[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[dangus]

Oh, boy, am I gonna get flamed for this:

>> Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow? <<

I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort. I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief. The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."

There are plenty of good answers to that question:

"No, sir. We have a window of opportunity that may close."

"No, sir. We believe that they may launch a terrorist strike before then."

"No, sir. Delay may gravely jeopardize the efficacy of our mission, and therefore unnecessarily place our fighting men at greater risk."

[malia]

Hiya

Opened this post and that picture of clinton, well there is no other way to say it -- clinton looks like Ted Kennedy about 20 years ago.

to read after a meeting bump------

[true_blue_texican]

ping

[Sic Luceat Lux]

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.5 (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.1 .....Bin Laden told us so himself.

***
bttt

[stockstrader]

Why has NO ONE in the news media (even relatively fair reporters like Brit Hume, Oliver North, Tony Snow, etc.) done a major story/documentary on why Clinton did not accept Sudan's offer to deliver Bin Laden?

It gets only 'passing mention'. The public deserves a MAJOR STORY on exactly what happened--the players--Slick, Gore, FBI, CIA, State Dept (Madeleine Albright), NSC (Sandy Berger), Sudanese officials etc.

Why has there been no major story?