In article , George@least says...

Conspiracy theories again. You can't influence the outcome? You've got one
more vote than the largest company out there.

So you're saying that a multi-million dollar advertising campaign can't
influence the outcome?

That's not conspiracy theory. That's marketing theory.

If you're right, the whole advertising industry might as well fold its
tents :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article , George@least says...

Conspiracy theories again. You can't influence the outcome? You've got
one
more vote than the largest company out there.

So you're saying that a multi-million dollar advertising campaign can't
influence the outcome?

That's not conspiracy theory. That's marketing theory.

If you're right, the whole advertising industry might as well fold its
tents :-).

Declarative sentences beyond you? GM can't vote, you can.

That's bull. The corruption and propaganda arising from contributions to
the candidate I don't support are balanced by the "grass roots" support and
"education" campaign of the one I do....

Doug Miller wrote:
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/in...tml?oref=login
....
Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the
threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in
Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they
offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling
him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration
diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and
the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it
had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
....

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/in...tml?oref=login
...
Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the
threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in
Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they
offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling
him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration
diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and
the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it
had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

Wow, that's funny, because I've heard President Clinton in his own voice
talk about the Sudanese offering Bin Laden to us. However, Clinton said we
couldn't take him basically because he hadn't been indicted of any crimes,
but he begged the Saudis to take him. So take your pick...either the offer
was never made and Clinton is lying or the offer was made and we turned it
down. Whether the Sudanese had the ability to follow up is unknown.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:m4WdnXcltspyX5_eRVn- So take your pick...either the offer
was never made and Clinton is lying

You're kidding, right?

or the offer was made and we turned it
down. Whether the Sudanese had the ability to follow up is unknown.

Todd Fatheree wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/in...tml?oref=login
...
Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the
threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in
Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they
offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling
him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration
diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and
the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it
had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."


I reccomend reading the whole article.

Wow, that's funny, because I've heard President Clinton in his own voice
talk about the Sudanese offering Bin Laden to us. However, Clinton said we
couldn't take him basically because he hadn't been indicted of any crimes,
but he begged the Saudis to take him.

I recall Clinton saying that at the time we didn't have a reason to
hold bin Laden, not quite the same thing as bin Laden not having been
indicted.

The time frame in question appears to have been shortly after the
Khobar towers bombing hos role in the bombing was beign investigated
by the Saudis. This was before the East Africa embassy bombings.

ISTR from the Washington Post that the offer was made by an
individual who had renegged on a previous deal with the US.
Dor all we know, he would have just turned the money over
to al Quaida. I have never seen any credible statement that
the _Government_ of the Sudan offered to extradict bin Laden.
If you can find one, I'll read it.

So take your pick...either the offer
was never made and Clinton is lying or the offer was made and we turned it
down. Whether the Sudanese had the ability to follow up is unknown.


'The' offer was never made by the Sudanese government A different
offer was made by someone else and the Clinton Administration did
not follow-up on it for at least two reasons, one being that the
offeror was not trusted, the other being that there wasn't anything
the US could do with bin Laden anyhow. Consider the way the
Republicans raised hell with Clinton (wag the dog) after he DID
retaliate AFTER the East African Embassy bombings.

--

FF