Good Old Hillary Clinton
Ray Haddad
Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine) in Iraq.
Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain why they
decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
They blame everyone but themselves.
Ray
Robert McClelland
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:t27tsvkggm3moh0i5...@4ax.com...
"Sen. Clinton also urged President Bush on Monday to refocus the war on
terrorism on apprehending Osama bin Laden, describing the al-Qaeda leader as
"a mythic presence" and "a recruiting tool."
"He is a clear and present danger," she insisted."
She is right, Ray. Bush is fucking up on the war on terrorism with his
little revenge war against Saddam. Iraq was never a threat to America. Osama
and his gang are. Therefore, all efforts should be concentrated on bringing
down Al Qaeda and not on his childish <cough> quest to force democracy at
gunpoint on the people of the world.
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
Ray Haddad
In truth, they both are important. Don't be so short sighted, laddy.
Ray
Robert McClelland
No Ray, they are not connected. Ireland is a democratic country yet it
spawned a ruthless group of terrorists. Bush reminds me of a small child who
asks his mommy why there is evil in the world and claims he will destroy all
evil in the world when he grows up. While that attitude might make for a
good fantasy novel, in the real world it is a ridiculous notion. You tackle
evil one job at a time and the first concern is to tackle the terrorists,
not create another killing ground in Iraq. Even if Iraq becomes a shining
beacon of democracy it will not lessen the threat from the terrorists.
Archer
I've already bought 100 shares of Johnson & Johnson, because when Hillary is
elected president, you guys are going to spend eight years flossing carpet out
of your teeth.
________________________
Short-sheeting the bunks at the Trickle-Down Bible Camp!
http://tunafishnews.blogspot.com/
ing
> Always good for a laugh.
I'm sure. You must be easily amused.
Hillary must be very important to you -- perhaps even a slight threat,
that you'd take the time to start a thread about her and mock her views
on things. If she's not important to you, why bother? Do be careful
about mocking things, OR *seeming* to be mocking things around these
parts, politicians or gods, or christianity or whatever's on top of the
heap these days -- it's looking like not a *seemly* thing to do.
so, would someone please explain to a non-american -- what's Hillary
done that makes everybody so pissed off? Other than offering her
opinion, I mean. I am up to here with opinions of non-importat people
who grab headlines. she's not one of them. We get no news on Hillary up
north of the 49th, so I'm figuring she's so heinous and powerful that
our papers have censored her <eye-rolling thingy> -- or her opinions and
actions are a total non-issue - either one or the other, I got no clue.
Does she have some sort of power over you Yanks? Is she a real
honest-to-pete threat to something or other? Honest question, that,
especially since I didn't know that Haddad even lived in the
US of A to be so concerned about her.
ing <bah humbug slowly shifting to moving her butt to find the
decorations in the basement and untangle the mini-lights>
Ray Haddad
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Whoa! I never stated anything was connected. Again, you use your uncanny ability
to get things wrong to make yourself look, well, quite like Robert the Ignorant
of Clan McClelland.
The killers in Iraq now are those terrorists who Hillary seems to think are
unimportant and not as significant as Osama is. If you agree with her, more's
the pity as I actually held some hope for your redemption at some future date.
Ray
Ray Haddad
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>
>> Always good for a laugh.
>
>I'm sure. You must be easily amused.
When it comes to lily livered left wing politicians trying to figure out how to
deal with mlitary threats, I am overwhelmed with humorous thoughts. Hugging
Osama to make him change his ways would probably have been old Hillary's first
option.
>> Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine) in Iraq.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
>>
>> Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain why they
>> decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
>>
>> They blame everyone but themselves.
>
>Hillary must be very important to you -- perhaps even a slight threat,
>that you'd take the time to start a thread about her and mock her views
>on things. If she's not important to you, why bother? Do be careful
>about mocking things, OR *seeming* to be mocking things around these
>parts, politicians or gods, or christianity or whatever's on top of the
>heap these days -- it's looking like not a *seemly* thing to do.
She's only imporant to my well being psychologically. I find her quite amusing
and not at all threatening. Mocking her? Please show me where I did that. While
I'm at it, I'm not sure you're qualified to advise me on what is seemly or
unseemly. If I am happy, well adjusted, self supporting and always polite, where
do you get any authority to tell me I am doing something that is unacceptible
"around these parts." Which leads me to the next issue. Where, pray tell, are
"these parts" in which we find ourselves located?
>so, would someone please explain to a non-american -- what's Hillary
>done that makes everybody so pissed off? Other than offering her
>opinion, I mean. I am up to here with opinions of non-importat people
>who grab headlines. she's not one of them. We get no news on Hillary up
>north of the 49th, so I'm figuring she's so heinous and powerful that
>our papers have censored her <eye-rolling thingy> -- or her opinions and
>actions are a total non-issue - either one or the other, I got no clue.
Who gave you the idea I was mad at Hillary? I find her laughable to an extreme
degree. As long as she provides me with fodder for my words, I am very pleased
with her. On the other hand, if she is an example of what is considered an ideal
woman, you should be very, very ashamed.
>Does she have some sort of power over you Yanks? Is she a real
>honest-to-pete threat to something or other? Honest question, that,
>especially since I didn't know that Haddad even lived in the
>US of A to be so concerned about her.
She holds absolutely no power over me. On the other hand, I see that even the
mere mention of her has dragged you in with digital fists flailing to defend
her. I am a citizen of the United States of America, born in New York City, and
therein lies my right, no my obligation, to state my opinions on Hillary Clinton
and her words, actions and deeds. I live in Australia as a permanent resident. I
retired from the United States military in 1991 and moved here in 1999.
Here's a deed she committed that I find laughable. She went to Afghanistan
ostensibly to have Thanksgiving dinner with soldiers there. She was to be there
at 3:00 for a 3:00 meal serving time. Soldiers on duty do not have unlimited
lunch hours so the timing was very critical. Since this was to be a big deal,
many soldiers lined up as early as 2:30 so they could be on shift on time at
4:00. Lunch was delayed until after Hillary showed up. She got there at 3:30 and
her entire entourage cut the line and were fed first. Some soldiers actually
left to queue to go to work without even as much as a piece of pie. So much for
their meal with the "global village" [idiot] lady.
Then, she has the gall to ask some of them what they thought of their Commander
in Chief making so many wrong decisions in Iraq. She wound up glomming onto a
few women soldiers there and having whispered conversations with them about
secret women's business. The senior brass who witnessed this were aghast at her
ignorance of the military protocols in addressing the soldiers. In short, she
made an unholy fool of herself.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/2/11616.shtml
Here's a quote from that article:
"After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk
about were 'how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's
visit to Iraq was.'"
>ing <bah humbug slowly shifting to moving her butt to find the
>decorations in the basement and untangle the mini-lights>
Good luck with those lights. Rather than untangle mine, I go out and support a
few dozen Taiwanese workers, some local wholesalers and a few local retailers by
purchasing a new set every year. It saves me a lot of aggravation. See that?
Even my lights are less entertaining to me than Hillary.
Best,
Ray
Joshua P. Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>Always good for a laugh.
>
>Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine) in Iraq.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
>
>Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain why they
>decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
United States. What's wrong with that?
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Looney
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:GKyzb.10621$zf2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> No Ray, they are not connected. Ireland is a democratic country yet it
> spawned a ruthless group of terrorists.
You know fuck-all of which you speak here, boy.
--
Looney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rant of the Loon
http://looneytoohey.blogspot.com/
William Penrose
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:57:37 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine) in Iraq.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
>>
>>Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain why they
>>decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
>
>I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
>to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
>United States. What's wrong with that?
Hah. The current administration wouldn't have let a flimsy excuse
like that stop them.
