David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:56:03 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:


David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p



Again, you believe the party line, which is total misinformation. The
Bin Ladins, the Bushes and the Saudis are all working together to
****-over us little people. NWO.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...359690,00.html






Ah, yes. The gratuitous oversimplified accusation. Which, by the
rules of logic, may be gratuitously denied.


And so it has.


It's been fun, David. But since you not only know, and understand,
the truth, certainly enough to argue both sides as you have so far here
today, I'll take leave of you now, as my participation in the discussion
is clearly unnecessary.

Have a good day, David.

Look forward to conversing with you again, when the mood strikes.