manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
GunnyL said:Hey, give Clintona break. He blew up a tent and two camels ......
sorry, it is difficult to aim straight when you are getting your cigar smoked
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
GunnyL said:Hey, give Clintona break. He blew up a tent and two camels ......
manu1959 said:sorry, it is difficult to aim straight when you are getting your cigar smoked
That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.no1tovote4 said:Once again, the previous administration gave him the trapping of responsibility and none of the actual implementation. The next gave him implementation but didn't give him the trappings. The responsibility was not given to another, but was given an actual voice. The idea was to 'take it to the terrorist', Clarke's actual plans were now coming to fruition rather than sitting stagnant on a back burner while they placated him with Top Level meetings. That he now had to work with the level below the principals was what really galled him, not the fact that none of his ideas were meeting with success and implementation.
That's the post-911 talking point that helps justify a papertrail of inaction. But it's nothing more than a empty talking point.no1tovote4 said:He didn't, he was changing the face of the fight. From law enforcement mentality to a war mentality, even before attacks were made. That actual action was being taken is even notable in articles that are derogatory toward the administration. That those ideas sat stagnant in the previous administration was made apparant in his book, that they were finally being implemented was apparant in the anti-Bush propaganda.
This is one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Even anti-Bush propaganda talks about the fact that he was implementing Clarke's innovations. Also Clinton's book talks about he left them on the table judging that there wasn't time to implement them and that the extensive briefs included the fact that these innovations would need to be implemented to have an effective action against terrorism.jAZ said:That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.
Look, Clinton didn't implement everything that Clarke wanted, but he did much of it, and he was supportive of efforts to do something.
Bush didn't do anything!
It wasn't until it sirens were blowing up because they'd being going off so long that Bush even agreed to hear the proposals. The notion that Bush started actually doing ANYTHING prior to 9/11 is Republians damage control.
They picked up on 9/10 (or whenever they met with Clarke) where Clinton left off on 1/1.
Once again it goes back to your willingness to gloss over the details to make your point.no1tovote4 said:This is one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Even anti-Bush propaganda talks about the fact that he was implementing Clarke's innovations. Also Clinton's book talks about he left them on the table judging that there wasn't time to implement them and that the extensive briefs included the fact that these innovations would need to be implemented to have an effective action against terrorism.
jAZ said:Once again it goes back to your willingness to gloss over the details to make your point.
There is the "Clarke Plan" that was implemented after 9/11. That was in fact left on the table by Clinton as you described above. I don't dispute that and if you go back and re-read my prior posts, I don't blame Bush for failing to implement that plan either. It involved invading a soverign nation (afganistan) preemptively. As I said before, neither Clinton nor Bush could have implemented that plan before 9/11. The public wouldn't support such a war.
Clinton didn't implement such a hunt, twice he was offered bin Laden and twice he refused. Instead he bombed a pill factory and a camel.However, there was activity and Clarke suggested and Clinton implemented including a hunt to kill bin Laden. In fact Clarke asked Clinton to launch the "no war for monica" missles. Clinton acted.
Garbage, Bush introduced a new Sec of Def that was implementing a fast attack military to work towards this very goal. To make them more effecient and better able to take the attack to terrorists. He also implemented all of the ideas of Clarke except pre-emptive warfare, believing rightly that pre-emptive warfare could not be politically expedient. I recognized that and mentioned it earlier. However most of Clarke's ideas remained on the table, at least according to Clinton himself in his book as well as Clarke's book. To be implemented by the next administration. Clarke's book even mentioned that his ideas had not been implemented by Clinton in the over two years before that he had brought them to the table. You are ignoring actual history to attempt to give me more propaganda.Bush on the other hand failed to keep up that hunt. Failed to respond in ANYWAY to the Cole, and didn't actually implement Clarkes "plan" until after 9/11.
It wasn't that he didn't implment the "clarke plan" its that he didn't do all of the upkeep on the any of the ongoing counter terrorism efforts.
