Tim,

it also seems like Clinton did everything possible to catch OBl except a
ground war in Afghanistan.
Currently the US Military is 21/2 years there and can't find OBL.
So, IMO he didn't do such a bad job on OBL either.

She=Mrs. Albright
U.S. cruise missiles struck al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan after the
bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and she said bin
Laden's Taliban hosts were warned they would be held accountable for future
attacks traced back to the terrorist network.

"There should have been no confusion that our personnel were authorized to
kill bin Laden," Albright said. "We did not, after all, launch cruise
missiles for the purpose of serving legal papers."

She said that it was difficult to find useful intelligence about bin
Laden's location.

"President Clinton had ordered that lethal force be used. There were armed
submarines in the Arabian Sea and a variety of bombers on standby and ready
to go. So the orders were there. The president also asked for a variety of
options from the Pentagon in terms of Special Forces ... as far as I know
there was no option off the table."

She said that U.S. officials were also using all diplomatic, legal and
financial means it had to put pressure on al Qaeda.




On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:52:29 -0500, Gates, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Tim,
>
>I've heard this 'draft dodging' accusation about Bill Clinton for TOO
>LONG--usually with the implication that he did something illegal.  He got a
>'college deferment' like THOUSANDS of other college students his age.  At
my
>high school, most teachers who went by the name "Coach" received the same
>deferment.  One "coach" served in VN and was actually a POW--but NO, he
>didn't hold it against those who didn't go.
>
>I do not care one way or another that Mr. Bush served in the National
>Guard--EXCEPT--he used his father's political position to be ALLOWED to
>serve. Former Vice President Dan Quayle did the same. I also find it a bit
>problematic that Mr. Bush MAY OR MAY NOT have showed up. At LEAST Danny boy
>bothered to show his face.  But THAT was 30ish years ago and is long past.
>
>Dragging EVERYBODY to the PRESENT.
>
>I AM GREATLY concerned with the way the country is being run TODAY.  Mr.
>Bush handles the office of President like the spoiled and arrogant son of a
>retired CEO who inherited the position rather than achieving it on his own
>merits.  He acts as if the United States is a corporation that must follow
>his every whim, rather a NATION that has a DIRECT say in every thing he
does
>while in office.  IMHO, we are NOT Mr. Bush's employees, he is OURS and
>SHOULD have to explain and justify his actions.
>
>Current allegations by Richard Clarke, if true, are deeply troubling to me,
>and SHOULD be to you.   IF TRUE, they characterize an administration that
>had pre-determined the invasion and occupation of Iraq and was willing to
>ignore real threats to security to achieve its goals.  One individual with
>both a book to sell and a political ax to grind could possibly be ignored,
>but there are others who have accused the Bush Administration of doctoring
>reports, intelligence, budgets, etc, to suit it's own aims.  (If you
haven't
>been paying attention to the news for the past two years, PLEASE do not ask
>for the laundry list of people who've accused the Bush White House twisting
>truth and fallacy beyond recognition.)
>
>Lastly, Clinton is GONE.  It's OVER--Stop trying to have the #($#
impeached.
>Just like Reagan is gone, Carter is gone, Ford is gone.  Nixon is DEAD.
Etc.
>You can't dig any other former presidents up and try them for 'crimes'
>committed while in office either.  Just PRAY that Hillary doesn't decide to
>run--even I couldn't take another term of Clintons in the White House.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Cummings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:07 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: A clarification of some Misconceptions of the
>Guard
>
>
>Christian,
>
>I guess a better qualification for being President would be to dodge the
>draft completely and roam foreign countries schmoozing with
>socialists/communists and disparaging his country (ala Bill Clinton).
>
>Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christian Lheureux [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:45 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: A clarification of some Misconceptions of the
>Guard
>
>
>Perhaps one should not confuse the National Guard itself and the reason why
>a particular individual chooses to serve there.
>
>I'm ready to bet that the great majority of the women and men who serve in
>the NG choose to do so for perfectly horable motives. However, some
>individuals (a GWB obviously comes to my mind ...) may have chosen the NG
to
>avoid taking risks, and may have chosen to do so using their families'
>connections, thus undermining the democratic ideal of Armed Service equal
>for all.
>
>In a nutshell, let's nont confuse the National Guard and the reason why
>somebody served there.
>
>Christian
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la
>> part de Brice Yokem Envoyé : mardi 23 mars 2004 14:40
>> À : [log in to unmask]
>> Objet : Re: [HP3000-L] OT: A clarification of some
>> Misconceptions of the
>> Guard
>>
>>
>> It really doesn't matter whether one is in the National. Guard or
>> Regular Army, a certain percentage of the force is going to be in the
>> support role regardless of the source of manpower.  For example, the
>> National Guard units ratio to Regular Army units called to WWII and
>> Vietnam were relatively few compared to today, (WWII created mostly
>> new units) yet the Combat to Support ratio is similar.  The below
>> analysis was written 1996:
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> My understanding was the Guard was only called into actual combat in a
>> 'pinch', since the primary role of the Guard is duties at home, such
>> as putting down domestic disturbances, like riots, or non-combat
>> duties like rescue operations, disaster control, emergency services.
>> Since a war overseas requires more logistics than one nearer to
>> home, I reasoned
>> the Guard was used to 'make up the difference'.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> This would be true in any Army except Costa Rica's.
>> These are givens.  Since Art's prior post was conveniently snipped,
>> what argument are you trying to counter?
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> It was Michael I was trying to counter, not Art.  I claimed the
>> military gave the soldiers training to discipline the instincts we all
>> have, this
>> was in the cycle of democracy thread.  I said 'years' of
>> training because
>> I was thinking of the special forces, Michael responded with
>> 6 weeks and
>> ridiculed me for not knowing anything about the military.  As it turns
>> out, it is 8 weeks minimum, and more for anyone who gets
>> advanced training
>> so apparently I know more than he does.  Michael appears to delight in
>> putting me down, no matter how foolish he needs to make
>> himself look in
>> order to do it.
>>
>> In any case after this long harangue, it appears to stand that the
>> training the military gets has as one of its purposes to discipline
>> the drives we all have.
>>
>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *