On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:08:47 +0900, Michael Cash
<mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:53:28 +0200, "b"
><nospam.bengabenga@caramail.com> brought down from the Mount tablets
>inscribed:
>
>>
>>
>>> Because for the statement to make sense Bush would have had to
>>> surrender to Bin Laden within 40 days of September 11, 2001.
>>
>>
>>Isn't this what happened in way ? by entering these fundamentalist Muslim's 
>>frameset/ vision of the world and calling for a semi-holy war against 
>>"terror" ?
>>wasn't this what Bin Laden wanted somehow, being recognized as a champion in 
>>the fight against his great Satan ? 
>
>While one can argue that point and do so in quite a compelling
>fashion, it doesn't serve to validate the parallel here.

OK, how about effectively abandoning the pursuit of Bin Laden in
Afghanistan, thus allowing him to escape to Pakistan, and
concentrating all the military power on Saddam Hussein instead?

Maybe it was just a retreat and not a full surrender, Mike.

Raj