|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Bill C wrote:
snip Lot's of reasons that neither President took more action, but once again, almost noone is making that case as that is the least politically correct thing to be doing. The American people and Congress don't want to hear that they tied the Presidents' hands which made it almost impossible to prevent 9/11. After 9/11, military action became the politically correct thing to do in a very large way. That is so obvious that no one with any sense at all argues against US intervention in Afghanistan. Even may without sense agree with that. No many don't want to admit that invading Iraq may have made things worse. Saudi Arabian and Israeli studies say so anyhow: http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Bill C wrote:
snip Lot's of reasons that neither President took more action, but once again, almost noone is making that case as that is the least politically correct thing to be doing. The American people and Congress don't want to hear that they tied the Presidents' hands which made it almost impossible to prevent 9/11. After 9/11, military action became the politically correct thing to do in a very large way. That is so obvious that no one with any sense at all argues against US intervention in Afghanistan. Even may without sense agree with that. Now many don't want to admit that invading Iraq may have made things worse. Saudi Arabian and Israeli studies say so anyhow: http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Bill C wrote:
There was an increase in activity, but it was way too late, with way too little in the way of Human Intelligence resources to do a damned thing about it. If we had solid evidence of a specific cell operating, or even solid info on the target we might've had a shot at stopping it. Has Able Danger made it out of the blogs and onto the news screens over there yet? -- IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478 Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz Software development. Email: |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
In article et,
"B. Lafferty" wrote: August 17, 2005 Biking Toward Nowhere By MAUREEN DOWD How could President Bush be cavorting around on a long vacation with American troops struggling with a spiraling crisis in Iraq? Wasn't he worried that his vacation activities might send a frivolous signal at a time when he had put so many young Americans in harm's way? "I'm determined that life goes on," Mr. Bush said stubbornly. That wasn't the son, believe it or not. It was the father - 15 years ago. I was in Kennebunkport then to cover the first President Bush's frenetic attempts to relax while reporters were pressing him about how he could be taking a month to play around when he had started sending American troops to the Persian Gulf only three days before. On Saturday, the current President Bush was pressed about how he could be taking five weeks to ride bikes and nap and fish and clear brush even though his occupation of Iraq had become a fiasco. "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life," W. said, "to keep a balanced life." Pressed about how he could ride his bike while refusing to see a grieving mom of a dead soldier who's camped outside his ranch, he added: "So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so." http://webpages.charter.net/micah/repjesus74.gif -- tanx, Howard Butter is love. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
In article , Stu Fleming wrote:
Bill C wrote: There was an increase in activity, but it was way too late, with way too little in the way of Human Intelligence resources to do a damned thing about it. If we had solid evidence of a specific cell operating, or even solid info on the target we might've had a shot at stopping it. Has Able Danger made it out of the blogs and onto the news screens over there yet? Not really. It seems to have turned out to be not quite what it was made out to be, anyway. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/006945.php -- tanx, Howard Butter is love. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Bill C wrote:
Have you read the thread? Bush has made it worse by going into Iraq. They along with the other governments have taken out a huge portion of Al-Qaida's top leadership, the Saudis just got another. If Bush hadn't gone off on his merry little adventure, we would've had plenty of troops available to really hurt Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the problem is that they are perfectly safe on the Pakistan side of the border as long as they stay in those tribal regions. The reality is that the Pakistan situation is a little better than it was with Cambodia but not much and the list of friends and neighbors still pouring in money and support for the extremists starting with the Saudis makes this a holding action for the forseeable future. Bill C Bill, my impression of the Bush 2000 campaign and presidency until 9/11 was that he did want to reduce meddling in foreign affairs. I also read that Clinton was very reluctant in going after Bin Laden, as you stated. But it seems that he got more serious around 1999 and I saw and read reports that the Taliban got more and more unconfortable hosting Bin Laden, and there were meetings between US officials and Taliban leaders where they offered him to the US. There was a documentary about this, see a copy of the Reuters story here http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a927.htm and a more detailed (though probably less neutral) account he http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html It leads us to believe that Clinton, at the end of his presidency, did intent to go after Bin Laden. But that was stopped when Bush came into office. The meetings continued only after 9/11, as CBS reported: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in312836.shtml |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
k.papai wrote: Tour von Deutschland 2005 Cyclingnews.com results Stage 3 - August 17: Bodenmais - Kufstein, 232 km Results 1 Daniele Bennati (Ita) Lampre-Caffita 5.12.04 2 Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Quick.Step 3 Sebastian Siedler (Ger) Wiesenhof 4 Luciano André Pagliarini (Bra) Liquigas - Bianchi 5 Baden Cooke (Aus) Française des Jeux 6 Roger Hammond (GBr) Discovery Channel 7 Sébastien Hinault (Fra) Crédit Agricole 8 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Française des Jeux General classification after stage 3 1 Bram Tankink (Ned) Quickstep 14.04.51 2 Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Quickstep 0.07 3 Jörg Jaksche (Ger) Liberty Seguros-Würth Team 0.17 4 Mauricio Alberto Ardila Cano (Col) Davitamon - Lotto 0.19 5 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 0.21 6 Alexandre Moos (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.22 7 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Française des Jeux 0.23 8 Chris Horner (USA) Saunier Duval - Prodir Soooo Ken.........what's up with posting cycling crap here ?? Isn't this the: rec.bicycling.racing.politcal.bushisanass. group ?????? "OMC" -Ken, now back to Laff. