterrorism Center developed an offensive initiative for Afghanistan,
regardless of policy or financial constraints. It was called the Blue Sky
Memo. In December 2000, the CIA sent this to the NSC staff. The memo
recommended increased support to anti-Taliban groups and to proxies who
might ambush bin Ladin. The Counterterrorism Center also proposed a major
effort to back Northern Alliance forces in order to stave off the Taliban
army and tie down al Qaeda fighters, thereby hindering terrorist activities
elsewhere.
No action was taken on these ideas in the few remaining weeks of the Clinton
administration. (No action was taken!)

The Blue Sky Memo itself was not apparently discussed with the incoming top
Bush administration officials during the transition."

(The Blue Sky Memo was not even discussed with the Bush administration!)

Here's what happened after Bush took office:

" President-elect Bush asked whether killing bin Ladin would end the
problem. Pavitt said he and the DCI answered that killing bin Ladin would
have an impact, but not stop the threat.

The CIA later provided more formal assessments to the White House,
reiterating that conclusion. It added that the only long-term way to deal
with the threat was to add al Qaeda's ability to use Afghanistan as a
sanctuary for its operations."

The new Administration's policy review apparently began in March, and
continued throughout the spring and summer of 2001. At the end of May,
National Security Adviser Rice met with DCI Tenet and their counterterrorism
experts. She asked about, quote, "taking the offensive," end of quote,
against al Qaeda, and asked Clarke and the Counterterrorism Center chief,
Cofer Black, to develop a full range of options. A plan for a larger covert
action effort was a major component of the new al Qaeda strategy codified in
a draft presidential directive that was first circulated in early June.


NSC principals apparently endorsed the new presidential directive on al
Qaeda at their meeting on September 4th. On September 10th, Deputy National
Security Adviser Hadley formally tasked DCI Tenet to draw up new draft
authorities for the broad covert action program envisioned in that
directive, including significant additional funding and involving Pashtun
elements as well as the Northern Alliance.


The CIA was given the green light and was in the process of implementing the
plan to oust the Taliban. Too bad the plan wasn't given a green light 3
months before Bush took office. :-(

You simply cannot see facts and admit that you might be wrong, can you
NOBBY?


NOYB wrote:
This occurred before Bush took office:

"The CIA's Afghan assets reported on about a half a dozen occasions before
9/11 that they had considered attacking bin Ladin, usually as he traveled in
his convoy along the rough Afghan roads. Each time the operation was
reportedly aborted. Several times the Afghans said that bin Ladin had taken
a different route than expected. On one occasion security was said to be too
tight to capture him. Another time they heard women and children's voices
from inside the convoy, and abandoned the assault for fear of killing
innocents"


And you think that's a bad thing?

Considering that Bush & Cheney obliterated a square block of downtown
Baghdad trying... and failing... to Saddam, they probably wouldn't have
hesitated over a few women & children.

That's the point you're making, whether you know it or not... Bush kills
lots & lots of them evil rag-heads... who cares if they're really
terrorists or if they're women & children...

DSK

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:02:37 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:51:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the
terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of
the investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, a top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks,
to escape capture in Qatar.

Your hindsight is quite remarkable, but I believe it's been four years
since 9/11 and bin Laden is still free. Perhaps, if this CIC was
distracted by Iraq, the most powerful country on earth would have captured
the SOB.

As for the CIA, it seems you have more faith in it than the present
administration. They are eviscerating it as we speak.

Should we just invade Pakistan and get him? Is that what you folks are espousing
now? Then, when he goes to Syria, you'd say, "See, we told you he wasn't there!"

It's getting to be quite laughable!

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:54:04 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:54:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months?

Don't be so defensive. I was just answering a question. FWIW, I don't
hold Bush *or* Clinton responsible for 9/11, neither had a crystal ball
nor did they have the benefit of our terrific hindsight. I do hold bin
Laden responsible and the last I heard he is still roaming free.

Defensive? Sounds like my wife when she screws up!

*You* are the one who said the fix was simple, yes?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:33:09 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


Congratulations to John in his new job. Will he be earning 'union rates'
for his services?


Are you referring to me? I don't have a new job, although, strangely enough,
I've been called by three principals in the last three months *offering* me a
job! The county must be in a bind for math teachers.

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:12:46 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:39:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the
proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly
by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all
indications were that it was directed by bin Laden.