Bill Penrose
Kurt Ullman
<wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote:
>>I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
>>to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
>>United States. What's wrong with that?
>
>Hah. The current administration wouldn't have let a flimsy excuse
>like that stop them.
>
You have any idea when the deal was suggested. OBL had a warrant out for
his arrest as early as 1998 for the African Embassy bombings.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Stan (the Man)
William Penrose wrote:
Yeah. And, then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching planes fly
into our buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Thank
God for Clinton, I say.
--
Stan
Robert McClelland
If you're just going to make stuff up why bother replying at all.
Robert McClelland
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:WdLzb.16346$p76.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like saying if Bush had been
arrested for committing a crime in 1980, you wouldn't have a president right
now. If bin Laden wasn't leading this group of terrorists it would just be
someone else.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>In article <ansusvgi87akn4q7l...@4ax.com>, William Penrose
><wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>>>I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
>>>to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
>>>United States. What's wrong with that?
>>
>>Hah. The current administration wouldn't have let a flimsy excuse
>>like that stop them.
>>
> You have any idea when the deal was suggested. OBL had a warrant out for
>his arrest as early as 1998 for the African Embassy bombings.
IIRC, it was 1996.
Joshua P. Hill
The circumstances aren't at all comparable. The Clinton Administration
didn't have support in Congress or among the public for stronger
action against terrorism, and if anything the Bush Administration
dropped the ball on the leaving Clintonite's arguments that Bin Laden
-- who had by then committed serious acts of terrorism -- had become
an extremely serious threat, and misinterpreting pre-9/11
intelligence.
I don't think, though, that the circumstances are even remotely
comparable. Internment without trial and the like is Constitutional
within the context of military conflicts, not otherwise. This
Administration, like the Clinton Administration before it, has every
right to hold someone believed to be an active enemy fighter -- and Al
Qaeda and related groups certainly qualify as that -- and no right to
hold someone whom they just don't happen to like.
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Yep. That's what it was alright. We just didn't happen to like him. Got
me there. Can't put one over on you, Josh.
--
Stan
William Penrose
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
>William Penrose wrote:
>> Hah. The current administration wouldn't have let a flimsy excuse
>> like that stop them.
>
>Yeah. And, then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching planes fly
>into our buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Thank
>God for Clinton, I say.
Sure. If GWB had looked into *his* crystal ball, he would have been
able to foresee the 9/11 attack. Right.
Bill Penrose
Stan (the Man)
William Penrose wrote:
No need to foresee 9/11.
--
Stan
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
And what crime had he then committed against the United States?
I didn't think so.
Looney
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:0ob1tvsdbuqn154no...@4ax.com...
Was he not connected to first WTC bombing and the whack-job rotting in jail
for it?
Serious question, because it seemed that Billy-boy did make one half hearted
attempt to take the SOB out by bombing a "pharmaceutical" warehouse in
Afghanistan, or somesuch... perhaps my memory on this is faulty...
Stan (the Man)
I'm sure you don't think so. You wouldn't think so, no matter what.
You're too intent on defending Clinton and ignoring facts.
You can try picking up the book, "Losing bin Laden" by Richard Mintner
Don't care to do that? Ok. Here are a couple of links to summarize for you:
<http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp>
<http://www.gopusa.com/horacecooper/hc_1013.shtml>
As I noted in another thread, I'm sure you'll somehow rationalize all of
this away, but what that hell, it wouldn't be the first time I've wasted
my time.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
He was quite cleary connected to a lot more than that. The attack on the
USS Cole, the attack on US Marines in Yemen to name just two. The
evidence was there, but not conclusive enough to satisfy Clinton, who
was only concerned about possible political fallout.
And, of course, to Josh and his ilk, those attacks don't constitute
crimes committed against the United States. They will either be ignored
or rationalized away by him and other Clinton apologists.
--
Stan
Robert McClelland
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:X73Ab.11827$FG2.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> You can try picking up the book, "Losing bin Laden" by Richard Mintner
Excellent book. I can't wait for the sequel, "Creating bin Laden" that will
show how the US was involved in helping bin Laden set up shop so he could
butcher lots of Russians for them.
Joshua P. Hill
No, Clinton did a couple of bombings, but that was only after Bin
Laden started blowing up embassies and such.
I'm not sure what the story was with the first WTC attempt.
I do know that, far from what you imply, Bin Laden was considered a
very grave threat and pretty much public enemy number one by the end
of the Clinton Administration. As I recall, they warned the Bush
Administration in no uncertain terms that the threat was pressing and
that action was necessary. The Bushies apparently dropped the ball,
and the Bin Laden stuff sat in the in basket until it was too late.
Stan (the Man)
Just too precious.
--
Stan
Joshua P. Hill
I much prefer to think you're just in error here, rather than lying
through your teeth.
Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
And so on.
Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
Looney
> I do know that, far from what you imply, Bin Laden was considered a
> very grave threat and pretty much public enemy number one by the end
> of the Clinton Administration. As I recall, they warned the Bush
> Administration in no uncertain terms that the threat was pressing and
> that action was necessary. The Bushies apparently dropped the ball,
> and the Bin Laden stuff sat in the in basket until it was too late.
Fuck. Fuck-fuck. Nice spin. "It's Bush's fault bin Laden wasn't dealt
with..."
Gawd...
Joshua P. Hill
Rationalize it? What need? It didn't take long to realize that this
was an interview with a child mind.
Robert McClelland
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:0B4Ab.12059$FG2.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
Kurt Ullman
josh442R...@snet.net wrote:
>Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
>
>The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
But the warrants for OBL were first issued in 98 for the embassy bombings.
Kurt Ullman
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
>until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
>Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
>ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
>
Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did not do
anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
Robert McClelland
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6j5Ab.476$Ho3...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In article <lW4Ab.14082$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert
McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
> >until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
> >Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
> >ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
> >
> Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did
not do
> anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
He was too busy getting a hummer. I would have to say that because it wasn't
happening in America, he felt he could sweep it under the rug and nobody
would notice until he was out of office--politicians are well known for not
wanting to pursue issues that they don't have to. And in fact this turned
out to be true for him. There was no huge outcry by the American public
after any of the attacks, so he got away with failing to seriously address
the problem. Maybe if the Repubs had been a little less concerned about him
getting those hummers they would have pressured him into a stronger course
of action. Maybe if the Dems could have pried their lips away from
Clintoon's arse for a moment, they would have pressured him into a stronger
course of action. But either way, Clintoon didn't act because he didn't have
to act.
Now, what's Bush's excuse for dropping the ball after it was handed off to
him?
Stan (the Man)
In error about what, Josh? Lying about what, Josh? This?:
• December 1992: Al Qaeda waged a small attack on US soldiers passing
through Yemen on their way to Somalia.
• November 1995: Al Qaeda attacked a Saudi Arabian building, killing
five Americans.
• June 1996: Al Qaeda attacked the Khobar towers in Riyadh, killing 19
Americans and wounding some 500 others.
• August 1998: Al Qaeda attacked US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Twelve Americans died and 7 were wounded; 291 Africans died and 5,100
were wounded.
• October 2000: Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 soldiers and
wounding 39.
With the exception of the Yemen attack, all on Clinton's watch, Josh.
Or, by "lying," did you mean to say, "I refuse to believe anything that
goes against what I so desperately want to believe?"
> Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
Your point? What did he do about it? Clinton was well-aware by that time
of bin Laden's involvement in crimes against the US. Crimes you imply by
your question ("And what crime had he then committed against the United
States?") never happened. In that, you display stunning ignorance, Josh.
