Two things.

One, hindsight is 20/20. If the Clinton administration had an inkling in 1996 of what would happen in 1998, 2000 and 2001, they might have tried harder to off bin Laden when he was still in the Sudan or when he was en route to Afghanistan. Have you seen any evidence that they did (have an inkling, that is)?

Two, recall the excerpt from the Guardian article that I quoted above in #26:

Khartoum offered to hand Bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia, or, potentially straight to America, says el-Mahdi, the spy chief. “If America had had something against him we would have looked at extraditing him to America, but they had not.”

(Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, it would appear that it was the Sudanese who decided not to extradite bin Laden to the US, not that the US would not liked to have had him if the Sudanese were willing to hand him over.

sharansky is an israeli. that’s why he says this stuff

It’s the filthy Joooos!

The REAL story here is not that Clinton failed to take bin Laden but that the Saudis refused to take him. Clearly, bin Laden was immensely popular in Saudi Arabia and had friends in high places there. Our Saudi “friends” were unwilling to take him and lock him up because of his popularity even at the highest government levels. Since 9/11 a lot more is known: everything from the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens to the strong financial backing of al Qaeda by wealthy Saudis:
http://www.investigateur.info/zines/textes/176_alqaeda.html

I know it’s fun for conservatives to blame Clinton for all the disasters that have occurred on Dubya’s watch but at some point this administration simply has to accept responsibility for its vast failings.

But the first part about bin Laden is true

In hindsight all of the not getting Bin Laden under Clinton when we could was obviously a mistake, though the argument that it would have been “illegal” to take him into custody without courtroom style proof is probably true, and the same goes for assassination, of course. But now we don’t send the bulk of our Army to occupy Pakistan and somehow “legality” is a complete non-issue, and assassination is prefered.

Unless it’s something Bush does, then legality is all-important.

Actually, in early 1996, it was not clear to what extent bin Laden was involved in the 1993 bombing. Certainly there was insufficient evidence else he’d have been indicted. Perhaps someone could have “found something to charge him with” but then what? With insufficient evidence, the charges would have been thrown out of court and bin Laden would have achieved a real psychological victory very early on.

“More lunacy from the Wall Street Journal’s idiotorial page. Apparently, it has missed Mr. Sharansky’s attention that democracy and freedom are often antitheses of one another. More often than some would like to admit, majority rule results in a limitation in the rights of the minority.”

…. which is why Madison and Hamilton et. al. crafted a constitution that sets up a democratic republic form of govenrment and not a pure democracy. By design the majority in this country, though it does have more strength than the minority, does not always get what it wants.

Some people still need to learn the hard way that raj is, by choice, quite invulnerable to argument.

I suppose I should be flattered that someone would believe that I am invulnerable to argument. I can assure you, however, that I am not impervious to argument, particularly when the argument is accompanied by evidence. Evidence is one thing that is sorely lacking around here.

Argument without evidence is oftentimes the equivalent to GIGO–garbage in/garbage out.

The US Constitution is not a fixed law; it can be changed and amended by the power and right of the electorate.

American voters have made it clear in state after state after state that, when pushed, they will gladly amend their constitutions to protect what they consider important, rendering spineless judges impotent and sending gay leftists running away, butts smarting, screaming about how “unfair” it is.

You and Raj are nothing but arrogant fools who hide behind the Constitution as if it gives you some right to impose your version of law over the will of the voters.

But before you do, you may wish to read the first three words of its preamble; that will tell you all about who gives it power and legitimacy and who holds the right of rule in this country.

More evidence of DPDT switching in your mind-set.

More like a commitment to the basic principle on which this country is founded — the power and right of the electorate.

Her whole “method of activism” is to first dominate, and then effectively erase the legacy of her son Casey – working AGAINST what he very much believed in and fought and died for.

She is demented moonbat. She won’t even take care of Casey properly in death and she dishonors his memory and sacrifice.
Read this if you disagree:

http://www.estatevaults.com/lm/archives/002610.html

Having said that. She is no more spokesperson for the Democratic party than I Caralato is.

The fact that John Kerry’s “war hero” status was supposed to bring him the swing “security mom” and pro-military vote is yet more proof that the Democratic party as a whole hasn’t got a clue about the military.

What Kerry did when he served was never really the issue. It was the lying, pro-communist activism he built his career upon as soon as he got back that was the reason Hanoi John urinal targets replaced the Hanoi Jane urinal targets in American Legions.

I spend the week in post-production, wake up this fine Saturday morning, pour a hot cup of coffee & light my first cigarette of the day.

Let the dog out, let the cat in, boot up the Mac, and what do I find on this site after a week’s absence?

The same bullshit Dhimmi talking points from the same intellectual cowards.

Ya know what? I think I’ll find a reason to go back into the editing bay this weekend, since Dan & Bruce’s exhortations to allow “free & open” debate are still, as of this morning, giving a platform onto which raj & the usual gang of halfwits can continue to urinate in the name of moonbattery.

Wake up kids. That ain’t rain you’re feeling…

Eric in Hollywood

Really, you should do something about your inveterate hatred and contempt for voters.

If voters in more than a few states in the US had a say about it, it is highly probable that inter-racial marriage would still be illegal there. And probably homosexual sex as well.

More evidence of DPDT switching in your mind-set.

Is this freedom loving George W. Bush the same George W. Bush who is demanding that discrimination be written into the Constitution?

I bet your Depends purchases keep every pharmacy in your town booming.