Gosh, in all the reading and research I do, I actually missed the right-wing's claim that Clinton was "obsessed" with bin Laden. I've heard them say he was "self-obsessed." I've heard them say he was "obsessed with his legacy." I've heard them say he was "obsessed with sex" and with Monica Lewinsky, and with getting Ken Starr and with women and with winning and even with food.

But I don't know any conservatives that think Clinton was "obsessed" with bin Laden.

On the other heand, under the headline "Clinton was 'Obsessed' with Osama," CBS news ran an interview/book excerpt in April of 2004, in which THEY interpreted part of his book in this way:

"President Clinton says he was "obsessed" with bin Laden during his time in office and denies he refused opportunities to capture the al Qaeda leader."

And on BBC, President Clinton was asked this:

"Jim: On 9/11, You according to Richard Clark, a former counter-terrorism head in the White House, were to some degree obsessed by Al-Qaeda, certainly more than the incoming administration was in it’s early months in 2001, But do you regret looking back at the history, and we’ll see the 9/11 report from Congress quite soon, do you regret that you didn’t go for them in the last period of your presidency? You did have one strike, it was unsuccessful."

To which he did not explode "I was NOT obsessed!' Instead, he said this:

"President Clinton: We had one strike but we had three others planned which I was prepared to go forward with. At the last minute they were called off because the CIA said they didn’t trust their own intelligence to do it. We also contracted with Afghan tribal groups to capture or kill Bin Laden that never produced anything and we had a contract with the Pakistanis to train a group to go on across the Pakistan border to capture or kill him and then when General Musharraf became President he cancelled that, so the only other option then was either the introduction of a substantial para-military force, our special forces, or some small scale invasion which the world would have howled about based on the facts at the time. I would have had the opportunity to do one of these two things after Bin Laden bombed the U.S.S Cole and killed those naval soldiers." And the interview ended there, which is unfortunate because the next obvious questn is why didn't he? He was still president after the Cole, he was still acting as president--in fact, he acted as president even AFTER election day! He spent his final days in office pardoning felons and flying around the world picking up bouquets of thanks from all the people he had come to know and love. He didn't spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to lay the groundwork for the next president to have a shot at Osama, did he? No, he did not.

Clinton wasn't "obsessed" with Osama--and conservatives don't claim that he was. HE claims that he was--and now it upsets him?????

You know, for a while there, Carter was terrirble president and for a while a great ex-president. Kept his mouth shut, built houses. Now, of course, he's a useful idiot to all of our enemies, instead. Clinton, on the other hand, was a terrible president and (if such a thing is possible) a worse ex-president. I can't imagine he'd be any less ubiquitious as a "first man," should Hillary ascend.

The media should stop following him around. Without videotape, maybe he'll go away.

In regards to this article, all I can do is use Clinton's words -

"raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care."

Forget bin Laden, green energy cuts off a massive amount of money flowing into the middle east and therefore the terrorists that we're fighting.

Daftright's answer to fighting global terror: Windmills and solar panels!

Look. the very fact that Clinton says,"the world would have howled about", tells you all that you need to know about libs. America deserves a Commander-In-Chief who doesn't give a rip what "the world" will howl about. "The world" doesn't exist to protect the U.S.A. The President does.

"Daftright's answer to fighting global terror: Windmills and solar panels!"

W's answer to fighting global terror: Create more global terrorism !

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html

Hate to say I told you so, but ...

No TRF, that's just liberal propaganda, you should know that, you commie lib. Thinking the war in Iraq is harming us is only the commie lib way of making America look foolish. Do not believe their (commie lib) lies. How could the war in Iraq harm us? We're America, we're there to help them. Why do all you commie libs think you know everything? Commie lib. elite libby lib.

commie lib

Back to being serious, did anyone see this:

Osama may be dead?

Maybe he ate some spinach.

Steve,

After that interview I am now convinced it was all Clinton's fault. Why didn't I see it sooner. The next time I see almighty Bush I must remember to kneel down and kiss his pinky ring, and thank him for not holding a SINGLE DAMN MEETING on the Bin Laden threat until 9 months into his term, and only after 3,000 Americans were dead. Sorry Mr. President for being so thoughtless in my lack of praise!