> The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
Yes. October 12, to be exact. What's your point? You asked, "And what
crime had he (bin Laden) then (when Clinton was in charge) committed
against the United States?" Clinton was President when the Cole was
attacked. By December, Clinton had evidence that bin Laden's al Qaeda
was responsible. That, along with all the others, was a crime against
the US. Is there something not clear about that?
> And so on.
>
> Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
> criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
> them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
> get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
Sliming? The truth may be slimy to you, Josh, but it's still the truth.
You need to extract your head from your ass and face it. I'm beginning
to think gekko's assessment of you is correct.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
The only one displaying the mind of a child here, Josh, is you in your
refusal accept the truth.
--
Stan
doyle
Attempt? I don't think the families of those who died think of it as an
"attempt."
In 1993 Ramzi Yousef entered the United States using an Iraqi (Dang, how did
that happen?) passport. A bomb-making mastermind, he was arrested in
Pakistan in 1995 by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, was
later found guilty of --and is rotting in jail for the rest of his life --
for making the explosive device used in 1993 on the WTC.
The bomb didn't work quite the way he'd planned, though, because when it
went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded under,
topple on to the other one destroying it also.
Another one of Yousef's bombs -- but this one was *only* a test -- exploded
in 1994 on Philippines Flight 434. The plane managed to turn around and get
back, but some of the passengers on it, well, they'd been "transferred to
another carrier."
The test was to check the viability of an al-Qaeda plan dubbed Bojinka: the
simultaneous downing of 10 commercial flights over the Pacific, while others
assassinated Clinton and The Pope, who as I think I recall, were both
scheduled to make official visits to the Philippines at the same time.
What a family!
Ramzi Yousef's uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, and
Daniel Pearl's killer.
--
Donna
----------
gekko
misc.writing I see little Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au>
saying:
> Always good for a laugh.
>
> Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not
> mine) in Iraq.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
>
> Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man
> explain why they decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the
> Sudan offered him up.
>
> They blame everyone but themselves.
>
> Ray
>
She visited the troops? Why? To cheer them up?
--
gekko
This message transmitted on 100% recycled electrons.
gekko
> mock her views
> on things. If she's not important to you, why bother? Do be
> careful about mocking things, OR *seeming* to be mocking things
> around these parts, politicians or gods, or christianity or
> whatever's on top of the heap these days -- it's looking like not
> a *seemly* thing to do.
No, mocking is fine. Just so everyone realizes that it is an
indication of intolerance.
It's _bad_ to mock if you are one of those who decries intolerance,
though.
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9448BBF93...@news.mbue.de...
> Romper, stomper, bomper boo. Magic Mirror tell me true. In
> misc.writing I see little Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au>
> saying:
>
>
> > Always good for a laugh.
> >
> > Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not
> > mine) in Iraq.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
> >
> > Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man
> > explain why they decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the
> > Sudan offered him up.
> >
> > They blame everyone but themselves.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> She visited the troops? Why? To cheer them up?
To show the American people what a real hero does for her country.
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:57:37 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Always good for a laugh.
>>
>>Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine) in Iraq.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
>>
>>Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain why they
>>decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
>
>I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
>to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
>United States. What's wrong with that?
He also said, "we knew he wanted to commit crimes," which indicates to me an
intent to commit crime or conspiracy to commit a crime if he was planning so
with the help of others. Sure, it would have only meant a conviction of less
than what he will get if arrested and convicted now but it would have stopped a
lot of other nonsense.
Tell me, Josh, as a hypothetical question, would you go back and do it
differently if you knew then what you knew today? Would you call a friend who
worked in the WTC and advise him or her not to go to work that day? Would you
call the FBI and/or CIA and tell them all of the knowledge you possessed?
Ray
Ray Haddad
He's not. Bush is after Bin Laden with a passion. Where did he ever state or
indicate otherwise?
As to Clinton not doing anything, he had the perfect chance as a lame duck to do
anything he wanted with impunity. He could have ordered strikes against Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, ordered the arrest of Ossama in connection with a variety of
crimes and carried out that arrest by incursion into Afghanistan.
Instead, he pardoned a whole slew of his cronies who were in jail for real
crimes against real Americans and Canadians because he had the power of
Presidential pardon without any need to worry about reelection. And he
"borrowed" furniture from the White House for his new house.
Ray
Ray Haddad
She failed for reasons that are apparent to most of us, Robert.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Dec 2003 21:57:50 -0600, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
William Penrose <wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> reported:
Actually, if he had listened to...
(ooops. Sorry. Gotta go.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
< davida at jdc dot org dot il >
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Jackson Pillock
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:5im2tvkt3kp0g1i8a...@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:55:19 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
<josh442R...@snet.net>
: wrote:
:
: >On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:57:37 +0800, Ray Haddad
: ><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
: >
: >>Always good for a laugh.
: >>
: >>Here's her take on why we are losing the war (her suggestion, not mine)
in Iraq.
: >>
: >>http://tinyurl.com/xn2p
: >>
: >>Then follow the link to listen as she and the former first man explain
why they
: >>decided not to extradite Osama Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up.
: >
: >I listened to the first part of it, and Clinton said we had no basis
: >to hold him since he hadn't at the time committed a crime against the
: >United States. What's wrong with that?
:
: He also said, "we knew he wanted to commit crimes," which indicates to me
an
: intent to commit crime or conspiracy to commit a crime if he was planning
so
: with the help of others. Sure, it would have only meant a conviction of
less
: than what he will get if arrested and convicted now but it would have
stopped a
: lot of other nonsense.
Maybe, maybe not. Al Quaeda is a hydra-headed beast.
Archer
>Instead, he... [snip list of bad deeds that ruined everything including your
only chance to prove you were kidnapped as a kid and are actually of royal
blood]
>Ray
Well, Ray, being snowed in and procrastinating about that driveway, I figured
I'd give you a campaign song. It would sound good as a Gospel number, if the
GOP could round up enough black people for a choir. Or even a quartet.
________________
BUSH OR CLINTON?
Oh, the Devil ran away
When God come down!
God ran the Devil
Clean out of town!
And all the Devil said
when he looked at God is
God, how come I ain't as smart as
Youu-ooo-uuuuuu?
Stan (the Man)
Archer wrote:
Wow. So very deep.
Or, something.
--
Stan
Archer
> BUSH OR CLINTON?
>>
>> Oh, the Devil ran away
>> When God come down!
>> God ran the Devil
>> Clean out of town!
>>
>> And all the Devil said
>> when he looked at God is
>> God, how come I ain't as smart as
>> Youu-ooo-uuuuuu?
>
>Wow. So very deep.
>
>Or, something.
>
>--
>Stan
Tell it, brother!
[PIANO OUT; A CAPELLA, except for HAND CLAPS]
[Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!}
PREACHER:
For Clinton is the Devil!
That's on the level!
You can tell with just a look
That the man is just a crook!
But look at God's poses
When he went to see Moses!
Don't shove! Don't Push!
He turned into a
[CHOIR] Oooo--oohhh...
{PREACHER} HE TURNED INTO A
[CHOIR] Ooooo-OOHHH! Oooo-OOOH!
________________________
Short-sheeting the bunks at the Trickle-Down Bible Camp!
http://tunafishnews.blogspot.com/
gekko
correctly, you wrote in news:0H4Ab.66036$4O3.33877
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
> Fuck. Fuck-fuck.
Oh, so YOU'RE the one who took those. I've been looking all over for
them! Would you please return them, pronto? There's a good l'il
Looney.
--
gekko
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still
call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard
Looney
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
> Hi "Looney" <ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com>! If I remember
> correctly, you wrote in news:0H4Ab.66036$4O3.33877
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
> > Fuck. Fuck-fuck.
>
> Oh, so YOU'RE the one who took those. I've been looking all over for
> them! Would you please return them, pronto? There's a good l'il
> Looney.
