Originally Posted By jonvn No, I think he means being able to honestly put together various pieces of information and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Democrats have no problem geting the job done when it involves people who actually attacked us. < Considering Bin Laden's first attack on American's came in 1992 ( tourists in Yeman ) - 93-94 CIA aware he has set up terrorist training camps in Sudan where he trains the fighters from the Blackhawk Down incident. "Al-Qaeda Operatives Ahmad Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef enter the US together. Ajaj is arrested at Kennedy Airport in New York City. Yousef is not arrested, and later, he masterminds the 1993 bombing of the WTC. " 1993 - Bin Laden buys a jet from the US military in Arizona. The US military approves the transaction. The aircraft is later used to transport missiles from Pakistan that kill American Special Forces in Somalia. 1995 -Two truck bombs kill five Americans and two Indians in the US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh, Saudi May 18, 1996: Sudan Expels Bin Laden; US Fails to Stop His Flight to Afghanistan ,Bin Laden Quickly Alligns With the Taliban After Arrival in Afghanistan Late 1996: Effort to Get Nukes Makes Al-Qaeda Threat Clear In 2001, four men will be convicted of participating in the 1998 embassy bombings (see August 7, 1998). During their trial, it will come to light that the NSA was listening in on bin Laden’s satellite phone (see November 1996-Late August 1998). Additionally, during this time bin Laden calls some of the plotters of the bombing before the bombing takes place. follow this timeline..and yes some of it might be Monday morning quarterbacking, but much of it was known fact that was ignored - this occurred through G Bush Sr's admin - Clintons' admin and the beginning of W's before 9/11 -- but one thing is clear - spare me the Democrats get the job done speech as their record was as poor as the current one...if it wasn't - Bin Laden would have been taken care of long before 9/11 -- and I am not saying the GOP record is any better, but telling me the Dem's get the job done when they have too is also just wrong and ignores all the misses there also. <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline" target="_blank">http://www.cooperativeresearch .net/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Of course that wouldn't fit into the GOP = bad, DEM = good platform...the 'war on terror' - or what should have been so for the past 20 years is one screw up after another, and both parties, and the CIA and the FBI all get to play in game.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That said, I'm not going to respond to what SuperDry wrote in post 35.*** Uh huh, because you can't. He's absolutely right, and you can't stand it. Real stand up guy you are, Doug. Way to admit when you're wrong. *rolls eyes*
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Of course that wouldn't fit into the GOP = bad, DEM = good platform...the 'war on terror' - or what should have been so for the past 20 years is one screw up after another, and both parties, and the CIA and the FBI all get to play in game.<< All of which has nothing to do with Iraq or the shifting of focus off Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <Doug, for once I'd like to see you reply (honestly, and in detail) to some of the tough questions that have been given to you, like responding to what SuperDry has written here for example.> I respond honestly and in detail to tough questions all the time. Ask me an honest question and I'll answer it. That said, I'm not going to respond to what SuperDry wrote in post 35. >>> Well, that's quite a statement, isn't it? Carefully reading what you said, either you think I didn't ask you a tough question or that I didn't ask you an honest question. Regarding the first possibility, I'm reasonably sure that you would consider my post tough, so perhaps you didn't consider it to be a question. So let me bit a more direct: Could you please respond to my post 35 on this thread? Regarding the second possibility, let me assure you that I'm being completely honest in my question. It's pretty rare that I want to open a dialog with someone on WE outside of LP, but I did in your case. But (unlike myself) you don't list an email address in your profile, so I had no way of contacting you offline. Had I had the ability to do so, I would have done so, but I had to make do with a public post. The (implicit) question in my post is completely honest - I'm not trying to bait you, I gave my observations and opinion, and I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. So, what say you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It was an honest, tough post.> No, it wasn't. <My initial post upon returning was hardly insulting> You called my post "utterly laughable", "absolute bull", "a horrible spin job", "criminal", and "garbage", and you believe that's hardly insulting? Remind me not to be around you when you're trying to be insulting. If this is how you're going to be, don't bother coming here anymore.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Carefully reading what you said, either you think I didn't ask you a tough question or that I didn't ask you an honest question.> You didn't ask me any questions. <Could you please respond to my post 35 on this thread?> I'll go this far: your attempt to analyze me was silly.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <All of which has nothing to do with Iraq or the shifting of focus off Afghanistan< BUT has everything to do with the comment about how the Dems get the job done...but of course we'll gloss over that statement huh ? The statement is false and disengenuous, and anyone who says the Dems did such a good job is just ignoring factual history for political loyalty -- the record of the Dem,s GOP, CIA and FBI over the last 20 years is dismal...when it comes to terrorism
Originally Posted By ecdc >>BUT has everything to do with the comment about how the Dems get the job done...but of course we'll gloss over that statement huh ?<< vbdad, why is it every time you show up in WEs, I have the feeling that you need to take a serious chill pill? Why the snotty "we'll just gloss over that statement"? I didn't say anything to you personally, I didn't go after you or any statement you'd made. Suddenly you show up with a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas and comments about GOP=Bad, Dem=Good which no one ever said. I responded that your comments didn't address what I had said, which was true, and you return with this. My original comment was specifically about bin Laden and how Bush had decided for as yet unknown reasons that Iraq was more important. My only comment was that Democrats supported getting the job done with bin Laden and the fact that they don't support remaining in the hell hole that is Iraq doesn't mean they're cutting and running. I think you have important things to say and I'm glad you're here, but why don't you try taking it down a couple hundred notches, huh?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj For what it's worth, war plans for Afghanistan were ready to be executed in the winter of 2000/2001. The military was making preparations for a buildup in response to the October 2001 COLE attack. The war plans leaked to the press in December, but the tight election between Gore/Bush brought harsh words and criticism (from all sides) against the Clinton administration for trying to drum up votes by saber rattling. There was zero political support for military action at the time. After the administration changed, the war plans for Afghanistan were forgotten until they were dusted off and enacted in October 2001 after the September 11 attacks.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bush had decided for as yet unknown reasons that Iraq was more important.> They weren't unknown. They were openly and heavily discussed and agreed upon by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Re: post 52. What's your source that the war plans were unchanged between administrations? That is different from what I've read in a couple of places.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They weren't unknown. They were openly and heavily discussed and agreed upon by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans.<< True to form, Douglas picks out the least important statement in a post and responds to it, and ignores everything else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas picks out the least important statement in a post and responds to it, and ignores everything else.> The rest of it was an attempt to smear vbdad. I picked out the statement which was obviously a mistatement of fact to comment on.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My source for post 52 is the Pentagon.> Could you post a link to where the Pentagon said this?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The rest of it was an attempt to smear vbdad. I picked out the statement which was obviously a mistatement of fact to comment on.<< If you and he want to see it as a "smear" that's just fine. Of course, you'd have to ignore my last paragraph to read it that way, and no one is better at selective reading than you.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So, if it's not on the web, it must not be so? LOL Maybe you should sign up for military duty so that you can see for yourself what happens on the west bank of the Potomac?
