Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7022)	10/13/2006 3:03:06 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224904

Osama Bin Laden was not proven to be guilty until 1998 for the African embassy bombings. Clinton made a very forceful retaliation once that was known. 150 Cruise Missiles is a lot of firepower. And there were other covert efforts as well. By contract, Osama was not proven to beb behind the USS Cole attack until Feb. 2001 when Bush was in office. Bush did absolutely nothing to retaliate for that more serious attack (in Africa it was mostly Africans outside the embassies killed, not Americans) absolutely nothing. Bush has a lot of explaining to do why he was totally AWOL on terrorism and ignored all the warnings, including those from Clinton's counter-terrorism team. Also since 9-11 what has happened? Bush has basically let Osama Bin Laden go. No apparent concern whatsoever to catch him. Why not? And why didn't Bush send the requested troops to Tora Bora? Is Bush protecting OBL for the Saudis? Sure seems like it.