Elmer Fud

" If I could have one wish I would have people accept the importance of our common humanity". Hmmm, who could this be? Miss Texas at the Miss America Pageant? Nooo. Miss Arkansas? Getting warmer. Wait, I know! It is Billy Clinton on the Today Show answering Miss Lib Vieira's question asking him if he had a genie, what wish would he want granted. This followed her calling HIM a genie. Yeah, it's tough out there in Media-land for Mr. Clinton, how DOES he manage?

Yet more high profile generals have come forward this week and publically stated that Rumsfeld is incompetent. How many does take Republicans before you get a clue...

off topic, and stupid to boot.

Lisa,

If you find that post stupid, then here is a question for you. Who would have to come forward and tell you Rumsfeld is incompetent, before you started believing it? Is there anybody in the military? Anybody at all besides God and George Bush?

My understanding of the "three times as long" comment was that it was directed at the CIA and FBI... not at Bush.

Rather than unconditionally accepting the "Path to 9/11" as 100% accurate according the the 9/11 Commission, I would like to know exactly what Clinton was referring to so that his points of contention could be verified against the Commission report. I have a hard time beliveing Steve sat down and checked every fact in the movie against the 9/11 Commission report.

off topic, and stupid to boot.

That's has to be one of the worst rebuttals I've ever seen. What about an intelligent response?

I wonder how the liberals would react if Bush blew up at the 95% liberal hostile media?

oh, but I keep forgetting about the double standard.

If he could do it and express some coherent thoughts at the same time, if he didn't do it to avoid a question like he did the other day I would be truely impressed actually.

But most of the time when Bush blows up, its because he can't fight back, and has to restort to his famous one liners.

the post was off topic, and stupid, what else could I say?

I am amazed at the amount of "conservatives" on this site who apparently dislike Bush.

who would that be Ben?

you know who they are Lisa. Personally, I would prefer another Republican president over Bush. Although, I do think the hysteria he creates in liberals is about Bush's best attribute.

" And I don't remember anyone on the right side of this issue EVER claiming Clinton did too much to fight terror. Terror attacks were occurring all over the world during the eight years he was president and he didn't do a damn thing save lobbing a couple missiles into an aspirin factory. "

I think Steve would be accurate if he said; I don't want to remember.

If you need help I can provide you with a spatula to scrape the egg off your face, Stevie. I can give you a link to more information *that you probably will choose to not remember, aka; denial.

"In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders."

If you care to look, these lawmakers did the same to "W" after 9/11. Well we know what happened then. Enron unraveled and the rightwing disavowed any knowledge of Enron dealings. That includes the cover-up meeting with Cheney and the Energy Commission. What did "W" say; Who's Ken Lay? If the distance wasn't evident to many, may I remind you "W" chose to attend Coretta Scott Kings funeeral and take a grilling. It would seem appropriate he show up his friend Kenny's funeral.

Anything else you need help remembering Dr. B?

That would be Steve. Bush apparently isn't Conservative enough. Steve considers Bush to be weak on immigration and weak on the Iran UN resolution.

what's the link?

Steve doesn't appear to me to "dislike" the president. He just gets annoyed when the President ISN'T conservative enough. As do I. I still love the guy. He IS weak on immigration.

what's the link Mr. Russ?

Lisa,

Here's an interesting piece from 1996 where Bill asks congress to expand his ability to wiretap. Guess who stood in his way? He also asked for a law on chemical markers in explosives. Guess who stood in his way.

And I might add Bill Clinton at least asked congress about wiretapping legislation. Bush just did it.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

I'm sure I can find some other juicy details about how they tried to block him if I really wanted to. This search took less than 5 minutes.

"My understanding of the "three times as long" comment was that it was directed at the CIA and FBI... not at Bush."

JNE,

I think he may have been refering (dare I bring it up) to the USS Cole bombing. He took a lot of heat for doing nothing, as seen by the conservatives.

With all the chest thumping going on today, Clinton's assesment of the mentality of the American public and conservatives regarding war and the Al Quaida threat is correct. Not a chance would have there been a vote for war!

