Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why

Mar 16, 2004 2:31PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why
Mar 16, 2004 6:40PM PST

Gee, Del, and they never mentioned the three times that Sudan offered the Clintstones bin Laden for the price of an aircraft to take him away...

The most damning quote, though. is this:

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, ?The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.?


Is it not true that John Kerry sees fighting terror as, in his own words, "an intelligence and law enforcement operation"? And why should we think that approach would work any better now than it did then?

Of course, it was Bob Kerry who once famously referred to Bill Clinton as "an unusually good liar". It seems that at least one Democrat got it.

The Clinton legacy continues to haunt us today...

- Collapse -
Re: Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why
Mar 16, 2004 9:29PM PST

Hi, Del.

First, the predator did not then have Hellfire missiles. Second major reason: Clinton's ability to conduct military action had been neutered by the Republicans' insessant "wag the dog" attacks. Had they gone after bin Laden with cruise missiles etc. and missed, as they had once before, it would have been characterized as another phony effort to gain tactiocal advantage for Gore in the upcoming election. It's so two-faced of y'all to criticize Kerry et al. as disloyal for attacking Bush at maybe 10% the level of vituperation y'all you heaped on Clinton in this very forum (well, its predecessor) for at least three years. That assault had consequences -- and Clinton's inability to attack bin laden when they chance presented itself was merely one of them.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
You point out the obvious, Dave.
Mar 16, 2004 10:52PM PST

Only complete and absolute idiots would miss this reality.

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) Meaning who Dan?
Mar 17, 2004 1:27AM PST

.

- Collapse -
That group will select itself. -nt
Mar 17, 2004 2:29AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I see
Mar 17, 2004 12:22PM PST

So anyone that disagrees with all or part of Dave's stated opinions falls into-

Only complete and absolute idiots would miss this reality.

Is that what you mean? seems to be what you said.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Not what I meant. Not what I said.
Mar 17, 2004 10:40PM PST

I don't see how you moved from my specific observation to your very broad conclusion. There is so little that connects them.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Not what I meant. Not what I said.
Mar 17, 2004 11:21PM PST

Guess I just don't get it.

You point out the obvious, Dave. Only complete and absolute idiots would miss this reality.

When I asked about who? you said they would select themselves. Only relevant selection I see individuals could make in relationship to this subthread would be to agree or disagree with Dave's opinions. Therefore based on the above quote, I concluded you considered anyone disagreeing with Dave's referenced opinion complete and absolute idiots.

Guess I just don't get it.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why
Mar 17, 2004 1:15AM PST

> That assault had consequences -- and Clinton's inability to attack bin laden when they chance presented itself was merely one of them.

LOL! Yeah right!

But the never-ending leftist "assault" hasn't stopped Bush has it? Face it, some people do what they believe to be right and take the heat, and some people (all leftists) do whatever will most benefit them at the time and say to hell with their country, the world, the truth, and honor.

DE

- Collapse -
Re: Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why
Mar 17, 2004 2:39AM PST

Hi, DavE.

>>some people do what they believe to be right and take the heat<<
Yes, Bush has ignored world opinion on issue after issue, which is why our prestige on the world stage (and popularity with orfdinary people abroad) has plummeted under his "leadership." Far from being a "uniter," Bush has not only divided America with his extreme partisanship, but also alienated all but our staunchest foreign Allies. And in the process he's endangered the governments that have stuck with us -- Spain's has already fallen, and despite Steve's rah-rahing, Blair's in trouble. The only reason he's not in extreme political danger is that the British opposition is so inept.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Usama bin Laden - Opportunities missed and why
Mar 17, 2004 12:27PM PST
...Bush has not only divided America with his extreme partisanship,...

Well, American may not be everyone united, but it seems to be no worse than it was just before, at, and immediately after the election.

So while you might can claim he's had little success in uniting a polarized public, I can't see how it can be claimed to have been Bush that divided it.

As far as foreign allies and their disagreements with his administration, some have disagreed, some have just intensified their normal disdain of America.

Just like some of us will never agree on some things, some countries would critize the USA if we do anything but exactly what they felt helped them put us down.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Dave K, wish you weren't so $#@&% defensive.......
Mar 17, 2004 1:46AM PST

I posted that link ONLY to draw attention to
the program that was scheduled. I saw part of
it and thought it interesting, aside from any
political bashing, and thought others might also
find it interesting.

There are a lot of subjects available that one can
find interesting without attaching biased political
meanings.

You should try sometime.

- Collapse -
Re: Dave K, wish you weren't so $#@&% defensive.......
Mar 17, 2004 4:20AM PST

Hi, Del.

Read Ed's response here and repeat that with a straight face, please. Astrology? Sheesh!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Yes Dave, the POLLS you live by are the modern equivalent to ASTROLOGY (NT)
Mar 17, 2004 5:24AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Re: Dave K, wish you weren't so $#@&% defensive.......
Mar 17, 2004 12:39PM PST

Hmmm even while acknowledging the astrology accusation is extreme, that post was after yours post that I believe Del was referring when posted Dave K, wish you weren't so $#@&% defensive.......