Oh, sure.
Sorry...
--
Looney
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>In article <j9l1tv4c48dk8hc65...@4ax.com>,
>josh442R...@snet.net wrote:
>
>>Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
>>
>>The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
>
> But the warrants for OBL were first issued in 98 for the embassy bombings.
But this was 1996.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@optonline.net> wrote:
Believe what? The accounts I've seen posted here provide no firm
accounting of what happened. Certainly, I see nothing even reminiscent
of a smoking gun.
>> Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
>
>Your point? What did he do about it? Clinton was well-aware by that time
>of bin Laden's involvement in crimes against the US. Crimes you imply by
>your question ("And what crime had he then committed against the United
>States?") never happened. In that, you display stunning ignorance, Josh.
>
>> The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
>
>Yes. October 12, to be exact. What's your point? You asked, "And what
>crime had he (bin Laden) then (when Clinton was in charge) committed
>against the United States?" Clinton was President when the Cole was
>attacked. By December, Clinton had evidence that bin Laden's al Qaeda
>was responsible. That, along with all the others, was a crime against
>the US. Is there something not clear about that?
>
>> And so on.
>>
>> Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
>> criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
>> them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
>> get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
>
>Sliming? The truth may be slimy to you, Josh, but it's still the truth.
>You need to extract your head from your ass and face it. I'm beginning
>to think gekko's assessment of you is correct.
And I'm beginning to fall asleep. Cows on mountains, innit.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:21:57 GMT, "Looney"
>> No, Clinton did a couple of bombings, but that was only after Bin
>> Laden started blowing up embassies and such.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the story was with the first WTC attempt.
>>
>> I do know that, far from what you imply, Bin Laden was considered a
>> very grave threat and pretty much public enemy number one by the end
>> of the Clinton Administration. As I recall, they warned the Bush
>> Administration in no uncertain terms that the threat was pressing and
>> that action was necessary. The Bushies apparently dropped the ball,
>> and the Bin Laden stuff sat in the in basket until it was too late.
>
>Just too precious.
Oh, wow, Stan, you really know how to hurl 'em.
Try reading some accounts of what actually happened, and then we'll
talk. Assuming, of course, that you're tired of acting the cow on the
mountain -- it really is putting me to sleep.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>In article <lW4Ab.14082$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert McClelland"
><robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
>>until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
>>Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
>>ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
>>
> Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did not do
>anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
He did, Kurt. I read an interesting account of it a couple of years
ago: Clinton's people handed Osama on to Bush with a strong warning
that he had become public enemy number one, and that something was
going to have to be done, and done quickly. The Bushies didn't act
quickly enough.
Of course, both Administrations faced a Congress and public that
didn't give a damn. Imagine if they'd announced that we were invading
Afghanistan! Not just the Congress and the public but the world
community would have been up in arms.
If the mountain cows want to make political cud out of this, fine, but
while Robert's assertion is as usual bogus -- far from ignoring Bin
Laden, the Clinton Administration considered him public enemy number
one and launched both military attacks and IIRC covert action in an
attempt to catch him -- he /almost/ has a point.
Joshua P. Hill
<ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com> wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:41l1tv0pvgsnvkut1...@4ax.com...
>> I do know that, far from what you imply, Bin Laden was considered a
>> very grave threat and pretty much public enemy number one by the end
>> of the Clinton Administration. As I recall, they warned the Bush
>> Administration in no uncertain terms that the threat was pressing and
>> that action was necessary. The Bushies apparently dropped the ball,
>> and the Bin Laden stuff sat in the in basket until it was too late.
>
>Fuck. Fuck-fuck. Nice spin. "It's Bush's fault bin Laden wasn't dealt
>with..."
>
>Gawd...
Is that what you think? Because it's not what I said, though they
rather obviously dropped the ball.
Joshua P. Hill
<doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:41l1tv0pvgsnvkut1...@4ax.com...
>> I'm not sure what the story was with the first WTC attempt.
>
>Attempt? I don't think the families of those who died think of it as an
>"attempt."
>
>In 1993 Ramzi Yousef entered the United States using an Iraqi (Dang, how did
>that happen?) passport. A bomb-making mastermind, he was arrested in
>Pakistan in 1995 by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, was
>later found guilty of --and is rotting in jail for the rest of his life --
>for making the explosive device used in 1993 on the WTC.
>
>The bomb didn't work quite the way he'd planned, though, because when it
>went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded under,
>topple on to the other one destroying it also.
Which, of course, is why I referred to it as an "attempt" -- attempt
to blow up the World Trade Center.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@optonline.net> wrote:
Mountain cows, mountain cows, la de da de mountain cows . . .
Joshua P. Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
Sure, because I'd be violating neither a moral nor a Constitutional
principle in doing so. Even if I was violating those principles, I'd
probably do it, because of the thousands of lives at stake, just as
I'd shoot a young Hitler or Stalin.
But, of course, we aren't equipped with foreknowledge, and the rule of
law is one of our most valuable gifts. Indeed, every time we weaken
it, we endanger /ourselves,/ because others may choose to overlook it,
and their interests may not agree with ours.
Anyway, Osama Bin Laden is an ideal example of someone who /has/
abandoned the rule of law, isn't he? His moral principles say that
it's OK, indeed morally necessary, to kill civilians to further his
religious and political beliefs. IMO, that's precisely what we
/mustn't/ become. Our great strength, the source of our power, isn't
so much the exercise of it, but the restraint of that exercise. It's
why our leaders give up power after four or eight years, why we let
the opposition march around despite the fact that it's obviously wrong
and evil, why the cop has to let the guy he thinks is a mugger or a
drug dealer go because he has no cause to arrest him. But it's also, I
think, why Democracy, which seems to the dictators so weak and
decadent and inefficient, always ends up grinding their asses into the
dirt.
Stan (the Man)
Those aren't "accounts," Josh. Those are facts. You wouldn't see
evidence of a smoking gun if someone shoved one up your ass and pulled
the trigger.
>>>Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
>>
>>Your point? What did he do about it? Clinton was well-aware by that time
>>of bin Laden's involvement in crimes against the US. Crimes you imply by
>>your question ("And what crime had he then committed against the United
>>States?") never happened. In that, you display stunning ignorance, Josh.
>
>
>>>The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
>>
>>Yes. October 12, to be exact. What's your point? You asked, "And what
>>crime had he (bin Laden) then (when Clinton was in charge) committed
>>against the United States?" Clinton was President when the Cole was
>>attacked. By December, Clinton had evidence that bin Laden's al Qaeda
>>was responsible. That, along with all the others, was a crime against
>>the US. Is there something not clear about that?
>>
>>
>>>And so on.
>>>
>>>Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
>>>criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
>>>them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
>>>get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
>>
>>Sliming? The truth may be slimy to you, Josh, but it's still the truth.
>>You need to extract your head from your ass and face it. I'm beginning
>>to think gekko's assessment of you is correct.
>
>
> And I'm beginning to fall asleep. Cows on mountains, innit.
You ignorantly claim that bin Laden had committed no crimes against the
US when Clinton was President. I provide you with the evidence that
you're wrong. Not "accounts." Facts. You have the facts right in front
of you here. You continue to ignore or deny them. You simply haven't got
the character to admit you're wrong. You look like a fool, Josh.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Do you make these stupid sayings up or are they just all the rave in
your neighborhood?
You call the '93 bombing at the WTC an "attempt." How astonishingly
ignorant could you possibly be, Josh? There, in a nutshell, is the
evidence of your head-up-your-ass inability to see the truth.
Showing you evidence of how wrong you are, as I did in another post, is
a waste of time. You either ignore the facts or attempt to blow a smoke
screen around them with moronic posts like this.