Many conservatives like to connect the first WTC bombing to the second (9/11) attack. Today they do but in 1993 when it happened it wasn't likely they were willing to go to war over six deaths.

but I thought your guy Clinton had all the dots connected? It wasn't just six deaths moron, it was a series of attacks on our facilities. Here and abroad. Face it. Dems do not like the military, do not ever want to fight back. Clinton DIDN'T do anything about the Cole. Wussy Wimp, except when a journalist asks him an embarrassing question. Ho boy! Then he comes out swinging! His finger is a WMD.

"what's the link Mr. Russ?"

To what, Lisa? Are you truly not aware of roadblocks laid down by the GOP in regard to tracking AQ? Do you not believe what I posted?

Let's do a Dr. B. together now; Ahhmmmmmmmmmm, Ahhhmmmmmmmmmmm.......Ah it went away, don't remember, never happened!

Oh, in regards to your requested link;

Lisa, Did Clinton cause the bombing of the USSS Cole?

"Ho boy! Then he comes out swinging! His finger is a WMD."

I think I might agree here. There's no telling where that finger's been.

Lisa's right: I don't "dislike" Bush but if he's being a bonehead (as he seems to do on a lot of issues lately) I'm more than happy to point it out.

As far as your "evidence" that conservatives opposed Clinton's every attempt to get tough with the terrorists, Russ, WTF is this:

"In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders."

This is certain an objective piece of work. You can do better than this Russ if there really was any evidence.

Furthermore, while we're on the subject of evidence, the preponderence of evidence shows that Clinton didn't nothing even though he had bin Laden in his cross-hairs on no fewer than three occasional and a dozen or so other times when he could have been easily targeted. We had guys who were tailing him 24/7 for years during Clinton's administration. Perhaps it was the "allergy" Clinton had for using the military or doing anything that might result in politically unpopular war casualties that Dick Morris was describing as far back as 1997 that caused him to blow repeated attempts to get bin Laden.

Mr. Russ, Yes, Clinton is responsible for the Cole bombing because under his watch,[you guys love that phrase], the refueling tankers were significantly downsized to where they couldn't refuel at sea. They had to find a port. There were warnings, but what else could they do? Dems always diminish the military. It's just the way you are.

Unbelievable!!!!! I am actually laughing WITH you Russ! Post of 5:58. EEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

"Mr. Russ, Yes, Clinton is responsible for the Cole bombing because under his watch,[you guys love that phrase], the refueling tankers were significantly downsized to where they couldn't refuel at sea. They had to find a port. There were warnings, but what else could they do? Dems always diminish the military. It's just the way you are."

The USS COle was commisioned during the Clinton years dimwit! If he wanted to cut it from the budget he could have because the first piece of steel hadn't been laid when he was inaugurated.

It isn't the president's job to call out which piece of military equipment is decommissioned, the Pentagon does that. Just another ignorant comment from you. If Clinton ripped the military apart, how is it we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with just a couple of tractors and a combine. Based on your theory we only had an elephant.

It isn't the presidents job to dictate where or how a ship refuels. Now before you slip and fall into how little you know again, provide a link to your accusation.

"Unbelievable!!!!! I am actually laughing WITH you Russ! Post of 5:58. EEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"

Don't laugh to hard, it's not like it hasn't been the cause of death of a few soldiers in the past.

"This is certain an objective piece of work. You can do better than this Russ if there really was any evidence."

You of all people telling me I can do better. Fuck you, I already did!

"Furthermore, while we're on the subject of evidence, the preponderence of evidence shows that Clinton didn't nothing even though he had bin Laden in his cross-hairs on no fewer than three occasional and a dozen or so other times when he could have been easily targeted. We had guys who were tailing him 24/7 for years during Clinton's administration. Perhaps it was the "allergy" Clinton had for using the military or doing anything that might result in politically unpopular war casualties that Dick Morris was describing as far back as 1997 that caused him to blow repeated attempts to get bin Laden."

Listen close to what's rattlin' around in there Steve.

A tail on bin Laden 24/7? ...and did nothing? How does that compare to "actually I never really think about him."

or

....need we bring this up again; ten thousand plus military and we concentrate where he isn't, Iraq.

You've used the Clinton did nothing excuse now, so please tell me how many in the GOP wanted to go to war at any time prior to the 9/11 attack? How many conservatives proposed war that Clinton in turn opposed?

I remember Monica, and the medias' (lib biased) tail wagging the dog, but nope, not a conservative screaming war.