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Ernst Noch wrote: Bill C wrote: Have you read the thread? Bush has made it worse by going into Iraq. They along with the other governments have taken out a huge portion of Al-Qaida's top leadership, the Saudis just got another. If Bush hadn't gone off on his merry little adventure, we would've had plenty of troops available to really hurt Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the problem is that they are perfectly safe on the Pakistan side of the border as long as they stay in those tribal regions. The reality is that the Pakistan situation is a little better than it was with Cambodia but not much and the list of friends and neighbors still pouring in money and support for the extremists starting with the Saudis makes this a holding action for the forseeable future. Bill C Bill, my impression of the Bush 2000 campaign and presidency until 9/11 was that he did want to reduce meddling in foreign affairs. I also read that Clinton was very reluctant in going after Bin Laden, as you stated. But it seems that he got more serious around 1999 and I saw and read reports that the Taliban got more and more unconfortable hosting Bin Laden, and there were meetings between US officials and Taliban leaders where they offered him to the US. There was a documentary about this, see a copy of the Reuters story here http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a927.htm and a more detailed (though probably less neutral) account he http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html It leads us to believe that Clinton, at the end of his presidency, did intent to go after Bin Laden. But that was stopped when Bush came into office. The meetings continued only after 9/11, as CBS reported: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in312836.shtml Interesting reading and I'll have to do some more digging. The first thing that makes me think there's a lot more to this would be, how did Bin-Laden continue to communicate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks if he and his senior people were placed under house arrest shortly after Nov 2000 as they state in the story: Quoted: On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team. After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles." Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul. Something isn't right here. We need to know a lot more. At that time the plans very well might have been advanced enough that they didn't need to stay in close touch, but given all the variables involved I think that'd be a stretch. Thanks for some more stuff to think about. I have to wonder just what the Taliban was demanding for turning him over? Have you heard anything on this? I can't believe that they were just going to cough up someone who was providing tons of money to them, and was a hero to the hardline extremists without getting a huge return from it. Bill C |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
Bill C wrote:
Ernst Noch wrote: Bill C wrote: Have you read the thread? Bush has made it worse by going into Iraq. They along with the other governments have taken out a huge portion of Al-Qaida's top leadership, the Saudis just got another. If Bush hadn't gone off on his merry little adventure, we would've had plenty of troops available to really hurt Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the problem is that they are perfectly safe on the Pakistan side of the border as long as they stay in those tribal regions. The reality is that the Pakistan situation is a little better than it was with Cambodia but not much and the list of friends and neighbors still pouring in money and support for the extremists starting with the Saudis makes this a holding action for the forseeable future. Bill C Bill, my impression of the Bush 2000 campaign and presidency until 9/11 was that he did want to reduce meddling in foreign affairs. I also read that Clinton was very reluctant in going after Bin Laden, as you stated. But it seems that he got more serious around 1999 and I saw and read reports that the Taliban got more and more unconfortable hosting Bin Laden, and there were meetings between US officials and Taliban leaders where they offered him to the US. There was a documentary about this, see a copy of the Reuters story here http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a927.htm and a more detailed (though probably less neutral) account he http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html It leads us to believe that Clinton, at the end of his presidency, did intent to go after Bin Laden. But that was stopped when Bush came into office. The meetings continued only after 9/11, as CBS reported: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in312836.shtml Interesting reading and I'll have to do some more digging. The first thing that makes me think there's a lot more to this would be, how did Bin-Laden continue to communicate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks if he and his senior people were placed under house arrest shortly after Nov 2000 as they state in the story: Quoted: On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team. After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles." Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul. Something isn't right here. We need to know a lot more. At that time the plans very well might have been advanced enough that they didn't need to stay in close touch, but given all the variables involved I think that'd be a stretch. Thanks for some more stuff to think about. I have to wonder just what the Taliban was demanding for turning him over? Have you heard anything on this? I can't believe that they were just going to cough up someone who was providing tons of money to them, and was a hero to the hardline extremists without getting a huge return from it. Bill C Well, one thing, I wouldn't expect this house arrest to mean total control of communication control. He at least should have been able to bribe his way to his satellite phone. Why the Taliban would consider turning over Bin Laden? He is an Arab, most Afghan people hate them - and I know that first hand. They saw them as reminiscents of the soviet occupation, but hated their arrogance and that the general way they seemed to be able to do what they wanted in Afghanistan. He had protection from the Taliban leaders, but these same leaders also recongnized that sooner or later the US will come after them if they don't get rid of him. And they'd loose their reign and the chance to build a state after their religious vision - they weren't some much interested in hurting the US, more in maintaining their power. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere
"OMC" wrote in message
oups.com... Soooo Ken.........what's up with posting cycling crap here ?? Isn't this the: rec.bicycling.racing.politcal.bushisanass. group ?????? You noticed did you? All the little children and trying to be cool by repeating what they hear from the 'rebels'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain Biking FAQ Updated Again (see # 13) | slartibartfast | Mountain Biking | 20 | May 15th 05 09:56 AM |
Take A Kid Mountain Biking Day--Oct 2 | IMBA Jim | Mountain Biking | 8 | September 30th 04 04:52 PM |
Vacation Biking and the Internet | Badger_South | General | 1 | June 3rd 04 07:46 PM |
Little biking accident | Badger_South | General | 11 | May 22nd 04 02:23 AM |