The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the
three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin
Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had
to track down bin Laden, before 9/11.

Bush didn't have the reasons during his first eight months that Clinton had
during his entire reign. Bush didn't waste much time taking action once he had a
reason to do so.

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened.

And the perpetrators were, for the most part, in jail... and still are.


Yes, and they've been sending propaganda letters of encouragement to fellow
al Qaida members:

http://tinyurl.com/48fny

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ.


NOYB wrote:
I remember that too.

Really? Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?

Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong. If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot more in the
Middle East.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:43:26 -0500, DSK wrote:

You simply cannot see facts and admit that you might be wrong, can you
NOBBY?


NOYB wrote:
This occurred before Bush took office:

"The CIA's Afghan assets reported on about a half a dozen occasions before
9/11 that they had considered attacking bin Ladin, usually as he traveled in
his convoy along the rough Afghan roads. Each time the operation was
reportedly aborted. Several times the Afghans said that bin Ladin had taken
a different route than expected. On one occasion security was said to be too
tight to capture him. Another time they heard women and children's voices
from inside the convoy, and abandoned the assault for fear of killing
innocents"


And you think that's a bad thing?

Considering that Bush & Cheney obliterated a square block of downtown
Baghdad trying... and failing... to Saddam, they probably wouldn't have
hesitated over a few women & children.

That's the point you're making, whether you know it or not... Bush kills
lots & lots of them evil rag-heads... who cares if they're really
terrorists or if they're women & children...

DSK

Bull****. Clinton was a typical liberal pussy when it came to taking action. OK,
Bush destroyed a block with one bomb and missed Saddam. Clinton hit *nothing*
worthwhile with 75 cruise missiles.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:51:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February
1993
bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the
terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of
the investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, a top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks,
to escape capture in Qatar.

Your hindsight is quite remarkable, but I believe it's been four years
since 9/11 and bin Laden is still free. Perhaps, if this CIC was
distracted by Iraq, the most powerful country on earth would have captured
the SOB.

As for the CIA, it seems you have more faith in it than the present
administration. They are eviscerating it as we speak.

Goss is doing a bang-up job of ridding the CIA of dead wood.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:24:37 -0500, DSK wrote:


Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Could be another opinion. Where is he?


P.Fritz wrote:
It is not necessarrily a bad thing that he is still alive......significant
resources are being used to protect him, resources that otherwise could be
used to attack us.


That's the smartest thing any of you "neo-cons" have had to say on the
subject. You should suggest that to the White House press office,
they're running short of half-plausible excuses.

It's still a lame excuse, though. Why did President Bush say "We *will*
get those responsible" and then just shrug it off? Doesn't that carry
*any* weight with you people?

DSK

Do you espouse attacking Pakistan to get him?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:24:37 -0500, DSK wrote:


Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Could be another opinion. Where is he?


P.Fritz wrote:
It is not necessarrily a bad thing that he is still
alive......significant
resources are being used to protect him, resources that otherwise
could be
used to attack us.


That's the smartest thing any of you "neo-cons" have had to say on the
subject. You should suggest that to the White House press office,
they're running short of half-plausible excuses.

It's still a lame excuse, though. Why did President Bush say "We *will*
get those responsible" and then just shrug it off? Doesn't that carry
*any* weight with you people?

DSK

Do you espouse attacking Pakistan to get him?

It is only a lame excuse to the brain dead liebrals.....................Of
course Bush had to say we will get them, that forced bin laden into hiding
and expending the resources to hide.
Very similar to when Reagan announced the Star Wars program, it forced the
USSR into a mode that ultimately caused them to self destruct. The fact
that 'Star Wars' was never fully developed didn't matter, only the fiinal
outcome did.

Once again, liebrals display the static thinking that will ultimately doom
them.




John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:43:26 -0500, DSK wrote:

You simply cannot see facts and admit that you might be wrong, can you
NOBBY?


NOYB wrote:
This occurred before Bush took office:

"The CIA's Afghan assets reported on about a half a dozen occasions
before
9/11 that they had considered attacking bin Ladin, usually as he
traveled in
his convoy along the rough Afghan roads. Each time the operation was
reportedly aborted. Several times the Afghans said that bin Ladin had
taken
a different route than expected. On one occasion security was said to be
too
tight to capture him. Another time they heard women and children's
voices
from inside the convoy, and abandoned the assault for fear of killing
innocents"


And you think that's a bad thing?