How many terror related suspects were tried convicted and sentenced during the Clinton years?

Lisa, Steve

Did you just decide to ignore my 5:36 post? I basically shows how's congress shut Clinton down on legislation for increasing powers to wiretap and trace the chemical signatures of explosives.

You say Clinton did less than he could of. Well this article demostrates that the GOP wanted to do even less than he did at that point and time...because they were afraid of the very trampling of rights issue the Democrats are worried about today.

"Steve doesn't appear to me to "dislike" the president. He just gets annoyed when the President ISN'T conservative enough. As do I. I still love the guy. He IS weak"

Lias finally gets it correct.

Google EPIC

Bush is the craziest president we've ever had, and they think he's too weak. How did you ever survive up this point, being he's about the farthest on right that we've ever had.

"I think he may have been refering (dare I bring it up) to the USS Cole bombing. He took a lot of heat for doing nothing, as seen by the conservatives."

As well he should have. A quick look at President Clinton's whereabouts and focus will tell you that he was not breaking his back trying to get Al Qaeda or bin Laden following the bombing of the USS Cole. Instead, he was busy building a "legacy" of failed Middle East peace talks and unconscionable last-minute pardons.

"With all the chest thumping going on today, Clinton's assesment of the mentality of the American public and conservatives regarding war and the Al Quaida threat is correct. Not a chance would have there been a vote for war!"

And that's the difference between President Bush and President Clinton. President Bush doesn't care what the poll numbers say. He does what he believes is right. When was the last time the President let the opposition of Congresss stop him from introducing legislation or taking action ANYWAY?

If Clinton was so concerned that there was an imminent threat coming from the Middle East, why didn't he TELL us? Why didn't his VICE PRESIDENT say ANYTHING about it while running for the office that would have given him the power to do something about it?

No, there can only be two possibilities: either Clinton really did believe bin Laden was capable of what he ended up doing--and he is an inhuman, self-aggrandizing, egotistical monster with no concern for the public--or only a few analysts really thought there was a viable threat, in which case it makes sense that Clinton, Gore, and Bush back-burnered the whole issue, on the odds that a big terrorist event was unlikely enough that other things needed attending to, instead.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because I can't stand to think that an American president would believe what President Clinton now claims to have believed about AQ and bin Laden at the time--and not warn the innocent American public. I can't believe an American president could sleep at night or look in the mirror in the morning, sincerely believing that he was hiding from us the fact that international terrorists were likely mounting a major attack on thousands of innocent Americans.

That is too horrible to believe. Even of President Clinton.

"Bush is the craziest president we've ever had, and they think he's too weak."

Got any clinical evidence to back this up? Of course not. Because it's nonsense. Just like the "Bush is dyslexic" claim was ridiculous. Just like "Reagan is an idiot" wasn't a political argument. Just like "Republicans are theocrats" is Democrat boilerplate for "don't look now, we've run out of ideas." Just like "Vampire Bush is Hitler" isn't worthy of American political discourse--and yet, they say it anyway.

Are you in a non-aligned nation, by chance?

Bush is the craziest president we've ever had, and they think he's too weak. How did you ever survive up this point, being he's about the farthest on right that we've ever had.

Another scintilating missive from PME's legendary philosopher and historian. Awestriking!

Kerry,

Close your eyes for a moment, lift up slightly and tap those red slippers, now STOP!

In summary your post stated that your beloved did nothing. It's been stated in prior reports, including the 9/11 Commission report. George W. Bush and his administration failed miserably.

Are you saying "W" ran for the office of President of the United States of America and didn't know what was going on in the world? He was completely tuned out and unaware? He wasn't astute, perceptive or remotely aware of the danger American citizens may be facing?

Well, I've been saying "He did Nothing!" for a long time, and now it seems you are agreeing. With aspirations of becoming president, I would think one would be aware of world affairs. Even if he was told nothing, you are attempting to blame Gore and Clinton for "Ws" ignorance. This is a new neo-con twist. Do you think "W" asked for the info and was denied?

Now that Steve has brought up the subject on Clinton being pissed, support your argument on why he shouldn't be.

The PME neos are doing the same Wag the Dog as before. When Clinton expressed the terrorist threat, the rightwing accused him of trying to draw attention away from Monica. When the WTC was bombed after Clinton's inauguration did he blame George H.W. Bush? No!