You simply want to believe what you want to believe and facts be damned.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:49:22 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <lW4Ab.14082$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert McClelland"
>><robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
>>>until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
>>>Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
>>>ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
>>>
>>
>> Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did not do
>>anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
>
>
> He did, Kurt. I read an interesting account of it a couple of years
> ago: Clinton's people handed Osama on to Bush with a strong warning
> that he had become public enemy number one, and that something was
> going to have to be done, and done quickly. The Bushies didn't act
> quickly enough.
Clinton knew that Osama was "public enemy number one," and did nothing
about it, even when offered him on a platter, but "the Bushies" didn't
act quickly enough. When did this revelation come to Clinton, Josh? Two
minutes before "the Bushies" inauguration?
> Of course, both Administrations faced a Congress and public that
> didn't give a damn. Imagine if they'd announced that we were invading
> Afghanistan! Not just the Congress and the public but the world
> community would have been up in arms.
>
> If the mountain cows want to make political cud out of this, fine, but
> while Robert's assertion is as usual bogus -- far from ignoring Bin
> Laden, the Clinton Administration considered him public enemy number
> one and launched both military attacks and IIRC covert action in an
> attempt to catch him -- he /almost/ has a point.
Found yourself a cutesy little catch-phrase to overuse, eh, Josh?
Yeah, the Clinton admin didn't ignore him. They gave him a title: Public
Enemy Number One. Hoo boy! No foolin' around with that Clinton admin,
you betcha. Bet that ruined his day.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:06:36 GMT, "Looney"
> <ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>news:41l1tv0pvgsnvkut1...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I do know that, far from what you imply, Bin Laden was considered a
>>>very grave threat and pretty much public enemy number one by the end
>>>of the Clinton Administration.
By the *end* of the Clinton administration? You are absolutely
mind-boggling in your ability to simply ignore facts that are placed
right in front of your face and continue on going, la-la-laaaaa, I don't
seeeeeeee youuuuuuuuu.
As I recall, they warned the Bush
>>>Administration in no uncertain terms that the threat was pressing and
>>>that action was necessary. The Bushies apparently dropped the ball,
>>>and the Bin Laden stuff sat in the in basket until it was too late.
>>
>>Fuck. Fuck-fuck. Nice spin. "It's Bush's fault bin Laden wasn't dealt
>>with..."
>>
>>Gawd...
>
>
> Is that what you think? Because it's not what I said, though they
> rather obviously dropped the ball.
That's not what you said? Gawd. Not only did you say it, you just said
it again in this response. You're shameless, Josh.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Yeah, of course, an utter failure it was.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
I rest my case.
--
Stan
doyle
Of course!
--
Donna
------------
Kurt Ullman
>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:49:22 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <j9l1tv4c48dk8hc65...@4ax.com>,
>>josh442R...@snet.net wrote:
>>
>>>Bin Laden was offered to Clinton in 1996.
>>>
>>>The attack on the Cole was in 2000.
>>
>> But the warrants for OBL were first issued in 98 for the embassy bombings.
>
>But this was 1996.
>
>
first time we coulda had at him. Try to stay with the program.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
doyle
Yes you did, Josh. Bush somehow "dropped the ball" on bin Laden after being
in office for only a few months, when Clinton had two terms in office to
deal with him.
Those two terms, eight years, including not only the first WTC attack but
Bojinka -- which included taking out the President of the United States,
which JUST happened to be Clinton, himself -- and all of the other ones Stan
listed.
Clinton didn't do a damned thing about it. None of it. Not one bit.
I guess he was too busy reading the polls trying to figure out what he
should do?
You've written freely and sometimes eloquently about how you felt about
September 11th. Watching the WTC crumble.
Why the hell is it that you can't look at why it happened, with an open eye.
Or is it that you've found your entertainment, in being nothing more than a
troll?
--
Donna
-----------
Robert McClelland
"doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8hwAb.14891$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Or is it that you've found your entertainment, in being nothing more than
a
> troll?
Gawd you're predictable.
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
doyle
news:fnwAb.18262$yd.28...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8hwAb.14891$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Or is it that you've found your entertainment, in being nothing more
than
> a
> > troll?
>
> Gawd you're predictable.
All hail Boobie Mac, the TROLLING BLOGWHORE, who made himself known very
quickly, elsewhere, and through solely his own efforts, was so dubbed.
<snicker>
--
Donna
-----------
Robert McClelland
"doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
I know. I invaded a Republiclown stronghold with my evil Liberal ideas.
Want to hear something funny? I've never even posted a comment to Zeyad's
blog but he made a pre-emptive move to have me banned from ever doing so.
Bwah! I see you Republicons have already taught the Iraqis how to deal with
dissenting opinion.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
They're contradictory and thus meaningless. Clinton's own version of
events seems entirely plausible in light of the record -- the fact
that Al Qaeda had committed two acts of terrorism does not mean they
had legal justification to hold him. I would have to see evidence that
they did, and even then, I'd have to see evidence for the outlandish
claims against Clinton, i.e., that it was not a matter of judgement
and error but of malfeasance.
These standards are no different than the ones I hold Bush to. There's
no question that they were too slow to act on the information provided
them by the outgoing administration, and there's the whole matter of
the misinterpreted intelligence. But unlike the way some Republicans
treat Clinton, I wouldn't accuse Bush of intentionally acting against
the interests of the country.
>>>>Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
>>>>criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
>>>>them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
>>>>get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
>>>
>>>Sliming? The truth may be slimy to you, Josh, but it's still the truth.
>>>You need to extract your head from your ass and face it. I'm beginning
>>>to think gekko's assessment of you is correct.
>>
>>
>> And I'm beginning to fall asleep. Cows on mountains, innit.
>
>You ignorantly claim that bin Laden had committed no crimes against the
>US when Clinton was President. I provide you with the evidence that
>you're wrong. Not "accounts." Facts. You have the facts right in front
>of you here. You continue to ignore or deny them. You simply haven't got
>the character to admit you're wrong. You look like a fool, Josh.
Don't be ridiculous: I /never/ claimed that Bin Laden had committed no
crimes against the US when Clinton was President. That would be
ridiculous. I /did/ respond to the ludicrous assertion that he should
have accepted Bin Laden in 1996 because of attacks that hadn't even
happened yet. It's still above: check out the reference to, for
example, the cole. And I continue to say that in light of what had
happened by 1996, Clinton's explanation that they didn't have enough
to hold Bin Laden seems to me perfectly plausible.
Ah, that Clinton! Rapist, murderer, ashtray stealer. Someone should
tell the GOP that sometimes, less is better, particularly when the
evidence is somehow never forthcoming. If you Republicans ever get
tired of your ludicrous Clinton bashing, do wake me up.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:49:22 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <lW4Ab.14082$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert McClelland"
>>><robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
>>>>until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
>>>>Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
>>>>ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did not do
>>>anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
>>
>>
>> He did, Kurt. I read an interesting account of it a couple of years
>> ago: Clinton's people handed Osama on to Bush with a strong warning
>> that he had become public enemy number one, and that something was
>> going to have to be done, and done quickly. The Bushies didn't act
>> quickly enough.
>
>Clinton knew that Osama was "public enemy number one," and did nothing
>about it, even when offered him on a platter, but "the Bushies" didn't
>act quickly enough. When did this revelation come to Clinton, Josh? Two
>minutes before "the Bushies" inauguration?
Read the accounts. Al Qaeda was a growing problem that became
increasingly critical towards the time of the election. As I recall,
the outgoing Administration told the Bushies that something would have
to be done, fast.
