A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 19th 05, 03:15 AM
Tim Lines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 19th 05, 03:15 AM
Tim Lines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 19th 05, 07:56 AM
Stu Fleming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 05:24 AM
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 05:25 AM
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 08:22 AM
Ernst Noch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 07:01 PM
OMC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 08:22 PM
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 21st 05, 08:50 PM
Ernst Noch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 23rd 05, 12:48 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.