In closing, Kerry your post of 9/26 7:35 AM is straight up BS. If you care to know the truth do a little research on Clinton's 1996 anti-terror bill. Again, how many terrorists were captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced during the Clinton administration?

Mr. Russ, Were you drinking or something when you posted? First off, you intentionally misquoted me. I didn't say, "he IS weak." I said, "he IS weak on immigration." Secondly, your post of 6:36p.m. supposedly in response to my saying I was laughing with you, makes no sense. Clinton's finger has been "the cause of death of a few soldiers in the past"? What? Thirdly, where did I say that Clinton wanted to decommission the Cole? I said the REFUELING tankers. If you were trying to say that Clinton allowing the ship to be built means dems are for the military, sorry, no. How is it that Clinton gets credit for the Cole's existence because according to you, he could have cut it out of the budget, but you can't see that the number of oil tankers were downsized because of his cutting the budget? Where did I say that Clinton dictated where and how ships refueled? It was his fault though that the Cole had to come into port to do so.

"Another scintilating missive from PME's legendary philosopher and historian. Awestriking!"

Fizzle!

Lisa, your assertion and logic on the USS Cole are flat. You know absolutely *nothing* on how the military operates. If there were forty tankers, it's highly unlikely one would follow a single US Navy vessel operating in a forward position. President Clinton did not....blah...blah...bla, the Pentagon did! The Pentagon, followed by the Navy and the commanders in charge of making the decisions to decommission old tankers were responsible for fewer tankers. Now do you know why they decommissioned the tankers without ordereing new ones? Didn't think so, or you wouldn't be hanging on this Clinton was the cause of the USS Cole's need to refuel in the port of Aden.

Hmmmm, misquote? Here I thought you had seen the light. Tell us what his strengths are. You know, it would be fun if we used the alphabet. Lets make two lists, one for his positive traits and one for the negative. Due to my great love I'll lead with "A" arrogant. Now, your turn.

Lisa is correct in that there are always tankers positioned in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea for, in Navy jargon, Underway Replenishment or Un-Rep. I’m not sure how funding played a part in the availability of an Un-Rep. I’ve never heard or read of this. In any case, while Un-Rep was and is a very common operation, when I was deployed in the Med, about half of our refueling missions were done in port. Typical refueling ports are Haifa (Israel), Rota (Spain), Toulon (France), Naples (Italy) and Izmir (Turkey). Our ship also refueled in Constanta (Romania) and Trieste (Italy). The other thing to keep in mind is that Un-Reps are actually cheaper than port refueling, which, among other things, involves rather hefty docking fees, port master and tug fees, etc. Navy vessels are not generally equipped with bow thrusters and, as such, are unable to pull into port unassisted. I do know that porting in Yemen was uncommon, however porting in uncommon ports was not altogether uncommon in itself. lol. Did that make sense? We ported in Tunis (Tunisia) for two weeks, which was rather uncommon… then we took on a platoon of Tunisian special forces for a month as they trained with our SEALs.

JNE, Lisa is incorrect and so are you.

What does always mean to you? Was it based on the fact that you were *always* supported by an Un-Rep? Your post says no. I'm not sure when you served in the military but the downsizing of the Un-Reps and civilainizing of the crews began before Clinton was elected. If the Un-Reps were the cheapest way to go then we need to back up the bus and give this responsibility to GHWB and his predecessor RR.

In regard to responsibility for the refueling location of th USS Cole, Gen. Tommy Franks is, was and has accepted responsibility. Twenty four or twenty five US ships had refueled in Aden before the Cole without incident. Although the risk was known they still chose to refuel.

Yes it happened on Clintons watch and he accepts this, but the day to day decisions were not his direction and the downsizing argument falls into the category of *Lisa has no original thoughts*.

JNE,

My comment in regard to you being incorrect wasn't intended to mean an UN-Rep wasn't stationed in the proximity. IF it was then why was it not used. There are not enough Un-Refs vessels available to support every forward operating navy vessel and there never has been.

Maybe you can shed more light on how a battle group is put together for the Persian Gulf. How the ships arrive at destination and from which fleet they are borrowed/loaned. Where was the USS Cole going and from where it had been?

