Antiwar movement losing steam?????

[Kelley]

At 12:52 AM 10/30/01 -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Kelley wrote:
>
> > ... the reason for going after the Taliban is because they asked the
> > Taliban to turn Al Qaeda over. They asked them to cooperate. The
> > Taliban did not...
>
>The Taliban offered (a) to deliver OBL for trial if the US presented
>credible evidence against him and/or (b) to discuss the matter of the
>terrorist networks.  The US spurned both offers (as it spurned proposals
>for negotiation before the Gulf and Kosovo Wars), and there is as yet no
>public evidence against OBL strong enough to lead to an indictment in a
>criminal court.  (Blair's account surely wasn't that.) --CGE

as i said, USers think that the US had every right to spurn those demands. 
reverting to previous examples doesn't cut it in this situation. people 
feel morally justified given the incident, especially at the time.  we have 
to address those sentiments and not brush them off with lame ass leftist b.s.

i don't agree, which is why, if you'll recall, i kept insisting that no one 
knows that ObL did it and we still don't and we ought to have it that one 
as hard as possible awhile back.

so, if you, CGE, can't be bothered to get it right about where i stand, 
i've articulated it plenty, then you can tell it to the same cushion that 
TO can tell it to.