bloodiest day in bagdhad since 'end of aggression'

[spillmind]

yeah, well- it's amazing how people still think we are 'on the right track'

i ask again: how bad does it have to get for us to pull out of iraq? will haliburton ever pull its claws away?

 

[dijetlo]

>>how bad does it have to get for us to pull out of iraq?<<
Oh, bad idea...
Iraq is sitting on a lot of oil (as you have correctly pointed out on several occassions). Iran, Pakistan, Isreal, Syria would turn Iraq into a free fire zone (Example: Lebanon in the 80s'). The value of the prize though is exponentialy greater, it would be reasonable to assume the level of violence would be correspondingly greater.
I'd suggest we begin to talk to the UN. They are the shortest route out of Iraq. A multinational force could take the edge of the occupation, the fewer americans in its' ranks, the more likely the Iraqis would turn their attention to thier future and forgive the sins of the past.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i ask again: how bad does it have to get for us to pull out of iraq? will haliburton ever pull its claws away?

As much as you are dying to see this, it's just not going to happen. The USA is in it until they can take care of themselves, or a coalition from the UN is their to oversee the operation.

Whether it's the USA or a coordinated effort from the UN, Iraq is going to have some sort of occupation for quite some time to come.

And you keep harping on Halliburton, why don't you tell us what the proper resolution should be? Tell us who is more qualified to do the work there, specifically with the oil lines, and give us some links to back up your nomination. You may not like them or the circumstances that brought them there, but they are the most qualified for the job.

 

[spillmind]

first off, doesn't it strike you as a *little* shady that these cronies of the cheneyco. scored the contract with closed doors bidding? until i can get someone to admit this, i cannot discuss their credentials. they are two very different topics.

i guess even an attack on our people there killing hundreds of troops wouldn't do it? i'm not saying i would ever wish this to happen, and i hope it doesn't- but it is a possible reality. and then how do you think the public would react?

honestly, i don't think we are *ever* leaving iraq in terms of a military presence, barring an astounding energy solution, or a radical new direction in our government. democrats and republicans are two heads of the beast that keeps perpetuating this conflict, and hanging on to iraq for political and energy reasons is the wrong route for our progressive country to take.

war on terror my arse. anyone feel safer yet?

 

[NightTrain]

war on terror my arse. anyone feel safer yet?

I do! I do! And so do you, numbnuts.

Any skyscrapers blown up lately?

Any ships attacked?

Any American civilians murdered domestically lately?

Any American planes hijacked lately?

Any illegal aliens caught up with and detained?

Any terrorists in custody and being prosecuted?

Any measures implemented to prevent another 9/11?

Any terrorist plots uncovered prior to execution?

Any terrorist supporting governments taken down lately?



Over two years and counting, so far so good.

I know it makes you cringe that a Republican President is protecting the country and correcting errors that your boy Clinton made, but even a rabid liberal such as yourself has to admit that we're definitely safer than we were prior to 9/11.

Don't think Clinton was responsible for 9/11?

Try me.

 

[Bry]

Allright, NT, I'd like to see what you have linking Clinton to 9/11. I won't say he doesn't have at least partial responsibility, but so far, investigators are asking what Bush knew.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

Maybe you should start another thread for this?

-B

 

[jimnyc]

I do! I do! And so do you, numbnuts. - Welcome back, NT

Any skyscrapers blown up lately? Not even the Pentagon

Any ships attacked? Some have come down with ailments, no bombs though!

Any American civilians murdered domestically lately? My search came up empty

Any American planes hijacked lately? Nope, but an attempt was foiled

Any illegal aliens caught up with and detained? I can't count that high

Any terrorists in custody and being prosecuted? The DOJ has charged over 260, and 140 of them have pled guilty

Any measures implemented to prevent another 9/11? You aren't allowed to ask that as it just means we had freedoms taken away

Any terrorist plots uncovered prior to execution? MANY

Any terrorist supporting governments taken down lately? But we didn't find WMD, they should have been allowed to continue their terrorist training and killing of civilians

I know it makes you cringe that a Republican President is protecting the country and correcting errors that your boy Clinton made, but even a rabid liberal such as yourself has to admit that we're definitely safer than we were prior to 9/11.

Clinton made errors? NO WAY! He might have done something that played a hand in all of this? Why haven't the liberals been speaking up about this? This is solely about how "America went about this all wrong", but I fail to see this being mentioned in their reasoning to defend that statement. I wonder why that is?

 

[spillmind]

'I do! I do! And so do you, numbnuts.

Any skyscrapers blown up lately?

Any ships attacked?

Any American civilians murdered domestically lately?

Any American planes hijacked lately?

Any illegal aliens caught up with and detained?

Any terrorists in custody and being prosecuted?

Any measures implemented to prevent another 9/11?

Any terrorist plots uncovered prior to execution?

Any terrorist supporting governments taken down lately?



Over two years and counting, so far so good.

I know it makes you cringe that a Republican President is protecting the country and correcting errors that your boy Clinton made, but even a rabid liberal such as yourself has to admit that we're definitely safer than we were prior to 9/11.