Russ, though common, Un-Reps are dangerous operations as you might expect. I suspect the primary reason for their frequency is training. The personnel who conduct the bulk of the work during Un-Reps are also the personnel with the highest turnover rate. Although Un-Reps are an "all hands" operation, the line work is handled primarily by the deck hands and boatswains mates. There ARE always tankers positioned in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea. Whether or not there are sufficient numbers to supply all ships in a battle group, I don't know. I do know we frequently underwent dual Un-Reps, meaning that the supply tanker was positioned between two ships each receiving an underway replenishment. Un-Reps are not just for fuel either. Food stores and supplies are lifted by helo from the supply tanker to the destination ship. Mail is often brought aboard in this manner. If you've never seen one, they are pretty intense operations. The USS Cole bombing happened the year I discharged from the military.

There are other reasons for port calls as well. One of the obvious reasons is that sailors need some time away from the ship. Port calls give them an opportunity for some liberty. This probably wasn't the case in Yemen though. Repairs are almost always conducted in port. If you're in an area where waste cannot be discharged, port calls are necessary to remove waste and sewage. It's also possible that in a high traffic area like the Red Sea is near the Suez, Un-Reps may not be permitted. There are a hundred reasons why the USS Cole may have refueled in Yemen and not at sea. I don't know what those reasons are. Most of this is speculation based on experience. It was during my time aboard ship that I received my Surface Warfare Specialist designation, meaning that I was required to demonstrate familiarity with every operation on our particular ship. One of the focus points was Un-Reps so I can say that I know what I'm talking about.

A mistake on my part... the bombing occurred in the Gulf of Aden and not the Red Sea. The area would still be considered high traffic though. If you look at a map of this area that shows shipping lanes, it's not hard to see why. The quickest route from the Indian and Pacific Oceans to Europe is directly along this shipping lane through the Suez Canal and into the Med.

Lisa,

Just a little help in making a connection to reality. This bit was part of Gen. Franks testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the USS Cole attack.

"In view of the pending 3,300-mile movement from the Suez Canal to the Northern Arabian Gulf, it was clear that she would be required to refuel. It is U.S. Navy policy that an Oiler not accompany a single ship during transits, so the decision was made that USS COLE would conduct a brief stop for fuel (BSF) in Aden, Yemen."

Oiler: Aka, Un-Rep, refueling tanker, supply ship.

US Central Command borrows ships from the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets to form their battle groups, and this was the reason for the Coles journey.

"Kerry,"

Yes?

"In summary your post stated that your beloved did nothing. It's been stated in prior reports, including the 9/11 Commission report. George W. Bush and his administration failed miserably."

No one has said that the ENTIRE preparation for 9/11 wasn't inadequate. But President Bush had only 7 1/2 months to get up to speed on the situation--WHILE working on EVERY OTHER PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, after missing a crucial chunk of the transition time, thanks to Al "Played on Our Fears" Gore. President Clinton watched the WTC blow up once and took seven years to do nothing about it. President Bush watched the WTC blow up, and changed the world because of it.

President Clinton could have used his considerable popularity to change the world to protect us from terrorism. He chose instead to look at the terrorists as just another form of criminal and go after them in courts, halfheartedly, without putting the US on a war footing.

President Bush could have done as much nothing as Clinton did. Sure, 9/11 was awful, but he only had to wait a few weeks for the Democrats to have gotten on board with a "wait and see" attitude--then he could have been the "uniting" one who reached out to the moveon crowd (including ANSWER, which was formed the day after 9/11 to oppose war and warlike action.) His eternal, Clintonian legacy would have been assured.

But he didn't. He moved heaven and earth to re-fit the entire government to fight what he recognized as an enemy in WAR--not a bunch of criminals who needed to be arrested--a swarm of ENEMIES, who needed to be obliterated.

I think Clinton took the coward's way out because of who he is--a fundamentally selfish, legacy-obsessed poll-watcher. And Bush did the courageous thing that could have sunk his presidency because of who he is--an America-first, duty-driven patriot, who knows the purpose of his life.

"Are you saying "W" ran for the office of President of the United States of America and didn't know what was going on in the world? He was completely tuned out and unaware? He wasn't astute, perceptive or remotely aware of the danger American citizens may be facing?"

