I mix a pretty mean martini, too. Would anyone like an olive with that metaphor?
GIGObuster Bin Laden killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia in 1996. You were saying about very few reasons to go after Bin Laden in 1996? How about 19 dead U.S. airmen and hundreds of injured in the Khobar Towers?
We could have charged him for the 1993 attacks in Somalia. I know, you need a scorecard to keep track of OBL’s terrorism.
You are wrong about the facts, GIGObuster. Roosevelt has been criticised for nearly 50 years, starting less than three years after Pearl Harbor–yes, during the war. No, Roosevelt was not charged with anything, or demoted, he was an elected president ferchrisakes. He could only be impeached.
If you can cite this for me, I will be happy to get enraged at the Republicans. I generally disagree with both major political parties about half the time.
Clinton struck at Iraq on the day he was impeached, not Bin Laden.
jab1, You did notice that I mentioned “one pinprick missile strike,” right? Why “teach” me about something I already talked about? I am pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, and hate both Rush and Gingrich, FYI. Well “hate” implies that I expend emotional energy on either man, which I don’t.
Dave Stewart I agree with you. [sub] quick, someone give Dave some smelling salts[/sub] Tenant was in charge when China stole our nuclear warhead technology, for one thing.
here. Scroll down to paragraph 6 which starts with “A list of terrorist attacks…”
Beagle
I…feel…faint… 
Masamune
Its not a business: its a government. If I’m wrong, and the US doesn’t follow the Westminster system of falling on your sword when you screw up, or if your department screws up, then please correct me.
You really have a blind spot on checking dates Beagle:
http://usembassy.state.gov/afghanistan/wwwhtr01.html
The “great” evidence from the WSJ OPINION claims that the chance to capture or to kill him was in March 3, 1996
And I can not believe that you are ignoring that the former help Osama provided to the CIA in the Afghan war against the USSR was probably a factor on letting him be. Of Course, by the end of the year we knew he was a “blow-back” but by that time he was out of Somalia.
On top of that, the other list you refer to is about SUSPECTED actions before 1996.
You get 0 points there.
On this case you get less than half a point: Roosevelt was criticized but he was not removed or did quit because of Pearl Harbor. The admiral was the one that got sacked.
Some more points can be deduced for continuing to ignore the OP.
Keep ignoring Somalia and the other events which took place before or during 1996. Yes, the offer to turn over Bin Laden came from the Sudanese authorities in March of 1996. We could potentially have stopped the Khobar Towers incident–or had the moneyman as it occurred! Do you know conspiracy law? It makes no difference if the moneyman is in prison when the act is carried out, he can still be charged.
We let Osama go because he was mujahadeen? Neither Clinton nor Sandy Berger even claimed that. Cite? I think you mean “Sudan” not “Somalia” when you talk about him leaving, BTW.
Everything is SUSPECTED (your caps). No greater level of culpability would be an appropriate description. He is suspected in the WTC and Penatgon hijack/suicide plunges also. OBL has not been TRIED and CONVICTED yet. Why? In part, because Clinton did not want him to be extradited to the U.S.
I have not “ignored the OP.” Go back and read my posts, I even used the CIA director’s freaking name and gave a citation to one of his other screwups. I have a nice diatribe regarding other CIA failures, and pointed out FBI Director Muller is new also. You bring up Waco and WWII, I prove you wrong on Roosevelt, and then you come in with these childish “grades” for my posts. If you think I meant “you” literally on my “scorecard” comment, and that set you off, I didn’t. One (I) seriously need(s) a scorecard to keep track of all OBL’s terrorist activities. He has quite a resume.
Back to the business at hand: I checked C-Span and Capitol Hearings and could find no scheduled hearings on the FBI and CIA actions. Did they already happen?
http://www.c-span.org/congress/committees.asp
If we use the chronology from Pearl Harbor ( http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html )
2 reports were made (one secret one public) 2 days after the attack. Admiral Kimmel was relieved on December 16. The first formal hearings started about a MONTH after the attack. Even with the recent closures of congress I am beginning to be upset that very little has been done in the way of investigating publicly what did go wrong, Does anybody knows were to get transcripts from recent hearings and if any dealed with the actions of the FBI and CIA and army on 9/11?
You know what you “F” heads are doing?
You are attempting to lay blame on the US.
Shame on you.
Beagle you are right regarding him leaving Sudan, not Somalia, I switched nations. Bin Laden admitted his Somalia guilt in November 1996 so you are still ignoring dates. But I do not ignore what he did.
Bin Laden was indicted on the Embassy bombings (1998). I never said he was innocent, he is guilty as hell, but we only were sure of that around the end of 1996 and even more so in 1998, your original source is still wrong. Incidentally, I do concur that the evidence against him is stronger now regarding all the past cases, but that was the result of ongoing investigations.
The biggest mistake of the WSJ is to assume that Clinton and the CIA magically knew the conclusions of investigations that took time, even years to complete, early in 1996. I think you are not realizing yet that that is why the original source is an opinion, not a fact. That remains my original complaint. I know you are annoyed by me going deep into the past but looks like you completely missed the point that my examples were Janet Reno and Truman (not Waco or WWII) and they were examples of leaders that show when and how to take responsibility, not for causing the problem, but dealing with it.
