RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] very short, critical overview of twonationalconventions

["Jerry Gamblin" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Clinton doing nothing from October 12, 2000- to January 20th 2000,
have you read this article from Time magazine?...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html 

...I recommend it.

Especially this part:

The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the
other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the
principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration
take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it
appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We
would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office
on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to
happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put
together. 

I love the way that your letting Clinton slide for four months after an
attack by OBL, but you want to kick bush in the nut sack for not going
after him in his first 8 months in office?


Jerry Gamblin
EMAIL:PROTECTED
 

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 12:08 AM
To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] very short, critical overview of
twonational conventions

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Jerry Gamblin wrote:

> Ok so now we are down to a finger pointing party, but are you still 
> sticking to your point that Clinton did everything he could to stop
OBL 
> or is it still "totally baloney" to put any of the blame on Clinton?

Have you read this article from Time magazine?...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

...I recommend it.


> Here is what happened though right?
>
> 1) OBL Bombs USS Cole.

But did not take credit for it at that time.


> 2) Clinton lies to the victims family says they are going after the 
> people who did this. (October 01)

The bombing occurred on October 12, 2000.  (Was your '01' a year or a 
day?)  At the memorial service on October 18, Clinton said,

    "To those who attacked them we say, 'You will not find a safe
harbor.
    We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop
    standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East
and
    around the world.'"

You say he was lying, but that is just another silly exaggeration on
your 
part.  You sound like Rush Limbaugh or Zell Miller and you should be 
embarrassed.  I suppose your idea is that he didn't do the things that 
you, in retrospect, believe he should have done.  That is not lying.  In

what sense was he lying?  Why do you repeat this baseless charge and
offer 
no evidence?


> 3) Clinton decides to not do anything and just surf out his term and
let 
> the new guy take care of it. (December 01)

No.  (Again, I don't know what the '01' means and I don't know why you 
mention December - if something happened in December, why not send us a 
URL for a newspaper article about what actually happened?)  Here's a
nice 
collection of articles about the USS Cole and the ensuing investigation:

http://www.caller2.com/specials/usscole/

You can see that they pursued the terrorists relentlesly.  I'm sure that

Rush Limbaugh, or some such liar, told you otherwise, but these 
conservative 'news' people are a pack of outrageous liars with a
political 
mission.  Don't listen to them.  Seek other sources.


> 4) Bush doesn't go after him when he gets into office. (Which I have a

> feeling if he did invade Afghanistan pre 9/11 the dems would be
throwing 
> the same kind of Iraq fit they are doing now.)

Apparently, you are correct.


> 5) OBL blows up the WTC
> 6) Bush starts his war on the terrorist.

Right.

So, Clinton did not lie.  Bush did not pursue the terrorists as
vigorously 
as he could have.

Isn't it a little funny to anyone else that the Republicans are running
on 
Bush as a strong military leader when Kerry is the man with prior
military 
leadership experience?  And Kerry was the strong soldier with medals
while 
Bush was, well, not.  And they are running on Bush as the great
protector 
when Bush was the president who failed to stop terrorists from taking
down 
the WTC, the Pentagon, four planes and a few thousand people?  That
didn't 
happen with a Democrat in the presidency.  Those are facts too, but they

aren't the kinds of facts we're hearing about these days.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
NOTE: 

This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information.  
If you are not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible 
for delivering this information to the intended recipient, 
unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the 
contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender 
and delete it from your computer. Thank you for your compliance.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion