"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