Don't think Clinton was responsible for 9/11?

Try me.'

come on! this is the best you can do?! how niave to assume there will never be another terror attack on our soil!

clinton caused 9/11?

here's a couple links for you to chew on, NT:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/09/faa/
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/23/terrorism/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/09/clinton.aviation/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/01/wh.terror.bill/index.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1912895.stm
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/clintonspeech_8-6.html
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html
http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22


i honestly expected more from you than a distraction on trifle tangents we've already gone round and round on.

sorry, NT, i'm really not impressed. and as for your name calling, you know where that belongs... on the playground with kids younger than your son.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

you can link clintons failures to the cause of 9-11 very,very easily. everything from him not treating the first wtc attack as terrorism, to pulling us troops out of somilia,which is often cited by obl as us being weak and scared to clinton turning down offers in 1996 for obl, the ins not kicking most of the highjackers out of the country in the late 90's after their visas expired, the refusals to freeze terrorist assests here in the us hell you can even look at that idiot madiline albright going on national tv and saying we know where obl is because we can track him through his satilite phone, which up to that point was classified and after that little nugget came out he stopped using it. you can also read the 9-11 report that lays out all the inteligence failures pre 9-11 most of which happend under clinton including the 30+ warnings of planes being highjacked and on and on and on. even clinton has said letting obl go was the biggest mistake he made as president

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

here are a few links on clinton and obl. if you want i could post the entire 9-11 report for everyone to read including the part where the fbi had an informant living with two of the highjackers in the year 2000 or the part where clinton had over 30 highjacking warnings between 1996-2000 but i think posting the full 900 page report might be excessive. but i did include links to articles that talk about how clinton had clears shots at obl with different uav's and didn't take them. it was clintons inactions that embolden obl and made him into a icon.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0144/gould.php
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ladnsudx.htm
http://www.observer.co.uk/Distribution/Redirect_Artifact/0,4678,0-560624,00.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/ijaz121101.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins070202.asp
http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/national-reporting/works/100301a.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24595
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/04/20/embassy.bombings.trial/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/941425.asp?cp1=1
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/6/30/112921
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90318,00.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34942
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma.../02/ixworld.html/news/2003/09/02/wclint02.xml

 

[Joan]

Welcome aboard Wilbury - and excellent post - The dems will go to any length to protect slick willy - who is guilty as charged!!

 

[jimnyc]

Good post, lefty!

Will give us all plenty of reading to do.

Welcome to the board.

 

[janeeng]

That was great lefty!!!!!!! :clap1:

 

[spillmind]

the back slapping gets a little ridiculous around here sometimes.

propers to you guys that backed up NT on that one.

i don't really even like Clinton, as far as i am concerned you can have both of those corrupt parties! give me a real candidate in my lifetime, is all i ask.

i would suggest that the slicky willy topic become a new topic, as bry pointed out.

if clinton was so directly linked to causing 9/11, why isn't he being arraigned?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by spillmind
if clinton was so directly linked to causing 9/11, why isn't he being arraigned?

NO ONE is saying he was in on the planing or any thing but what everyone IS saying he did NOT pursue obl or prosecute terrorist during his administraion with any conviction. his lack of action made obl a myth because here he was attacking us and clinton didn't get him even when he had plenty of oppertunities.

 

[spillmind]

saying he didn't do something that never happened is like saying that WMD didn't exist.

did you even read any of the links i posted? these are actual accounts of happenings, not theorizing about what coulda woulda shoulda. substantial differences, no matter what you personally feel happened.

if you think clinton did nothing, look at my last link

http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22

were you expecting assasination? at least clinton can admit his mistakes- unlike our current all credit no accountability administration.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

none of the ones i posted are theories. accounts from the people involved or government reports aren't theories. and theres a problem with your last link saying clinton did anything. it's was five years after somalia, five years after the first wtc attack and another few years after the saudi bombings even more years after the assisnation attempts/plot to kill bubba and the pope. not to mention it was years after ramzi yousef was caught and told of an al quida plot to blow up over a dozen planes over the pacific and crash one into langly. and to combine two topics you talked about money and the gore commision on airline security. why do't you read up on what the commision actually wanted to do and why it didn't? ah what the hell i'll spare you the trouble of looking for it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24840

Why airline security failed
Gore commission study material still classified

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

MIAMI – The classified reports used by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety, chaired by Vice President Al Gore and appointed by President Clinton in the wake of the TWA Flight 800 disaster, are still being withheld from a dissenting member of the panel despite a lawsuit to obtain copies, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The Gore commission produced what most observers considered to be a tough preliminary report unveiled Sept. 9, 1996 – one that included extensive counter-terrorism procedures.

But within days, according to Victoria Cummock, a whistleblower commission member, the airline industry jumped all over Gore with concerns about costs. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue.

The Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern contributed $53,000. Other reports suggest even more airline money was poured into the election campaign that year.

Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to Cummock. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch.

Fearing more political heat, Gore pulled back the draft report. A month later, the final report was issued – one that included requirements that would cost the airlines money for new security measures.