Considering that Bush & Cheney obliterated a square block of downtown
Baghdad trying... and failing... to Saddam, they probably wouldn't have
hesitated over a few women & children.

That's the point you're making, whether you know it or not... Bush kills
lots & lots of them evil rag-heads... who cares if they're really
terrorists or if they're women & children...

DSK

Bull****. Clinton was a typical liberal pussy when it came to taking
action. OK,
Bush destroyed a block with one bomb and missed Saddam. Clinton hit
*nothing*
worthwhile with 75 cruise missiles.


But what abount the empty tent and camel? Shouldn't that count for
something? LMAO


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong. If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he "did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Just when the neo-cons think they're making progress in converting
America to a nation that will be more easily controlled (by neo-cons,
of course), some "activist judge" steps forward

You obviously didn't read the decision. The judge in question didn't try to
rewrite the law. In fact, he specifically said that granting the President
the power to detain a US citizen without due process is something that only
Congress could do...*not* activist judges.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:25:42 -0500, John H wrote:

Defensive? Sounds like my wife when she screws up!

*You* are the one who said the fix was simple, yes?

Yes, I gave a simple fix for that particular attack. Instead, our CIC
makes us take our shoes of before boarding a plane. Sorry, but that won't
fix the problem.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:24:03 -0500, John H wrote:

Should we just invade Pakistan and get him? Is that what you folks are
espousing now? Then, when he goes to Syria, you'd say, "See, we told you
he wasn't there!"

It's getting to be quite laughable!

"You folks?" And just what "folks" would that be? Wattage dimming a
little in your area?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong. If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he "did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:30:51 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush didn't have the reasons during his first eight months that Clinton
had during his entire reign. Bush didn't waste much time taking action
once he had a reason to do so.

A classic. Clinton wasn't attacked, Americans were. Bush had all the
same reasons that Clinton had.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:30:51 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush didn't have the reasons during his first eight months that Clinton
had during his entire reign. Bush didn't waste much time taking action
once he had a reason to do so.

A classic. Clinton wasn't attacked, Americans were. Bush had all the
same reasons that Clinton had.

Yet Clinton did nothing.

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as one
of the greatest POTUS in history.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:51:41 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:24:03 -0500, John H wrote:

Should we just invade Pakistan and get him? Is that what you folks are
espousing now? Then, when he goes to Syria, you'd say, "See, we told you
he wasn't there!"

It's getting to be quite laughable!

"You folks?" And just what "folks" would that be? Wattage dimming a
little in your area?

The question?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:48:38 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:25:42 -0500, John H wrote:

Defensive? Sounds like my wife when she screws up!

*You* are the one who said the fix was simple, yes?

Yes, I gave a simple fix for that particular attack. Instead, our CIC
makes us take our shoes of before boarding a plane. Sorry, but that won't
fix the problem.

Old OR/SA axiom: For every complex problem there is a simple, elegant, incorrect
solution.

I think you showed the truth to that.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:04:17 -0500, JimH wrote:

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as
one of the greatest POTUS in history.

You have been so starved for good news out of the mid-east, I can
understand you jumping on the least little glimmer of light. Not to rain
on your parade, but there is a reason we have historically preferred thugs
in leadership positions. They provide stability.

While it is possible, we are seeing the beginnings of a democratic
resurgence in the middle east, it is just as possible that we are seeing
the start of many years of complete instability. I'd point out, as much
American blood has been shed bringing, a yet to be seen, democracy to
Iraq, as we shed in our own Revolutionary War. I believe in democracy,
and I hope the Iraqis attain it, but I'm not quite sure an Iraqi democracy
will be worth the American lives already lost.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:04:17 -0500, JimH wrote:

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East
and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as
one of the greatest POTUS in history.

You have been so starved for good news out of the mid-east, I can
understand you jumping on the least little glimmer of light. Not to rain
on your parade, but there is a reason we have historically preferred thugs
in leadership positions. They provide stability.

While it is possible, we are seeing the beginnings of a democratic
resurgence in the middle east, it is just as possible that we are seeing
the start of many years of complete instability. I'd point out, as much
American blood has been shed bringing, a yet to be seen, democracy to
Iraq, as we shed in our own Revolutionary War. I believe in democracy,
and I hope the Iraqis attain it, but I'm not quite sure an Iraqi democracy
will be worth the American lives already lost.

