CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
1) Saying that a threat is looming is not actionable. A memo stating where the threat is supposed to be exactly and how it's supposed to be carried out is actionable.
The memo in question was certainly actionable. It mentions known members of Al Qaeda living in the US. It mentioned a planned major attack attack using aircraft.
Several steps could have been taken to act on this intelligence. None were.
Really? Please copy and paste the memo and let's see.
2) Bill Clinton made some gigantic errors
a) The Sudan was ready to arrest and extradite bin Laden to the US, and Bill Clinton declined
If you listen to the audio in the link, Bill Clinton himself admits that he had the opportunity and didn't take it
On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role
b) Bill Clinton made it illegal for intellegience agencies to get information from bad guys. Guess who has critical intellegience information? Bad guess. This hurt our intelligence capabilities
c) In response to the first WTC attack, Clinton sent cruise missiles to empty tents. What this told the terrorists and their state sponsors is that there wasn't going to be any consequences to attacking america.
This is equivalent to blaming Bush for the Christmas Bomber, occuring years before the incident in question. And having nothing to do with Obama, or the discussion at hand.
As a comparison, I would say that Bush failed to eradicate Al Qaeda, and allowed it to grow, after trillions of dollars and thousands of dead American soldiers.
No it's not.
Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden in custody. All he had to do was take the Sudan's offer to take Osama bin Laden into custody, and Clinton declined.
Don't you think the US would have been a bit safer if the Clinton didn't decline taking Osama within custody.
Some general threat about terrorism doesn't help thwart a specific terrorist act. I presume there has been ongoing threats about terrorist acts every day for the last 30 years.
To thwart a terror plot intellegience agencies needs some details.
Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda prior to our invasion, and was not, in any way a "major state sponsor of terrorism".
I am afraid you are wrong on both statements.
Let's handle one at a time.
Al Qaida and Iraq have had ties that went back a decade. Below is testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I can also post declassified CIA and DOD memos if you like.
Testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Behind Closed Doors
Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?
Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.
As far as Hussein not being a threat. This is what the democrats said about Hussein.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.
As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.
...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.
We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.
Bush diverted our attention from where Al Qaeda was to Iraq, and then when an offshoot of Al Qaeda (consisting of mainly new members) appeared in Iraq after the invasion, you people started trying to point to that as proof that they were there in the first place.
At the end of the Bush administration, Al Qaeda was larger and more widespread than it had been prior to 9/11, and had a new safe haven in Pakistan.
Pres. Bush did something unprecendented, he took the fight to the terrorists and their safe havens. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were major threats to the US. He took the fight to them, rather than wait for them to take the fight to within the US.
In other words, he made the war against Al Qaida offensive, rather then defensive. Yes, killing Al Qaida member might get them upset. However, they have been severely damaged (certainly not gone). They have been hurt because many of their experienced leaders are dead or captured, they lost two major state sponsors, they have been hurt financially, and logistically.
And in that time there were literally thousands of attacks on US Soldiers and US allies, focused in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only way to keep up Bush's strategy is TO OCCUPY BOTH COUNTRIES AND CONTINUOUSLY FIGHT A WAR, FOREVER.
Otherwise, the second we stop fighting in those countries, the attacks on civilian targets will resume.
Not quite. The battles have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would rather have them there than in LA, Florida, and NY.
What do you think would happen if just pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Al Qaida forces would regroup, get stronger, and gradually take over the governments. They would get stronger and stronger. Instead, they are on the run and hiding in caves.
Yes they are like cockaroaches and hard to eliminate.
However, it's like cancer. Yes, radiation and chemo, can be unpleasant, and it can take a long time to fully get all the cancer out. However, the alternative of stopping the treatment, is that the cancer will then get bigger and bigger, and finally kill you.
The enemy isn't going away. However, we can fight it offensively, by going where they are and killing them, or we can wait for them to come to us, and kill us. The proof is in the results. Pres. Bush's policies have kept the US from having another terrorist attack within it for 7 years. Under Obama we have had 3 in one year.
Fighting a defensive war will only lead to more terrorist attacks. Just hoping we get lucky by keeping them from getting on planes, isn't going to cut it. Terror groups need money, organization, communications, state sponsors, training. That's where we need to cut them down.