"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?