"Nate Perkins" wrote in message om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message ...

The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
Being an incumbent is "hard work."

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
accountability.

I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.

It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how. Here are
a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
how:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May17.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news.../16/wcia16.xml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D..._1_020218.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp


Here is the reference in the August 6 PDB about hijackings:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reportings, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998
saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held
extremists."

So what exactly is actionable here. Looks to be historic info to me. This info was presented in detail to Clinton in a PDB on
December 4, 1998. At that time there WAS credible current intelligence of a threat provided to Clinton. He failed to act on the
intelligence and we all know the result.

You really need to stop guessing about what happened, stop reading reports of Clarke's altered story to sell a book and start
looking at the facts. A good place to start is the actual 911 report.

--
Al Reid