>> Of course, both Administrations faced a Congress and public that
>> didn't give a damn. Imagine if they'd announced that we were invading
>> Afghanistan! Not just the Congress and the public but the world
>> community would have been up in arms.
>>
>> If the mountain cows want to make political cud out of this, fine, but
>> while Robert's assertion is as usual bogus -- far from ignoring Bin
>> Laden, the Clinton Administration considered him public enemy number
>> one and launched both military attacks and IIRC covert action in an
>> attempt to catch him -- he /almost/ has a point.
>
>Found yourself a cutesy little catch-phrase to overuse, eh, Josh?
>
>Yeah, the Clinton admin didn't ignore him. They gave him a title: Public
>Enemy Number One. Hoo boy! No foolin' around with that Clinton admin,
>you betcha. Bet that ruined his day.
They far from ignored him, as anyone not a mountain cow would
acknowledge. And consider this: in the six months after Clinton, the
Bush Administration did nothing more than he had, less, if you
consider that Clinton bombed the Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
Perhaps Clinton should have taken stronger action, but one has to be a
mountain cow indeed to blame Clinton and absolve the Bushies, who did
nothing more.
Joshua P. Hill
Of course it was an attempt -- an attempt to blow up the World Trade
Center and cause, according to the perpetrators, 250,000 casualties.
To channel Zero, duh.
Joshua P. Hill
Your bell is ringing, mountain cow.
Joshua P. Hill
In fact, the Clinton Administration did an awful lot about Bin Laden,
including bombing Afghanistan, which, unfortunately, had the undesired
effect of convincing Mullah Omar that he shouldn't give in to American
pressure and turn Bin Laden over. It wasn't enough, of course, but
then what were the Bushies doing during their first six months of
office? Nothing more. The accounts I've seen say that by the end of
those eight years -- and the picture then was very different from the
beginning, despite what some say, because the US suffers terrorist
attacks all the time without going to war over them, and it only
gradually apparent that Bin Laden's group was a special threat -- the
Clinton Administration had made Bin Laden a top priority, and that
they left the Bushies with some rather dire warnings about the
necessity for quick action, which were not followed up in a timely
manner, despite the very disturbing intelligence about an incipient
attack on the US with which we're all familiar. But, whatever the
specifics, the fact remains that if Clinton is to be blamed for not
taking stronger action against Bin Laden, Bush is to be blamed too.
You can't have it both ways.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>
>>>The bomb didn't work quite the way he'd planned, though, because when it
>>>went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded under,
>>>topple on to the other one destroying it also.
>>
>>
>> Which, of course, is why I referred to it as an "attempt" -- attempt
>> to blow up the World Trade Center.
>
>Yeah, of course, an utter failure it was.
Of course it was, given that their attempt to fell the WTC and kill
250,000 of us ended up demolishing just the garage, after which the
bloke who had rented the truck reported it stolen and got himself
caught.
Joshua P. Hill
<doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:6lr4tvokdojdtiqe5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:03:53 -0500, "doyle"
>> <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>> >news:41l1tv0pvgsnvkut1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> I'm not sure what the story was with the first WTC attempt.
>> >
>> >Attempt? I don't think the families of those who died think of it as an
>> >"attempt."
>> >
>> >In 1993 Ramzi Yousef entered the United States using an Iraqi (Dang, how
>did
>> >that happen?) passport. A bomb-making mastermind, he was arrested in
>> >Pakistan in 1995 by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service,
>was
>> >later found guilty of --and is rotting in jail for the rest of his
>life --
>> >for making the explosive device used in 1993 on the WTC.
>> >
>> >The bomb didn't work quite the way he'd planned, though, because when it
>> >went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded under,
>> >topple on to the other one destroying it also.
>>
>> Which, of course, is why I referred to it as an "attempt" -- attempt
>> to blow up the World Trade Center.
>
>Of course!
Heaven forbid a day should go by without someone falsely accusing me
of lying.
Doesn't give me a very good impression of my debating partners, I'm
afraid.
Joshua P. Hill
<sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
Mountain cow.
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Contradictory? Where?
Clinton's own version of
> events seems entirely plausible in light of the record -- the fact
> that Al Qaeda had committed two acts of terrorism does not mean they
> had legal justification to hold him.
Are you insane? That they committed *one* act of terrorism is
justification to hold him. And, in fact, they committed well more than
that, as I cited for you and you're choosing to blow off as
"contradictory." It's thinking like yours, that a terrorist group must
be given shot after shot at us before we do anything about it, that
allowed 9-11 to happen. You simply can't bring yourself to accept that
your boy was a dismal failure in that area and that this country has had
to pay a dear price for that failure.
I would have to see evidence that
> they did, and even then, I'd have to see evidence for the outlandish
> claims against Clinton, i.e., that it was not a matter of judgement
> and error but of malfeasance.
I never said anything about malfeasance. And, I've made no outlandish
claims about him. You just don't like the truth when it flies in the
face of your preconceived notions. Personally, I think it was a
combintion of politics and incredibly bad judgment. Mostly politics,
though. Either way, it's unforgivable.
> These standards are no different than the ones I hold Bush to. There's
> no question that they were too slow to act on the information provided
> them by the outgoing administration, and there's the whole matter of
> the misinterpreted intelligence. But unlike the way some Republicans
> treat Clinton, I wouldn't accuse Bush of intentionally acting against
> the interests of the country.
Bush hadn't had enough time in office before 9-11 for you to accuse him
of being too slow to act. Clinton had 8-yrs in office. Are you prepared
to claim that he didn't have enough during that entire time to justify
taking bin Laden? Are you really saying that, Josh?
>>>>>Really, this is poison of the worst sort: there's plenty of room to
>>>>>criticize opposition leaders with which one disagrees without sliming
>>>>>them. You sound just like the people who claim Bush invaded Iraq to
>>>>>get contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel.
>>>>
>>>>Sliming? The truth may be slimy to you, Josh, but it's still the truth.
>>>>You need to extract your head from your ass and face it. I'm beginning
>>>>to think gekko's assessment of you is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>And I'm beginning to fall asleep. Cows on mountains, innit.
>>
>>You ignorantly claim that bin Laden had committed no crimes against the
>>US when Clinton was President. I provide you with the evidence that
>>you're wrong. Not "accounts." Facts. You have the facts right in front
>>of you here. You continue to ignore or deny them. You simply haven't got
>>the character to admit you're wrong. You look like a fool, Josh.
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous: I /never/ claimed that Bin Laden had committed no
> crimes against the US when Clinton was President. That would be
> ridiculous. I /did/ respond to the ludicrous assertion that he should
> have accepted Bin Laden in 1996 because of attacks that hadn't even
> happened yet. It's still above: check out the reference to, for
> example, the cole. And I continue to say that in light of what had
> happened by 1996, Clinton's explanation that they didn't have enough
> to hold Bin Laden seems to me perfectly plausible.
You /never/ claimed that bin laden had committed no crimes against the
US when Clinton was President? What about this, in response to my
criticism of Clinton for not taking care of him?:
"And what crime had he then committed against the United States?"
What was that, Josh? A sincere question? Are you going to tell me you
didn't intend to say that bin Laden had *not* committed any crimes
against the US when Clinton was in office? Is that what you're now saying?
> Ah, that Clinton! Rapist, murderer, ashtray stealer. Someone should
> tell the GOP that sometimes, less is better, particularly when the
> evidence is somehow never forthcoming. If you Republicans ever get
> tired of your ludicrous Clinton bashing, do wake me up.