The report's requirements included:


high-tech bomb detectors;
more training for airport security;
criminal background checks for security personnel; and,
increased canine patrols.

But there were two things missing from the report, said Cummock – there was no deadline by which those requirements would have to be implemented and no funding mechanism for ensuring that they were. In the 1970s, for instance, when security checkpoints at airports were first implemented, the government provided tax credits as a funding mechanism. No such measures were mandated or offered as part of the Gore commission recommendations.

Thus, the requirements were not in place Sept. 11 of this year when terrorists hijacked four airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon and crashing a fourth in Pennsylvania. In fact, they are still not in place.

In a meeting with other commission members Feb. 12, 1997, Gore said he would leave room for a dissent by those who opposed the report. Cummock expressed her strong dissent. But within minutes, she says, Gore was announcing to the president and the public that the report was the work of a unanimous commission.

Cummock filed suit to gain access to files she and the public were denied. She won the case, but the material still has not been made available to her.

Cummock was appointed to the commission by Clinton because her husband was killed in the terrorist downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, and because of her work in counseling victims of such disasters.

Hallett now also agrees that the original 31 recommendations of that commission might have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.

"In our hearts, everyone must realize that failure to use the (profiling) techniques that are available today may be directly responsible for the events of Sept. 11," she said in a speech to the Travel Industries Association in Atlanta.

The FAA issued a statement saying the security improvements mandated by the report were slowed by "often conflicting and time-consuming" federal rule-making procedures and by efforts to protect civil liberties.

As of last month, days after the terrorist attack, according to a Los Angeles Times report, the agency was still collecting research on how to keep intruders from slipping past airport perimeter fences and into restricted areas. The FAA had not launched an effort to assess the vulnerability to terrorists of the nation's 450 commercial airports. Measures to improve detection of explosives in baggage were still being considered by various agencies. The FBI was still working on a plan to protect civilian airliners from surface-to-air missiles. The FAA was negotiating with intelligence agencies for access to confidential information about potential terrorists and plots.

Before Sept. 11, the FBI knew that at least two men with ties to Osama bin Laden had entered the country. But authorities did not notify the airlines, despite bin Laden's threats to bring down U.S. airliners.

The commission report, despite its lack of teeth, acknowledged the threat of terrorism.

"People and places in the United States have joined the list of targets," it said. "It is becoming more common to find terrorists working alone or in ad hoc groups, some of whom are not afraid to die in carrying out their designs."

Even Gerald Kauvar, staff director of the Gore commission, admits the government had more than enough information and time to act.

"It's a government failure," he told the Los Angeles Times. "We specifically said the FAA had to change, and they've proved resistant to change."

But Cummock insists that the change would have taken place if the Gore commission had simply provided deadlines for action. She believes Gore sold out airline security for campaign cash.

"They buried it," she says. "And it's disgraceful that Gerry Kauvar would blame government failure. If anyone has blood on his hands, it's Gerry Kauvar. He was an impediment to getting to the truth."

Unlike most Americans, Cummock says she was not surprised by the terrorism of Sept. 11.

"We were briefed that it would happen," she says. "These scenarios of terrorists using our assets was part of the fact-finding process we looked at. It was inevitable with such lax security procedures."


--------------------

clinton didn't do so well not making things mandatory maybe it was those big fat checks the dnc got?some security. but then again like i said clinton didn't fight terrorism. he PARDONED terrorists! faln anyone?!

 

[spillmind]

'...I declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947 annually, most recently on January 21, 1998. Pursuant to section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)) and section 201 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat posed by foreign terrorists. ...'

should lead you to believe that he took action. i would call that 'doing anything'

your article is speculation- at best- and the very reason why people who think clinton/gore caused the 9/11 tragedy is a farce, and holds no water. there is a reason legal recourse is out of the question. not a coindicence, either.

taking money from lobbyists is nothing new to our government. what's funny to me is how people like you post links about parties taking money for favors, and then don't post anything to balance it out, smacking of simply hypocrisy to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/elec04.prez.bush.funds/index.html

bush is on pace for a new record. any favors being done in exchange for this? human rights violations? tax cuts for the rich?

just because these favors don't attribute immediate deaths like 9/11 did, there are much larger impacts on people's lives with the money bush gets.

 

[janeeng]

the back slapping gets a little ridiculous around here sometimes.

C'mon over here spilly and I will give you a got slap on the back!!!!!!!

Your posts are good Spill, just not what we agree on!

 

[Bry]

Apart from which, I can't think of a single reason why airlines should have to foot any of the bill. Implementing new security measures hurts the airlines anyway because of delays caused. Why Clinton / Gore didn't just ask for federal funds is beyond me, but it's no surprise that the airlines were willing to donate tens of thousands when they realized they weren't going to have to pay millions.

It seems evident that Clinton deserves part of the blame for the lack of security prior to 9/11. He was, after all, president for eight of the nine and a half years leading up to 9/11. How 'bout we look a little further back to Bush Sr or Reagan too? That is where you'll find the initial arming and training of Bin Laden by the CIA, selling biological weapons to Iraq, the overthrow of the Shah, the helping in planning battles incorporating use of WMDs for the Iraqis.