On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:10:50 -0800, Colin Campbell <activated_95b@gmail.com>
wrote in message news:<hi2nk3pi7dmnh8ahbi1u2782islvgeedn5@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:58:08 -0000, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:

Not bad. There are parts of his plan I can agree with. What other
issues has he raised? What is his position on bringing the troops
home from Iraq? Will he focus on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden?

Anybody who thinks that capturing or killing Bin Laden will be
anything more than a Clinton-esque publicity stunt is an idiot.

Ah, so that's why Bush didn't go after bin Laden. Because he thought
it would make him too much like Clinton.

What about expanding health care?

Hopefully not unless he can explain how he expects to pay for it.

That would be a switch for a Republican. Explaining how they're going
to pay for something.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:31:51 GMT, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
wrote in message news:<XC71j.22706$lD6.18428@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:cft9k3dl1nn7ni8127gr06hpku501115ff@4ax.com...

As I explained to you before - he was not ignoring AQ. Your own
reference in fact stated that the was not satisfied with the previous
policies and wanted an aggressive, comprehensive, integrated and
mutually-supporting policy created.

This hardly counts as 'ignoring.'

Well - not to you.
But to anyone who cared about anyone who died because of his ignorance,
it counts.

The right-wing stance seems to be that those who died on 9/11 should be
grateful to have died for their glorious leader.

The right-wing stance seems to be that those who died on 9/11 should be
grateful to have died for their glorious leader.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:48:16 -0000, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:

Your position is that President Bush should have done 'something'
based on evidence that was meaningless prior to 9/11.

So you're saying he was right to do nothing and ignore al Qaeda?

As I explained to you before - he was not ignoring AQ. Your own
reference in fact stated that the was not satisfied with the previous
policies and wanted an aggressive, comprehensive, integrated and
mutually-supporting policy created.

This hardly counts as 'ignoring.'

You cannot use something as a reference if you cannot back it up.

I've told you where you can find it. Just because you don't feel like
looking at it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Really? Did you provide a message ID? Or a link? Or any way for me
to go to a specific post and be confident that it was the one you were
referencing?

Or did you want me to try to find it through trial and error?

Can you point out any of the principles of logic that were violated by
myself?

There's nothing in my sentence that indicates that I did not know what
an argument from authority is, yet you claimed there was.

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

It would have also been inaccurate.

If you could have - you would have.

And since I did, it would have been inaccurate.

Go read your own words above. At no time did you reference any
principle of logic.

It was not a program - it was a proposal that Clinton never saw and
was flat out rejected (and rightly so) by President Bush's staff.

So you think Bush was right to ignore al Qaeda and take vacations.

This claim is BS and you know it. I have provided quotes form your
own reference that showed that the president ordered that a
comprehensive strategy be developed.

And you cannot even describe what use that plan was supposed to be.

I have refused to do so because the description of the plan has
nothing to do with my position.

More like you have no clue as to what it was.

Wrong. It was a proposal. Am I going to have to tell you what the
difference between a proposal and a strategy? (And then have you
claim that you 'knew all along?')

Oh, I guess the title, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the
Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects" means it's not a
strategy, even though the word "Strategy" is the first word in the
title.

So you are determined that you are going to prove that you do not know
the difference between a strategy and a proposal.

He wanted it to be a strategy - but it was never accepted. This means
that it was noting more than a failed proposal.

The proposal was evaluated and determined to be insufficient to the
nation's security needs.

Clinton never saw it - in fact it is likely he never even knew it
existed.

Pure speculation on your part.

Ah - so you did not even bother to read your own reference.

ROTFL

So prove that he "never even knew it existed."

Are you really so lame that you are disputing your own reference?

Besides I already described to you how he discarded the previous
(failed) strategy and ordered that a comprehensive strategy be
created.

I guess that's why George Tenet was trying to push Rice to set a clear
counterterrorism policy, and that in July he and his counterterrorism
chief met with Rice urging her to take immediate action because there
was a comprehensive strategy being created?

"On May 29,at Tenet's request,Rice and Tenet converted their usual
weekly meeting into a broader discussion on al Qaeda; participants
included Clarke, CTC chief Cofer Black, and "Richard," a group chief
with authority over the Bin Ladin unit. Rice asked about "taking the
offensive" and whether any approach could be made to influence Bin
Ladin or the Taliban."

"The CIA official, "Richard," told us that Rice "got it." He said she
agreed with his conclusions about what needed to be done, although he
complained to us that the policy process did not follow through
quickly enough.198Clarke and Black were asked to develop a range of
options for attacking Bin Ladin's organization, from the least to most
ambitious.199"

As you can see - your reference does not support your claims.

Irrelevant. Being made by somebody who was part of an administration
does not mean that its creation was sanctioned by that administration.
In fact the text of your own references explicitly states that he
developed it 'independently.' (Should I provide you with a definition
of the word 'independently?')

Its creation doesn't need to be sanctioned by the administration for
it to have been created by a member of the administration.

It was created independently.

What the matter? Five syllable words are beyond you?

Besides - it was a crappy plan.

That's merely your opinion.

Then rebut it by pointing out what it would reasonably have been
expected to achieve - before it was OBE on 9/11.

So the only reason you think it's a "crappy plan" is because it couldn't
have prevented 9/11? Or is it because it was written by Clinton?

You are the person who keeps talking about this proposal as something
the President should have done.

Or are you admitting that the proposal was 'too little - too late?'

And assuming he did not - what difference would it have made?

It's amazing to what lengths you righties will go to defend Bush.
When you write things like this you end up convincing me more and
more that Bush screwed up royally in the months preceding 9/11.
And he's just gone downhill from there.

Your own references do not support this conclusion.