Delayed gratification and wealth redistribution

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:03 pm

Question is not why Bill Clinton didn't take out Osama Bin Ladin but why didn't Reagan or Bush senior.

F.

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:30 pm

He wasn't a known threat before the Clinton administration, and even Clinton's response was measured to the level of threat that he was believed to be at the time. It's like suffering through some minor, irritating symptoms and months or years later, when there were new, more serious symptoms, discovering that they were the early signs of a serious disease. You always wish you'd known then what you know now.

This always reminds me of http://yodaclinton.ytmnd.com/ .

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:36 am

He formed Al Qaeda in 1988 and was a known terrorist threat by 90-91.

F.

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:09 am

f.Channell wrote:was a known terrorist threat by 90-91.

To whom? The Soviets? The Saudi royal family? You can't be seriously suggesting that prior to the Embassy bombings the POTUS should have made it a priority mission to kill Bin Laden. That's nothing more than an illegitimate use of hindsight.

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:26 am

Not knowing the CIA intelligence I can't say for sure. Betting they knew his threat.
But certainly Bush II should be held more responsible for not capturing him than Clinton.

F.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:13 am

I have to agree with Mike on this one, Fred.

WE blew it, to tell you the truth. In the beginning, we helped the Mujahideen expel the Soviets. Then instead of helping them re-build the country, we walked away. It took a while for a recognizable threat to emerge from the witch's brew.

Clinton had several opportunities either to have Bin Laden handed over to him or to take him out. You can call his opportunities equivocal, but they were certainly there. Before that, Bin Laden and his merry warriors were "our" sons of bitches. It took a while for him to build the resume that we all now know.

It is believed that the first bombing attack involving bin Laden was the 29 December 1992 bombing of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden in which two people were killed.

Let's see now... Who was elected in 1992?

- Bill

IJ · Post by IJ » Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:06 pm

Opportunities were missed by several presidents. I recall, however, no outcry from any side about that at the time, and if anyone wants to lay 9/11 at Clinton's door, all they need to do is show me the about face GWB had w.r.t. counterterrorism policy. He's elected, and then he promptly held a series of meetings about ... what? Began to... what? Did... what, with that memo about OBL determined to attack within the USA? It doesn't add up to anyone without a mission to take out Clinton on this issue. Hindsight IS 20/20.

hoshin · Post by **hoshin** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:19 am

re-reading five dragons quote at the top of the thread i have to agree somewhat with the statement that no one here is a multi millionare, so you have no clue what benifits or hinders them tax or money wise.

from the words of Robert kiyosaki ( author rich dad poor dad)
(my own translation)

earned income is taxed at the highest rate. the truly wealthy DO NOT HAVE EARNED INCOME. they have dividends, royalties, investments that are not taxed as income. therefor Obama's income tax increases do not effect the truly wealthy. it only effects the middle class. the truly wealthy are able to shelter there money with corporations ect.
_______________________________________________________________________
any spreading of wealth is really take from the middle class and give half to the government for governmental expansion, and whatever is left over will be given those that feel its everyone else's job to support them.

ILL GIVE YOU A CLUE ,,,IT'S MY MONEY... i worked hard for it and it should STAY in my pocket.

steve
~~~~