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.