Credit to JohnH for first posting this:

By Mark Steyn

Three years ago - April 6 2002, if you want to rummage through the old
Spectators in the attic - I wrote: "The stability junkies in the EU, UN and
elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable.
So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've
got rid of the ruling gang, it's the West's best shot at incubating a
reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East
has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."

I don't like to say I told you so. But, actually, I do like to say I told
you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory
thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so.
But nevertheless I did.

Consider just the past couple of days' news: not the ever more desperate
depravity of the floundering "insurgency", but the real popular Arab
resistance the car-bombers and the head-hackers are flailing against: the
Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of
Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi
election. "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I
think women are more sensible voters than men."

Four-time Egyptian election winner - and with 90 per cent of the vote! -
President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an
opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the
first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His
Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy".
The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as a "historical
decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy". After 7,000
years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move
is, as they say, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in
Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harbouring any refugee
Saddamites, suddenly discovered that - wouldja believe it? - Saddam's
brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Baathists were holed up in
north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from
Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on
Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four
Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when
they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

No disrespect to Associated Press, but I was disinclined to take their word
for it. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has
done an invaluable job these past three years presenting the ugly truth
about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the
internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in
the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the
pile of Jew corpses - and, to his surprise, couldn't find any.

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30. Don't take my word for it,
listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader and a man of
impeccable anti-American credentials: "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I
saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was
the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen."

Just so. Left to their own devices, the House of Saud - which demanded all
US female air-traffic controllers be stood down for Crown Prince Abdullah's
flight to the Bush ranch in Crawford - would stick to their traditional line
that Wahhabi women have no place in a voting booth; instead, they have to
dress like a voting booth - a big black impenetrable curtain with a little
slot to drop your ballot through. Likewise, Hosni Mubarak has no desire to
take part in campaign debates with Hosno Name-Recognition. Boy Assad has no
desire to hand over his co-Baathists to the Great Satan's puppets in
Baghdad.

But none of them has much of a choice. In the space of a month, the Iraq
election has become the prism through which all other events in the region
are seen.

Assad's regime knocks off a troublemaker in Lebanon. Big deal. They've done
it a gazillion times. But this time the streets are full of demonstrators
demanding an end to Syrian occupation.

A suicide bomber kills four Jews. So what's new? But this time the
Palestinians decline to celebrate. And some even question whether being a
delivery system for plastic explosives is really all life has to offer, even
on the West Bank.

Mubarak announces the arrest of an opposition leader. Like, who cares? The
jails are full of 'em. But this time Condi Rice cancels her visit and the
Egyptian government notices that its annual cheque from Washington is a
month late.

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East
didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam
Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The
old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the
sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even
if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life,
the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the
former.

But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz -
thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so
was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong
again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the
dunce's corner of history by far too many British Tories. No surprise there.
The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would
they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy
to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the
Iranian people, etc.

Prof Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratisation
is a process, not an event". Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship
in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the
UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle
East is the start of a long-delayed process. Eight million Iraqis did more
for the Arab world on January 30 than 7,000 years of Mubarak-pace marching.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...3/01/ixop.html
================================================== ===========

Keep on with your sky is falling attitude. For every good thing that has
happened, thanks to GWB, the left has always answered with a "but", such
as.........You will never get a coalition of countries to back the invasion
of Iraq. So a coalition was formed "but" it did not include Germany, Russia
or France. So Germany, Russia and France (along with Kofi and his son) were
found to have been making millions from Saddam on the Oil for Food program
"but" you will never get the approval from the US Congress. So you got the
approval of the US Congress "but" the invasion of Iraq will result in tens
of thousands of troops killed. So we took Iraq with few casualties "but"
you will never find Saddam. Well you found Saddam "but" you will lose to
the terrorists. So you are beating the terrorists "but" Iraq will never
have a free election. So a date for a free election has been set "but"
thousands upon thousands will die and no one will vote. So the election was
held, only a hundred were killed and there was a record 70% turnout "but"
nothing good will happen as a result of it.

A shame the left will soon run out of "buts". ;-)

John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin &
baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right
after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong.
If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot
more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in
Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he
"did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

Has Bush?

On 2 Mar 2005 06:32:14 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin &
baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right
after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong.
If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot
more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in
Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he
"did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

Has Bush?

Where've you been?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."