On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:17:03 -0400, "tonyp"
wrote:

Imagine what _might_ have happened if Dubya, our great warrior president, had
gone after bin Laden in the spring and summer of 2001. Would he have had the
chance to stand on the rubble pile with a bullhorn? Would Rudi Giuliani have
had a chance to "thank god that George Bush is our president"? Maybe, maybe
not. We can never know, because Dubya punted, on the Cole.

-- TP

Gee Tony..you mean that Bush should really have gone after the
terrorists even when all you lefties say he was breaking the law to do
so?

Please make up your minds. Either Bush did the right thing (albit late
according to you) or he is an evil Right Wing Neocon Fascist Nazi
traitor (hmmm what else does the Left say...oh ya) who went to war for
oil and to make his rich friends richer.

Please discuss this with your Left/Lib friends, come to a consensus
and get back to me, ok?

Which reminds me..since Clinton seems to figure large in your
post..why didnt he take custody of bin Ladin when the Sudenese offered
him up...twice? The little blast the desert and blow up an asprin
factory bit was interesting..but not exactly effective. Least of all
when doing so to deflect the publics attention from the Monica
scandal.

Seems your boy screwed the pooch by not keeping his pants zipped, and
not taking care of bin Ladin when he should have.

He had what..8 yrs in office, while Bush had 231 days prior to 9-11

Your claims, while spinning the truth beautifuly..are stil spun.

Gunner



Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke