Again, you miss the point. The aid argument is valid in that his shows Bush was not aware of the danger posed by Bin Laden. I am not saying he did not care. I am saying it was not a priority. The cut in counter-terrorism funding also illustrates this point. You then posted links suggesting that Bin Laden was handed to Clinton on a silver platter without even conceding that 1. the danger that Bin Laden posed was not clear yet. And it was not. Otherwise, Bush would have made it a bigger priority. 2. it wasn't as cut and dry as it sounds. The Saudis were very reluctant to take Bin Laden. 3. there is considerable debate about the willingness of the Sudanese to actually deal at the time. I've read they kept uping the ante. My argument is that you have different standards for GOP administrations. You posted a link about Dean not releasing his Vermont records, yet you totally ignore that Bush is doing the same with the enegy meetings and 9/11 investigation. This administration did lie about Iraq. This war was not about WMD. It was about a transformed middled east. At the end of the day, you conservatives howl if Clinton has sex, but when faced with lies that get people killed you are a little more forgiving. I've always felt that if Bush would only get a blowjob, you conservatives might finally say he's crossed the line.
It is you that does not get it. We were still not recognizing the Taliban govt but giving the people food. Nothing about this proves or disproves that Bush was not taking Bin Laden serious. It is perhaps the weakest argument I have ever seen on this board. You started the discussion about character and I simply showed you that the person you are supporting is not exactly being up front. "Actually I am not making your point. You brought up character, and I just showed you that Dean is not who you are making him up to be. So for you the issue's you bring up about Bush not answering questions or hiding information should be non-issues unless you are going to put Dean down as well." You then try to distinguish how Dean's positions is better, because "I guess its a question of magnitude. Bush lies about the big stuff..." Which was is response to my statement above on Dean not Iraq's WMD which you answered on your next paragraph. I am not sure National Security concerns do not warrant holding off on handing out some of the information about 9-11. Unfortunately for your candidate he does not have this reason unless Maple Syrup is a secret weapon in our defense. I think it is pretty clear that Clinton's administration was knew of Bin Laden's danger. Anything I have read about his Counter terrorist chief Clark has shown this. Some of this was in the links that I posted already. I have read in more places the Sudan would have given him up to us. The thing with Saudi Arabia was more of an attempt to get Bin Laden without having to risk it getting out that we were involved and that we also dealt with Sudan. The only considerable debate over Sudan is with Clinton supporters trying to keep a positive place in history for him. What did Clinton do after USS Cole was attacked? and Why? What was about to take place in just over a month? Bush mentioned several reasons why we needed to remove Saddam. You would make more sense if you were just questioning the quality of US's intelligence (and Britain's and Israel's) about WMD in Iraq but you continue to say he lied without offering any proof. Heck if needed post some "proof" from a French news site just to at least attempt to back up your claim. I am sure since he has two daughters Bush has had sex and maybe has even had a blow job, but it was with his wife not an intern. The White House is no longer an adult version of Real World.
Give up the argument DT. You just can't win with Bush bashers. If he gives the food aid to Afghanistan, which there was no reason not to do at the time, he's "aiding and abetting Bin Laden and the Taliban." If he doesn't, he's labeled a vicious monster unfairly starving and punishing the innocent Afghan people for the actions of their unelected govt. Everything is a Catch 22.
Thanks. I'll try that but since the bios does find the new memory while the Red Hat 9.0 OS dosen't I feel like it is something in Red Hat that is the problem.
