Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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.> I'm not ignoring the last paragraph, and I believe their are several people here who are much better at selective reading than me. You, for one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, if it's not on the web, it must not be so?> Of course not. But I have no reason to trust you as an objective source.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip All the Republicans choose to conveniently forget that Bill Clinton is the only U.S. President to EVER have taken DIRECT ACTION against Bin Laden. Not action against the country he was hiding in; not against other high ranking members of his organization. Clinton tried to wipe out Bin Laden himself with a cruise missile. Now that might not have been much, but it is sure more than 41 ever did and more than Dubya did before 9/11. What type of reaction did he get form the Republican talking heads? Nothing but criticism. He was accused to trying to "wag the dog" and deflect attention from Monicagate. Yes, Clinton missed. It was one of those times where we hit a place he had been a few hours before. The U.S. certainly did that enough times when we were trying to hit Saddam during "Shock and Awe". Why should Clinton be criticized for not accurately targeting Bin Laden? By the way... for those who may have forgotten... Wasn't Shock and Awe the most worthless damned thing you ever saw? It shocked and awed absolutely no one, and obviously did us no lasting good.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <All the Republicans choose to conveniently forget that Bill Clinton is the only U.S. President to EVER have taken DIRECT ACTION against Bin Laden.> I've never conveniently forgotten that. I feel I've given it the weight it deserves.
