isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, I heard Chalabi might be coming over.

They're trying to use the Jordanian conviction against him now. The same conviction that the Bush administration called bull. And the warrant was issued by a man who murdered six men in cold blood.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No, still reading my four other books.

Like I said, I don't know how you do it. Even my superior intellect can't handle all that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I've read it numerous times, darling, and have that exact doc on my bookshelf.

What I was asking for were the specifics on the policy. You simply posted the most general of assessments. To be more specific, his policy was to promote regime change in Iraq by giving $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces to overthrow Saddam and promote democracy. The US was not going to do anything but give them military assistance and, in the end, US involvment with Iraq in the late-nineties was looked at with scorn by the US population and this policy was abandoned. By 2000, Iraq was a non-issue.

Oh, and from '93 up until '98, the policy was simply to enforce sanctions.

I know that and do not think I said anything contrary. Again, what I said was Clinton supports W's position on regime change now because the former regime change under his admin. had to change because of 9/11. Am I not being clear about that?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Murder would be a good one. Again, we knew or highly suspected OBL was the mastermind, that is enough for extradition. Extradition is not a trial, it is an effort to levy charges and bring someone into the jurisdiction for trial. He clearly could have been extradited had there been a Middle Eastern country with the sand to turn him over.

I thought you said it was Clinton's fault. Now it's the Middle East's fault for not extraditing him?
Your point is moot and you know it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Ding! Ding! Ding! Tell the man what he's won.

. . . an argument I was not making?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You said they dropped it. Apparently, they have picked it back up again.

What timing! Just in time for the election!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

. . . an argument I was not making?

We were talking about Clinton's policy and how it had been abandoned. I responded after you posted an oversimplified version of his policy.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that and do not think I said anything contrary. Again, what I said was Clinton supports W's position on regime change now because the former regime change under his admin. had to change because of 9/11. Am I not being clear about that?

Yes, you were very unclear about that. I could care less what Clinton says now or what he supports, he's no longer president. The issue we were discussing was his policy when he was president, not when he was ex-president.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I have that on my bookshelf, too, and she shoots herself in the foot too many times to count, my friend.

I have the interim report form the 9/11 panel after her testimony, too, but I feel like making you work today. Go fetch! j/k

First refute what I posted. You cannot and you know it. But and again, blind hatred for anything W related is your mantra.

Again, please cite facts to refute what Dr. Rice said. Please also cite facts to refute that there were about 70 investigation ongoing as of 8/6/01 as indicated in the memo.

I am no fan of W or his administration, but you all make it soound like they did nothing at all ever. That is just not supported by the facts - period. Sadly, they were not successful in their efforts. But, if that is the lithmus test, then I suggest Clinton was as well because he stopped only one of many (and then with a little luck) and some of the 9/11 plan occurred in his admin. Yet, no one bashes Clinton - they solely bash W. I agree W could have and should have done more, but come on . . .

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

First refute what I posted. You cannot and you know it. But and again, blind hatred for anything W related is your mantra.

Again, please cite facts to refute what Dr. Rice said. Please also cite facts to refute that there were about 70 investigation ongoing as of 8/6/01 as indicated in the memo.

I am no fan of W or his administration, but you all make it soound like they did nothing at all ever. That is just not supported by the facts - period. Sadly, they were not successful in their efforts. But, if that is the lithmus test, then I suggest Clinton was as well because he stopped only one of many (and then with a little luck) and some of the 9/11 plan occurred in his admin. Yet, no one bashes Clinton - they solely bash W. I agree W could have and should have done more, but come on . . .

The interim report refutes all of that and then some.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, I heard Chalabi might be coming over.

I know - I saw that today. It could not happen to nicer guy! AND - maybe the pics' of the suspected felon and traitor sitting next to Laura Bush at the State of Union will reappear This does not bode well for W or anyone in his administration, esp. Rumsfeld.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

They're trying to use the Jordanian conviction against him now. The same conviction that the Bush administration called bull. And the warrant was issued by a man who murdered six men in cold blood.

And to think, just eight months ago he was sitting next to Laura Bush at the State Of the Union Address. My, how quickly one can fall out of favor with the BFEE.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I thought you said it was Clinton's fault. Now it's the Middle East's fault for not extraditing him?
Your point is moot and you know it.

Well, it was partially his fault. He did not go after OBL with vigor or if he did, he was unsuccessful. So, my point is not moot. It is very real, esp. if the same logic is to be allied without reservation to W. Clinton failed to stop something like five attacks. Granted he caught the perpetrators of the 93 WTC bombing, but that was it I think. But, if that ofer of extradition in that USA today article is true . . . .

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

They did drop it.

If you go to PBS online, you can watch the whole Frontline episode concerning John O'Neill, the Cole bombing and it's subsequent investigations.

I am not saying they did not. All I am sayinbg is someone picked it back up again The arrests are dispositive of that.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The effort would have been nice.

I think actually in some remote part of my memory, Clinton did try.

Don't wear yourself out. It's Sunday, after all.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said Saturday. Prince Turki al-Faisal, who left his post a few days before Sept. 11, also said he is convinced bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda network were behind the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

He said he discussed bin Laden's handover with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in a meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan, two months before the August 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Not to discount Faisal but we do know for a fact that some of Bin Laden's money comes from the Saudi royal family. As far as the allegiance with Afghanistan, fox in the henhouse anyone?