EvilGhandy is also missing the point: The US was not to blame for the attacks but if we do not investigate what did go wrong, we are not going to fix the weak spots in our defense.
You cited the Institute for Historical Review? An organization that denies that Auschwitz was a death camp? They claim they don’t deny the Holocaust ever happened, but their own documents say otherwise. I wouldn’t call them a reliable source.
Heed the words of Harlan Ellison in my sig.
I liked your colliding universe post, it deserved more debate.
[HIJACK]
The IHR analyzes historical revisionism. By its very nature it is controversial. The IHR does not do exactly what you claim, although I must admit I never saw any of their other stuff other than the summary of Pearl Harbor revisonism. Now I have, yeesh, the IHR has dozens of articles on this. They are critical of the systematic gassing theory, while acknowledging that millions died in horrific conditons, or were executed. They debate what the holocaust was, not question its existence. I know to most modern people, this is the one historical subject which is taboo, off limits, verboten. Perhaps this is smart given the fodder that neo-Nazi skinhead types make of any critical review of the issue. But, to a history major like myself, it is one of the most important stories of all time, worthy of a critical look–not here though. It is a complex issue where everyone involved had personal grudges and agendas. The Germans were heavily indoctrinated, often psycopathic, and trying to avoid being executed. The prisoners (many of whom were Polish, as my mother’s family is) wanted revenge against cruel captors. The war crimes tribunals, Americans, and Soviets were not without agendas either.
Nowhere did I find any IHR denial of the fact that millions were wrongfully captured, imprisoned, kept in abominable conditions, starved, diseased, or executed in captivity.
Some of my relatives were raped and/or killed by the Germans and Soviets, so I find this subject fascinating, albeit sickening. There is so much more to say on this issue, I just don’t think it belongs here. I question the IHR position on the holocaust, BTW, to me it is new.
If you can point out mistakes in the Roosevelt piece, I would love to hear them, er, later on another thread about Pearl Harbor. It is a great collection of the literature on the subject, and draws no firm conclusion. I used it as a citation because the argument went, as I saw it, that Roosevelt was not contemporaneously criticized for Pearl Harbor (like I was doing to Clinton). I did a thorough search one night and found that the IHR article mentioned all the major critical publications that I found, and summarized the Roosevelt position.
[/HIJACK]
George Tenant must go! [sub]Not sure it will help, but his agency sure screws up a lot.[/sub]
**EvilGhandi
**:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Cute. However, I am not amused. Do not call people “fuckheads” in this forum ever again, even if you forget to type a few letters.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
EvilGhandi:
**
No, sir. Shame on you, if your implication is that I’m saying FBI and CIA agents would have hijacked planes, slit the throats of flight attendents, and crashed said planes into skyscrapers to kill as many civilians as possible.
I said the leaders of those two agencies should be fired or resign because they were derelict in their duties prior to Sept. 11. The CIA sent a garbled memo and didn’t follow up, and are now trying to claim it was one of their highest priorities. The FBI claims it was one of their highest priorities, too, but they demonstrably failed to undertake basic procedures that would have, in all likelihood, thwarted the terrorists. (Unless you believe the reporters for the L.A. Times are lying. If so, let’s hear it.)
Instead of insultingly tsk-tsking me and twisting my assertion, point out the flaws in it.
Beagle, regarding the IHR, allow me to refer you to Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory by Deborah E. Lipstadt.
Oddly, Louis Freeh was very recently held by our friends on the partisan right to be a rare, principled hero for his persistent condemnation of Janet Reno’s refusal to appoint special prosecutors every time any accusation was ever laid against the Clinton Administration.
Things sure can change fast, can’t they?
If anyone has been derelict in their duties, it includes that portion of the citizenry that failed to ask the right questions of the right people at the right times.
Um, Robert Muller is the head of the FBI now. I mentioned this above. Things do change fast, like FBI directors.
Thanks for the factually incorrect non-topical partisan cheapshot though.
But Milo, aren’t you the least bit concerned that a shakeup in management right now could lead to the exact same sight gaps that allowed the events of the 11th to occur?
With the aim of making the Nazis seem far less evil than they truly were:
And:
I’m sure the gas chambers killed a lot of lice, but it also killed the people along with them. And try this:
Even if it were as inefficient as Pressac claims, that would not make it any less evil.
Oh, yes, it does.
I suggest you read “Did Six Million Really Die?” (which is quite long). From the very first page:
In Part 6, the author tries to have us believe that “The Diary of Anne Frank” is a hoax. And from the last part, there is the conclusion:
I would suggest, then, that you steer clear of IHR in the future. They are NOT one your allies.
I agree. This is the last I’ll say in this thread on the matter.
Some Onion humor on the topic:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3739/index.html
“CIA Admits It’s Good At Overthrowing Stuff, Not So Much The Intelligence”
…“Iran, Zaire, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Greece, Panama, Australia, Haiti… we’re real good at toppling regimes,” Tenet said. “But just collecting your basic data about who’s up to what in the U.S. and whatnot, that’s not our strong suit.”…