The evidence will never be forthcoming for you, Josh. You will never
accept anything as evidence that shows that what you believe is wrong,
as what I posted has done and you have rejected.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:40:57 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
> <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:49:22 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <lW4Ab.14082$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert McClelland"
>>>><robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But it's true. You are accusing Clinton of ignoring the bin Laden threat
>>>>>until he was bitten in the ass while dismissing that Bush ignored the bin
>>>>>Laden threat until he was bitten in the ass. Fact is that both presidents
>>>>>ignored the bin Laden threat until they were bitten in the ass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course if OBL was such a threat in Clinton's eyes, how come HE did not do
>>>>anything and instead left to Bush to pick up Clinton's mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>He did, Kurt. I read an interesting account of it a couple of years
>>>ago: Clinton's people handed Osama on to Bush with a strong warning
>>>that he had become public enemy number one, and that something was
>>>going to have to be done, and done quickly. The Bushies didn't act
First, why don't you grow up? The President's name is Bush, not Bushie.
The people who work with him are his Administration. Secong, you're
simply wrong. I've shown you the evidence and you dismiss it out of
hand. Third, the Bush administration, as I pointed out to you in another
post, didn't have enough time in office for you to make that absurd
proclamation.
>>Clinton knew that Osama was "public enemy number one," and did nothing
>>about it, even when offered him on a platter, but "the Bushies" didn't
>>act quickly enough. When did this revelation come to Clinton, Josh? Two
>>minutes before "the Bushies" inauguration?
>
>
> Read the accounts. Al Qaeda was a growing problem that became
> increasingly critical towards the time of the election. As I recall,
> the outgoing Administration told the Bushies that something would have
> to be done, fast.
A growing problem? Get a grip, Josh. al Qaeda was a problem for years
before the end of Clinton's administration. It was not a "growing
problem" at the end of it.
>>>Of course, both Administrations faced a Congress and public that
>>>didn't give a damn. Imagine if they'd announced that we were invading
>>>Afghanistan! Not just the Congress and the public but the world
>>>community would have been up in arms.
>>>
>>>If the mountain cows want to make political cud out of this, fine, but
>>>while Robert's assertion is as usual bogus -- far from ignoring Bin
>>>Laden, the Clinton Administration considered him public enemy number
>>>one and launched both military attacks and IIRC covert action in an
>>>attempt to catch him -- he /almost/ has a point.
>>
>>Found yourself a cutesy little catch-phrase to overuse, eh, Josh?
>>
>>Yeah, the Clinton admin didn't ignore him. They gave him a title: Public
>>Enemy Number One. Hoo boy! No foolin' around with that Clinton admin,
>>you betcha. Bet that ruined his day.
>
>
> They far from ignored him, as anyone not a mountain cow would
> acknowledge. And consider this: in the six months after Clinton, the
> Bush Administration did nothing more than he had, less, if you
> consider that Clinton bombed the Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
> Perhaps Clinton should have taken stronger action, but one has to be a
> mountain cow indeed to blame Clinton and absolve the Bushies, who did
> nothing more.
Back to that cow stupidity, eh?
I hate to keep reminding you of this, Josh, but Clinton had eight years
and did nothing. Yet, you have the nerve to claim Bush did nothing in
six months? Please.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Astonishing. Just...astonishing.
--
Stan
doyle
Once, or was it twice? One empty camp and one small factory if I recall
correctly.
> which, unfortunately, had the undesired
> effect of convincing Mullah Omar that he shouldn't give in to American
> pressure and turn Bin Laden over.
Especially after Mogadishu.
> It wasn't enough, of course, but
> then what were the Bushies doing during their first six months of
> office? Nothing more. The accounts I've seen
Oh, gawd. Here we go again.
> say that by the end of
> those eight years
Eight years. Eight of them.
> -- and the picture then was very different from the
> beginning, despite what some say,
Some say 'cause?
> because the US suffers terrorist
> attacks all the time without going to war over them, and it only
> gradually apparent that Bin Laden's group was a special threat -- the
> Clinton Administration had made Bin Laden a top priority
Sure it did.
> and that
> they left the Bushies with some rather dire warnings
In the real world, Josh, that's called trying to cover our own ass after the
fact, by laying the blame on someone else.
> about the
> necessity for quick action,
After EIGHT YEARS of them doing nothing?
> which were not followed up in a timely
> manner,
Right. After EIGHT YEARS of them doing nothing.
> despite the very disturbing intelligence about an incipient
> attack on the US with which we're all familiar.
" . . . very disturbing intelligence" that the Clinton Administration had,
but did nothing about.
> But, whatever the
> specifics,
Whatever the specifics?
Stan's already provided information on numerous attacks during Clinton's
administration, and I added one that you cutely referred to as only an
"attempt."
> the fact remains
That you can't handle them.
> that if Clinton is to be blamed for not
> taking stronger action against Bin Laden, Bush is to be blamed too.
> You can't have it both ways.
Both ways? Josh, you want it only one way: That September 11th was all
Bush's fault.
Josh, how many YEARS was Clinton in office?
Bush was in office for little more than EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 occurred, but
you insist *he's* the one who didn't act in a timely manner?
Unreal.
--
Donna
-----------
doyle
it
> >>>went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded
under,
> >>>topple on to the other one destroying it also.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which, of course, is why I referred to it as an "attempt" -- attempt
> >> to blow up the World Trade Center.
> >
> >Yeah, of course, an utter failure it was.
>
> Of course it was,
<sheared in disgust>
Would you care to provide the body count in what you deem a "failure,"
Josh?
--
Donna
------------
doyle
Either you're lying or you're one sick little delusional bastard.
The choice is yours.
--
Donna
Ray Haddad
>>[Clinton] could have... [snip list of good deeds that would have saved world]
>
>>Instead, he... [snip list of bad deeds that ruined everything including your
>only chance to prove you were kidnapped as a kid and are actually of royal
>blood]
>>Ray
>
>Well, Ray, being snowed in and procrastinating about that driveway, I figured
>I'd give you a campaign song. It would sound good as a Gospel number, if the
>GOP could round up enough black people for a choir. Or even a quartet.
>________________
>
>BUSH OR CLINTON?
>
>Oh, the Devil ran away
>When God come down!
>God ran the Devil
>Clean out of town!
>
>And all the Devil said
>when he looked at God is
>God, how come I ain't as smart as
>Youu-ooo-uuuuuu?
Would you care to elaborate on how this is relevant? I really don't get it.
Ray
Robert McClelland
"doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Bush was in office for little more than EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 occurred,
but
> you insist *he's* the one who didn't act in a timely manner?
The point Josh is making that you and Stan are not comprehending, is that
there was not enough evidence Osama was connected to these attacks right
from the beginning. So Clinton is not guilty of doing nothing for eight
years, but a far shorter time. In the case of Osama that is. He did nothing
about the terrorist attacks in general for the full eight years.
And he's also right in that if you blame Clinton for not acting on the
threat, you must also fairly blame Bush for not acting on the threat,
regardless of whether or not Bush had been in office for eight years, eight
months or eight days.
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>Perhaps Clinton should have taken stronger action, but one has to be a
>mountain cow indeed to blame Clinton and absolve the Bushies, who did
>nothing more.
Nothing more? President Bush's actions threw out the Taliban government in
Afghanistan and his administration has chased Bin Laden all over the countryside
for the past two years now.
When Saddam tried to have former President Bush assasinated, all President
Clinton did was throw a few cruise missiles at an empty office building after
calling Saddam to tell him they were coming. What a hero.
President Clinton is not fit to shine President George W. Bush's loafers as far
as I'm concerned. When President Clinton was my Commander in Chief, I gave him
all the respect he deserved but as a private citizen now, I can tell you that he
had me more worried about the safety of you, as one of the millions of the
American populous, than I'd ever been at any other time when in uniform.
