On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Dan Scanlan wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Michael Perelman wrote: >> >>> >>> The Taliban asked for evidence that bin Laden was guilty before handing >>> him over. Concerns about evidence would diminish presidential >>> authority, so the offer was rejected. >> >> Evidence? What evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence! Just control >> of the national chatter. > > Does anyone believe that Osama didn't have anything to do with 9/11?
Or that the Taliban were being sincere in their negotiations about 'evidence'? The one good thing Bush's war achieved was getting rid of that outfit.. -raghu. -- "If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
