Bush was offered Bin Laden and said no

[gWbush is Mabus]

...AFTER he knew Bin Laden was behind the Cole bombing

see the video on the right hand side. (crucial part is at around 5 minutes in)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240/


Bush is a fucking traitor.

[blm]

1. We knew about this years ago - - the CORPORATE MEDIA refused to address

the entire issue of Bush's failures and incompetence till now, even though ALL of this information was just as available to them as it was to us - - - And I bet most media still will not give this info the coverage it deserves.

[bushisanidiot]

2. AND he sat on his ass on 9/11 and DID NOTHING while we were attacked

Once he got tired of sitting on his ass, he ran away like a scared little boy.

He is no leader. He never was. He never will be.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Just like he did during the Katrina disaster

Bush is always AWOL when the country needs him the most.

[dennis4868]

6. But but but.....

Bush says the Dems are the part of cutting and running....

[madokie]

5. only to like minded people maybe

[underpants]

4. Thanks added to me You Tube favorites

Sad very very sad

[Igel]

7. Both * and Clinton had the same kind of offer.

Show us your proof, such that we're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that bin Ladin's a bad guy by our legal standards, and he's yours. It's reasonable on the surface, but frequently unreasonable in practice.

First, it's a high hurdle to jump. Standards of proof vary, but oddly I've seen no discussion of the Taliban's standard of proof. It seemed mostly that "the government's evidence was always accepted, the plaintiff's not accepted"--except that in this case the government in question was on bin Ladin's side.

Second, let's say that they provided all the evidence. Not just summaries: The people who were providing the evidence, i.e., informants on the ground, people that witnessed things. Photographs. Recordings, identifying who's saying what. Now, remember, we don't do that in the US with the mob: we know that if there's a mob informant, his identity will have to be protected, or his identity will have to be revealed and then he'll have to be in a witness protection program. This reduces the number of witnesses available, and makes it harder to show sufficient evidence. And if the prosecutor has to produce all the evidence, then they know who's phones were tapped, who informed, who was watched. Those not immediately indicted know how to alter things to make future prosecutions harder.

With classified material, it's called graymail. We hate it when Libby tries it, trying to get his trial dismissed by the prosecution because classified information would have to be made public. But we seem to think it's just dandy when the Taliban do it. Or perhaps we don't recognize it when we see it.

It's a disingenuous, unfair charge when freepers make it against Clinton. My moral standards aren't partisan.