He knew as much as any other candidate knew--except Gore, who--IF the Clinton administration really was concerned about it--SHOULD HAVE KNOWN more. When the two candidates were briefed on national security, do you think this was considered a key item? If so, neither Gore nor Bush picked up on it, did they? Gore thought the major threat to the US was the internal combustion engine. Bush thought it was socialized medicine and the nanny state. Neither one mentioned national security as the number one priority. Either it wasn't back then--or they BOTH dropped the ball because the briefing DIDN'T TELL THEM. Which, one would have to assume, would mean that the Clinton Administration (which prepares the briefings) didn't think so, either.

"Well, I've been saying "He did Nothing!" for a long time, and now it seems you are agreeing."

He did what he did. He didn't have a lot of time to do anything. There was a crisis in China in the meantime, you may recall.

"With aspirations of becoming president, I would think one would be aware of world affairs."

Not if they're secret.

"Even if he was told nothing, you are attempting to blame Gore and Clinton for "Ws" ignorance. This is a new neo-con twist. Do you think "W" asked for the info and was denied?"

No, I think he was given the intel the Clinton administration deemed important--which, judging from the actions of both Bush and Gore (AND Clinton), didn't include international terrorism as a fast-track priority.

"Now that Steve has brought up the subject on Clinton being pissed, support your argument on why he shouldn't be."

Because he was president, and it's his duty to be president, to do what he can, and to retire, shut up, and support the next president.

"The PME neos are doing the same Wag the Dog as before. When Clinton expressed the terrorist threat, the rightwing accused him of trying to draw attention away from Monica. When the WTC was bombed after Clinton's inauguration did he blame George H.W. Bush? No!"

No, and he didn't do much about it, either. He was more upset about Oklahoma City (which he blamed on Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and talk-radio) than about international Islamic terrorism, which was tearing pieces out of our military and Americans around the world.

"In closing, Kerry your post of 9/26 7:35 AM is straight up BS. If you care to know the truth do a little research on Clinton's 1996 anti-terror bill. Again, how many terrorists were captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced during the Clinton administration?"

Obviously, not enough.

"He knew as much as any other candidate knew--except Gore, who--IF the Clinton administration really was concerned about it--SHOULD HAVE KNOWN more. When the two candidates were briefed on national security, do you think this was considered a key item? If so, neither Gore nor Bush picked up on it, did they? Gore thought the major threat to the US was the internal combustion engine. Bush thought it was socialized medicine and the nanny state. Neither one mentioned national security as the number one priority. Either it wasn't back then--or they BOTH dropped the ball because the briefing DIDN'T TELL THEM. Which, one would have to assume, would mean that the Clinton Administration (which prepares the briefings) didn't think so, either."

Kerry, your response is lame. The fact that he ignored what he was told doesn't support your lie that he wasn't.

In regard to what he actually knew; When he was inaugurated (2001) he couldn't name the ruler, dictator, president (?) of Pakistan if his life depended on it. This goes for most of the other leaders of foriegn countries that were our allies. Since you have chosen to respond as to cause comic relief I'll leave you with this...

Dan Quayle was the son George H. W. Bush never had. After six years of "W" has it become clearer to most why "HW" picked Quayle as a VP.

PS. You still working on a source for a money connection to the vinyard parable?

"Fizzle!"

The word is "sizzle" which is the sound we make as we right thinkers continue to burn your bitter, useless moonbat asses.

Now go change your diapers methusula

Team up with Rhodes. 2 -1s still = 0

"PS. You still working on a source for a money connection to the vinyard parable?"

No, I figure that if you can't figure it out from the way it already contains words like "owner" and "pay" and "wages," there's nothing I can do. You're like the rich man in Abraham's bosom. God Himself could tell you, and you wouldn't believe it because you've already rejected everything else He told you.

Kerry,

I will understand if you choose to not answer this, after my outburst on the Wallace-Clinton article.

I ask you to forgive me.

The parable is about Gods justice. The first verse refers to the Kindom of Heaven which would or should automatically raise a flag that the message isn't literally "money".

The reason for money being used in the parable was that the Jews viewed wealth as a sign of their godliness, their blessing from God. In turn those who had been working longer and paid the same felt cheated. Jesus was undoing what they had come to believe, and what they taught.

