Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
...


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.

Well then you can direct us to that documentation, and discuss
it, right?

In particular, what evidence was there, at the time, that bin
Laden had been involved in any attack on US interests?

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".


Told that Al Quaida was determined to attack in the US, and told
that AL Quaida was planning to hijack airliners, what did the
Bush administration do, besides prepare a new War on Pornography?

Clinton isn't President. The last thing I remember Bush saying
about bin Laden was that he doesn't know hwere he is and he doesn't
care. That's a paraphrasal, but one I think is quite accurate.

How many times did anyone in the Bush administration even mention
bin Laden in the last year?

--

FF