Sorry bro, but the only point you left is that you're an asshole. Just being honest. Your bizarre preoccupation with me being a bellboy led me to believe that you have a "thang" for bellboys. If you can prove you do not, by all means go ahead. I don't need you to tell me I "can have the entire argument." That is readily apparent. You need not make the formal gesture of acquiesing because it is so obvious that I owned you here. Yes, any look at the threads will illustrate your folly and my ownage. Anyhoo, glad Pabst managed to calm you down, until your next bipolar episode kicks in and you go off on another racist, homophobic rant. As I've said (and proved) over and over, I won't start a flame war with you, but will happily rebutt you should you start another. In the meantime, don't go away mad. Just go away. I'll do the same. Have a nice evening.
Clinton's flawed legacy By Robert D. Novak Monday, October 2, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A week after Bill Clinton lashed out at anchor Chris Wallace's questioning on "Fox News Sunday," prominent Democrats were still debating among themselves whether the former president's performance was good or bad for their party. However, they all disregarded a harsh but widely overlooked rebuke of Clinton the next morning. On Sunday, Clinton assailed Wallace for "your nice little conservative hit job on me" in questioning his determination as president to get Osama bin Laden. On CBS's "Early Show" Monday, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration, Michael Scheuer, said the al Qaeda leader "is alive today" because Clinton and his top lieutenants refused to kill him. "It's just an incredible kind of situation," said Scheuer, "for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them." Scheuer's blunt remonstrance goes to the heart of what probably impelled Clinton's finger-pointing on national television. Rather than attempting to shape the midterm campaign, as Republicans believe, he was interested in protecting his legacy. No former president in the last half-century has seemed so sensitive to critical assessments of his tenure. That was demonstrated in the recent New Yorker article about Clinton by the magazine's editor, David Remnick. He reported a 20-minute Clinton tirade, at a dinner with virtual strangers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, about the Whitewater investigation that led to his impeachment. Earlier, Remnick described Clinton as "infuriated by the way the [Bush] administration's rhetoric painted anyone who criticized any aspect of its policy in Iraq as weak on national security." Clinton grows doubly infuriated by implication of such weakness by him during his presidency. Although the intensity of his outburst against Wallace was unplanned, Clinton was ready to upbraid anybody who questioned his performance. Unexpected by the former president was a rebuttal, not by a Republican partisan, but a CIA professional never confused with being a Bush acolyte. Scheuer resigned from the CIA in 2004 after 22 years' service to publish, at first anonymously, "Imperial Hubris" -- a withering assault on performances by both Clinton and Bush. As a critic of Israel and Saudi Arabia alike, Scheuer fits no conventional ideological mold. In his role of CBS News terrorism analyst, Scheuer was asked Monday to comment on Clinton's Sunday performance and provided more than his questioner apparently bargained for. To claim that the CIA could not verify that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, said Scheuer, "the former president seems able to deny facts with impunity." Scheuer continued: "He defames the CIA . . . and the men and women who risked their lives to give their administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden." Asked whether Bush was no less responsible for letting bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in Afghanistan, Scheuer replied: "The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora, our forces were on the ground." --------------------------------------------------- Complete article at: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/10/02/clintons_flawed_legacy
found this on google vid. http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-6884155963216756796&q=bbc+documentary extremely interesting BBC researched material. somehow changed my perception of 90ies policy makers. the first three parts were quite interesting either.
Scheuer also believes Osama Bin Laden to be "pious, charismatic, gentle, generous, talented, and personally courageous", so proceed cautiously in questions of his objectivity. he was a complete zealot and outsider who wrote his books to rebel against supervisors and coworkers who kept him intentionally on the outside