The idea that 'wag the dog' criticisms for Clintons earlier military actions may have inhibited him would be worth consideration as one of the reasons he chose not to act. The idea that he didn't to not hurt Gore in the election implies either he didn't consider the threat immenient, in which case there wasn't a reason to take action then, or necessarily immediately after Bush took office, in spite of claims of Clinton's administration gave Bush plans to curb Bin Laden that would have prevented 9-11 destruction of the Towers.

Of course, I still don't think the public here or the Arab/Muslim nations would have tolerated an invasion of Afganistan to capture Bin Laden before the Towers were destroyed. The world would have condemned us so much for an attack on another country before 9-11 so harsh that it would make it look like the entire world begged us to stop Saddam.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Poor argument dave...
Mar 17, 2004 3:05AM PST

Your "First" reason is pure obfuscation because hile the fielded Predators were indeed unarmed, both air and sea launched cruise missiles were readily available and equally precise.

Your "Second" is equally unsound because you neglected to mention that Clinton/Gore had to consult astrologers (pollsters in modern terms) before they could decide anything.

What is "two faced" here is you and other Liberals who castigate Bush for launching negative ads after enduring six months of concentrated attacks and unfounded mud slinging in the ******* smear campaign and Kerry's attacking Bush after Bush called to congratulate him. I readily understand why y'all can't see it in yourselves because you never use the face looking at the mirror.

Clinton did nothing because he looked at it as a law enforcement problem and lacked the fortitude to look beyond his "legacy" to offer a compelling reason for taking Bin Laden out.

In a nutshell, he had no spine!

- Collapse -
Re: Astrology
Mar 17, 2004 4:18AM PST

Hi, Ed.

I guess you're feeling defensive about how key decisions were made during the last couple years of the Reagan Administration, and therefore baselessly charging Clinton with the same thing? The rest of your post doesn't deserve a response, other than to reiterate the difference between fact-based criticism and baseless mudslinging. The Democratic primary campaign typifies the former, whereas most of the recent threads in this forum with "Kerry" in the header typify the latter.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Astrology
Mar 17, 2004 4:59AM PST

> whereas most of the recent threads in this forum with "Kerry" in the header typify the latter.

There's more than one reason for that, but here's one of the BIG reasons: for years we've been subjected to and had to endure a daily dose of liberal vomit and hysterics. Every steenkin' day for virtually forever it's been nothing but the same old pack of leftist lies, many repeated over and over: he ran as a uniter! arsenic in the drinking water! Bush and big oil fubar'd California's energy supply! AWOL! They stold Florida! Bush did this or that, and repeating lie after lie.

It's gotten old man. Real real old. If you knew how bad leftists suck you'd never admit to being one.

So now you've chosen a candidate that sucks and people are tellihg you about it. There's more coming, lots lots more. So grin and bear it, you brought it on yourself. We had to put up with leftist vomit and lies here for years, every steenkin' day.

DE

- Collapse -
Awwww.....who woke up with a case of the grumpies today?
Mar 17, 2004 5:50AM PST

Now turn that frown upside down, mister!

Wink

- Collapse -
apparently you think Cruise missiles are baseless...
Mar 17, 2004 5:20AM PST

mudslinging rather than factual reasons your response was pointless.

The mudslinging attacks on Bush were definitely NOT fact based criticism as each bit was laid to rest with little effort. The Democritic primary typified mudslinging Dave, no doubt about it, but since you grasp at it as it is flung apparently in the hope that you can spread it furhter, it is not surprising that the back splatter has you blinded. You just have a little trouble handling the truth--kind of like Kerry in that regard too.

The Democritic primary was about as clean as a hog wallow frequented by scoured hogs and about as fact filled as that well known collection by the Grimms Brothers.

PS - Reagan seldom allowed polls to influence any key decisions despite what Alice and the White Rabbit may have said.

- Collapse -
Re: apparently you think Cruise missiles are baseless...
Mar 17, 2004 12:18PM PST

Hi, Ed.

Responding to the only factual assertion in your post, "Reagan seldom allowed polls to influence any key decisions despite what Alice and the White Rabbit may have said." As you well know, I was referring to Nancy's propensity to consulkting astrologers before telling her already senile husband what to do.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: bin Laden - Opportunities missed -- Question of the day is...
Mar 17, 2004 12:16PM PST

Hi, Del.

Now the CIA wants to know who leaked a highly classified tape to the news media. You don't think it could have anything to do with the Bush campaign, do you?
CIA to investigate leak of tape to media.
Why do i suspect the investigation will be pro forma? BTW, whatever happened into the investigation into who outed Wilson's wife? You know, the one that Novak was joking about at the Gridiron Club dinner? An act that GHWB characterized as "an act of treason?"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I am shocked, SHOCKED...
Mar 17, 2004 10:36PM PST

to find out that administration officials are still leaking highly classified information to the press.

[/sarcasm]

Dan