Ray
Ray Haddad
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>The point Josh is making that you and Stan are not comprehending, is that
>there was not enough evidence Osama was connected to these attacks right
>from the beginning. So Clinton is not guilty of doing nothing for eight
>years, but a far shorter time. In the case of Osama that is. He did nothing
>about the terrorist attacks in general for the full eight years.
>
>And he's also right in that if you blame Clinton for not acting on the
>threat, you must also fairly blame Bush for not acting on the threat,
>regardless of whether or not Bush had been in office for eight years, eight
>months or eight days.
And something that everyone seems to forget is the clarity of vision that
hindsight exhibits.
It's clear to me that President Clinton had a chance to have Bin Laden delivered
to him well after it was known that he was responsible for the Cole and WTC
bombings and he declined. If his foresight were as good as our hindsight is now,
I'm quite sure he would have done things differently. No matter what else I
think of him, I never for a minute believe he wants or wanted anything bad to
befall the United States of America or its people.
The same can be said for President Bush. If his foresight were as good as his
hindsight, the WTC would still be standing today while four airliners being
downed by the United States Military would be investigated incessantly.
The world would be quite different at the moment, eh? People like you would be
calling for President Bush to be impeached or tried for treason, though. You can
be sure of that.
Ray
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
I'll just bet you had just the smuggest look on your face as you raised
your hand with a flourish and brought your finger to the send key on that.
Gawd.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Yeah, I can see how you can equate six months of what you can't have the
faintest clue about what was going on to eight years of inaction, in
spite of clear-cut evidence and an offer to hand over bin Laden. Yep,
sure looks like a wash to me.
The accounts I've seen say that by the end of
> those eight years -- and the picture then was very different from the
> beginning, despite what some say, because the US suffers terrorist
> attacks all the time without going to war over them, and it only
> gradually apparent that Bin Laden's group was a special threat -- the
> Clinton Administration had made Bin Laden a top priority,
"gradually apparent." Is that the view from your belly button, Josh? How
about posting those accounts you've seen, Josh?
and that
> they left the Bushies with some rather dire warnings about the
> necessity for quick action, which were not followed up in a timely
> manner, despite the very disturbing intelligence about an incipient
> attack on the US with which we're all familiar.
You misspelled "vague," but don't let that little detail derail your
fantasies, Josh.
But, whatever the
> specifics, the fact remains that if Clinton is to be blamed for not
> taking stronger action against Bin Laden, Bush is to be blamed too.
> You can't have it both ways.
Much as I'm certain you desperately want to believe it, Josh, no one has
said Bush is blameless. Just that Clinton ahd eight years in which to
neutralize bin Laden vs Bush's six months and that Clinton's inaction is
very likely responsible for the attacks on the WTC, and the Pentagon,
which is what started this current waste of time with you.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
Demolished just the garage? Josh, do you *ever* know what you're talking
about? The blast was centered on the second level. It was so intense
that it caused the collapse of the steel reinforced concrete floor to
the floor below, which then caused more collapses. Tons of debris were
piled onto the lower floors. A steel fire door that opened to one of the
stairways was blown off it's hinges and embedded into a wall 35 feet away.
The blast was detonated where it could do the most damage. It knocked
out the power plant for the entire complex. No lights, no elevators, no
heat, and lots of soot filled smoke filled a good portion of the building.
The initial assessment of the damage indicated that the structural
integrity of tower one was in jeopardy, and that the Vista Hotel, the
lobby of which was replaced by a huge crater, would probably collapse
if supports were not repaired quickly. And those weren't the only safety
hazards. There was raw sewage, a biological hazard, as well as asbestos,
acid and fuel from the cars, and small fires throughout. There was also
risk of pieces of concrete falling from above.
Six people killed, more than 1,000 injured.
This, you, Josh, manage reduce to an utter failure that wound up
"demolishing just the garage." What an utter ignoramus you've turned out
to be, Josh.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
<...>
>>>>The bomb didn't work quite the way he'd planned, though, because when it
>>>>went off, it *was* supposed to make the tower it had been exploded under,
>>>>topple on to the other one destroying it also.
>>>
>>>Which, of course, is why I referred to it as an "attempt" -- attempt
>>>to blow up the World Trade Center.
>>
>>Of course!
>
>
> Heaven forbid a day should go by without someone falsely accusing me
> of lying.
>
> Doesn't give me a very good impression of my debating partners, I'm
> afraid.
You asked me rhetorically, "And what crime had he then committed against
the United States?"
You added "I didn't think so," indicating your belief that bin Laden had
committed no crimes against the US during Clinton's administration.
Then, in a subsequent post you stated, "I /never/ claimed that Bin Laden
had committed no crimes against the US when Clinton was President."
I guess that was just your faulty memory, eh, Josh?
--
Stan
gekko
Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote misc.writing saying:
> Your bell is ringing, mountain cow.
>
Zen-manque.
--
gekko
I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.
Kurt Ullman
<NOJUNKdoyle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In fact, the Clinton Administration did an awful lot about Bin Laden,
>> including bombing Afghanistan,
>
>Once, or was it twice? One empty camp and one small factory if I recall
>correctly.
Pharmaceutical factory at that. Also remember in both cases a fair amount
of time had elapsed between the time of the action that sparked the
retaliation and the act. Also remember that in both cases the timing of the
attack was interesting... both seemed to get Major Monica News below the fold
and away from the lead story.
>
>> which, unfortunately, had the undesired
>> effect of convincing Mullah Omar that he shouldn't give in to American
>> pressure and turn Bin Laden over.
>
>Especially after Mogadishu.
Something we are still trying to live down today. There is still an
expectation that the casualties will make us turn tail and go away.
>> because the US suffers terrorist
>> attacks all the time without going to war over them, and it only
>> gradually apparent that Bin Laden's group was a special threat -- the
>> Clinton Administration had made Bin Laden a top priority
>
>Sure it did.
It at least made it a top priority to tell Bush about it on the way out the
door.
>Bush was in office for little more than EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 occurred, but
>you insist *he's* the one who didn't act in a timely manner?
>
>Unreal.
It can also be argued that the actions of the Clinton administration (the
coupla cruise missles tossed about) really precluded anything else. They were
the responses to the other happenings and (at least politically) made it hard
to just go ahead and attack again w/o some new provocation.
Also, the precedent set by Mogodishu is still haunting us.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Kurt Ullman
rha...@iexpress.net.au wrote:
>When Saddam tried to have former President Bush assasinated, all President
>Clinton did was throw a few cruise missiles at an empty office building after
>calling Saddam to tell him they were coming. What a hero.
Actually that was enuff under International Law to go in and tkae him out.
Not much greater act of war can be done than try to take out a governmental
leader even if ex.
Kurt Ullman
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>The point Josh is making that you and Stan are not comprehending, is that
>there was not enough evidence Osama was connected to these attacks right
>from the beginning. So Clinton is not guilty of doing nothing for eight
>years, but a far shorter time. In the case of Osama that is. He did nothing
>about the terrorist attacks in general for the full eight years.
At least two. OBL had warrants out since '98. Clinton also had the Cole as
a good excuse to actually do things.
gekko
At the end of the Clinton reign, he was a lame duck, but Ms. Rodham-Clinton was
certainly running for an office. Perhaps they were too focused on their plans
for making sure they took their booty, pardoned their pet criminals, set up the
pranks and damage for the offices they were vacating, and Ms. Rodham-Clinton's
race for the Senate to worry their little haids about a man they _knew_ to be
extremely dangerous.
--
gekko
All music is ethnic music -- Ornette
Joshua P. Hill
<doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Oh, I see.
Joshua P. Hill
I think that you, Donna, and Fundoc have reminded me of one of the
main reasons I have such contempt for mountain cow politics.
Joshua P. Hill
Would you?