Originally Posted by
manfrommaine
Please explain how I am willing to give bin Laden a pass. I point out that in the pre-9/11 world, no one paid enough attention to bin Laden. Clinton perhaps did not pursue him as aggressively as he might have... Bush certainly stopped the predator overflights that were designed to track him and that might very well have found him that summer.... but hindsight is 20/20. The fact of the matter is: we didn't have enough evidence of any crimes committed by OBL prior to 5/96 to take him into custody.
And I have never denied for a moment that I am partisan. I disagree with the use of the word "abject" as a modifier to it, however. I find nothing utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, wretched, contemptible, despicable or shamelessly servile about my partisanship. I believe in the ideals of my party and will do all I can that is legal to advance them. Referring to that as "abject" is inaccurate, but I guess my experiences here over the past week or so has shown me that accuracy in language is certainly not all that important here, so I probably should not make much more of a fuss about it.
Ah but your own words on this forum hoist you up on your own petard, manfrommaine. See your commentary in the post at: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...4&postcount=49.
You pish-toshed the idea that Bin Laden was anything more than "associated" with Ramzi Yousef during the Clinton years and grasped desperately and without efficacy for some kind of excuse for Clinton having done nothing in this regard.
I choose my terms quite carefully manfrommaine and the use of abject as a modifier paints you in the light of your own commentary and ideology.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F Buckley, Jr