In article .com, wrote:

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

You are, of course, free to stop reading, or responding, at any time you
wish.

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?

Do your own research. It's even been discussed here before.

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

Quite a *long* time ago, long before 9/11, The Reader's Digest, of all
publications, printed an article about bin Laden entitled IIRC "The Most
Dangerous Man in the World". There was *plenty* of evidence.

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?

Here we go again, trotting out the old tired lie that Bush knew 9/11 was
coming. Stick that one up your kazoo, Fred, you know it isn't true.

Clinton isn't President.

Thank God.

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.

Had you considered that portraying bin Laden as irrelevant and insignificant
might have been a deliberate attempt to provoke him into revealing his
whereabouts, either directly or indirectly? Sure smells that way to me.

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

See above.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.