The last is first and first is last; refers to people, Christians (actually people of all religions), who believe they are better than someone, another Christian, because they have been a Christian (believer) longer. Their rite-of-passage thinking, or seats closer to the throne will not occur.

God continues to seek those who have not been told, therefore the continued return seeking those who were unemployed, had not been asked to work, had not heard the message. The Jewish priests thought their knowledge and wealth earned them entry above all others.

Chapter 18 is a parable on forgiveness. Chapter 20 is about equality. Yes money was used to tweak the thought process.

It was sometime in the past few months when SF (I think) made the connection between the rich man entering heaven and the camel through the eye of a needle.

Parable: Ficticious story, laced with hyperbole, plus the example of The Kindom of Heaven is like...,with God saying I can do as I wish isn't about an employer paying wages.

I ask that you be open to research this further.

Bush favorability up over 50%, just in time for the election. Woo-Hoo! We win. Again.

Leftards, how does it feel to ALWAYS lose? To NEVER win? To spend your whole existance as a permanent minority?

"I will understand if you choose to not answer this, after my outburst on the Wallace-Clinton article.

I ask you to forgive me."

I forgive you, Russ. Though I have to confess I'm not entirely sure what for. I don't know that you've committed an offense against me.

At any rate, on the doctrinal question on the parable of the Vineyard, we'll have to agree to disagree. My heremenutics tells me that a parable won't work as intended unless the audience for it accepts and understands the underlying point of comparison. Apparently, you don't require that in your interpretation.

Respectfully submitted,

I'm not reopening the discussion on stewardship, but I'd like clarification of this:

"God continues to seek those who have not been told, therefore the continued return seeking those who were unemployed, had not been asked to work, had not heard the message."

What are you talking about here? What does the "continued return" mean? Where does Jesus talk about the unemployed? Who "had not been asked to work?"

Kerry,

When I asked you to forgive me, I was refering to my post in the NIE delassification article when I called you a stupid bitch.

"At any rate, on the doctrinal question on the parable of the Vineyard, we'll have to agree to disagree. My heremenutics tells me that a parable won't work as intended unless the audience for it accepts and understands the underlying point of comparison. Apparently, you don't require that in your interpretation."

I agree, a person must understand the underlying points being made and why the points are referenced.

When Jesus spoke to the crowds or multitudes were his sermons written in the bible? Not of any significant percentage. When his words were written who was he usally speaking to? Was it an individual, his disciples or Jewish priests and leaders or all of the above? It was all of the above.

In reference to your original use of the parable and it's application to WalMart, you were correct. Yes, WalMart does have the right to pay employees based on their agreement.

The parable was based on the Kingdom of Heaven and a believers salvation. The reference to money was directed at the Jewish leaders because they thought their wealth was a reflection of Gods gifts to them, based on their godliness, holiness, or overall closeness to God. Jesus was telling them; it ain't so! For the owner of the vinyard to pay the same wage for one hour as he did for eight was more than a slap in the face to the workers. Their belief and faith was based on works righteous teaching. The harder you work the closer you are to God and Jesus told them; it ain't so! He was saying; if you insist on your teaching, you will be last or in other words, don't be angry if you are not in the door first.

When the vinyard owner returned to look for more workers and he asked; why are you not working (unemployed) and they responded; we were not asked i.e. we did not know you were looking for workers, Jesus was saying; continue to look for converts, keep going out, keep looking.

When Jesus said; it is Gods' kingdom and he can do as he wishes; he was telling the leaders their wealth wouldn't get them closer to God, and it may keep them at a distance.

The parable wasn't about the vinyard owner or WalMart paying wages. It was about how the owner and God views humanity.

I asked for one reference that interpreted the parable as you stated. You haven't produced one example or reference. If your heremeneutics can't get you past this one parable, then how is it possible to tell someone of another religious faith what they believe or that you are competent in the interpretation of their scripture?

I'm not a Greek scholar, but I'm not aware of any interpretation supporting you. I can easily give you reference to ten or more theologians that support my position. Actually it isn't my position, it's their position.

You post here and much of what you post is based on your faith, yet you choose to keep a closed mind regarding this parable and most of the other literal translations you read or hear. The verse you quote supporting your argument is one of sixteen of the parable.

In closing, I wasn't aware we were having a discussion on stewardship? The parable of the vinyard is about discipleship.