He gave up and focused on Nukes and Iraq until it was way too late.
jAZ said:Those are two of the worst examples of arugments that McCain isn't a conservative (or a Goldwater conservative) I've ever read.
The NewsMax one says two things:
* First, McCain/Feingold is an anti-individual (and pro-big gov't), when in reality the purpose is to empower individuals to have greater influence on the election process.
* Second, McCain whatever McCain's personal motivations might have been on this Vietnam Vet issue (I know nothing about it), clearly reducing the size of the Parks Service is not EXPANDING government. It's reducing it. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism at all.
The WorldNetDaily article says one thing:
* Reagan was elected by Christian Conservatives, McCain doesn't have their support. Well duh, that has nothing to do with Goldwater Conservativism. Goldwater wasn't a Religous Conservative. Religous Conservatives aren't typically upholding traditional conservative values. They adopt liberal policies that support thier cause, and adopt conservative ones that support thier cause. Religious Conservatives are all about state regulation as long as the regulation agrees with their beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even mention Goldwater. Shocking huh?
You'd think there are more substantial issues that define conservatism that he'd be violating other than Religous Conservatism (Not At ALL a Goldwater issue) and attempting to reduce the influence of corporate lobbying and returning influence back to the individual.
Like I said before, people's definition of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed radically. Liberals and the media have actually moved to the right by a TON. However, the Republican party has moved 2x the speed to the right. They are also (smartly) framing their move to the right as a move by everyone else to the left. That's got the media on their heels and it has the public blaming people like Hillary Clinton for being a radical liberal when she and her husband were 2 of the most conservative Dems ever to hold influence in the WH.
jAZ said:Those are two of the worst examples of arugments that McCain isn't a conservative (or a Goldwater conservative) I've ever read.
The NewsMax one says two things:
* First, McCain/Feingold is an anti-individual (and pro-big gov't), when in reality the purpose is to empower individuals to have greater influence on the election process.
* Second, McCain whatever McCain's personal motivations might have been on this Vietnam Vet issue (I know nothing about it), clearly reducing the size of the Parks Service is not EXPANDING government. It's reducing it. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism at all.
The WorldNetDaily article says one thing:
* Reagan was elected by Christian Conservatives, McCain doesn't have their support. Well duh, that has nothing to do with Goldwater Conservativism. Goldwater wasn't a Religous Conservative. Religous Conservatives aren't typically upholding traditional conservative values. They adopt liberal policies that support thier cause, and adopt conservative ones that support thier cause. Religious Conservatives are all about state regulation as long as the regulation agrees with their beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even mention Goldwater. Shocking huh?
You'd think there are more substantial issues that define conservatism that he'd be violating other than Religous Conservatism (Not At ALL a Goldwater issue) and attempting to reduce the influence of corporate lobbying and returning influence back to the individual.
Like I said before, people's definition of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed radically. Liberals and the media have actually moved to the right by a TON. However, the Republican party has moved 2x the speed to the right. They are also (smartly) framing their move to the right as a move by everyone else to the left. That's got the media on their heels and it has the public blaming people like Hillary Clinton for being a radical liberal when she and her husband were 2 of the most conservative Dems ever to hold influence in the WH.
no1tovote4 said:Unfortunately we were attacked at the end of the transition period. However saying Bush did nothing is simply factually incorrect to the point of directly lying to make your point.
jAZ said:That's about as bogus a descrption of history as I've ever heard.
Look, Clinton didn't implement everything that Clarke wanted, but he did much of it, and he was supportive of efforts to do something.
Bush didn't do anything!
It wasn't until it sirens were blowing up because they'd being going off so long that Bush even agreed to hear the proposals. The notion that Bush started actually doing ANYTHING prior to 9/11 is Republians damage control.
They picked up on 9/10 (or whenever they met with Clarke) where Clinton left off on 1/1.
Did Freeh mention any of this? Note all but one of these are from after Kobahr Towers. Including the GOP stonewalling. Nice huh?Jimmyeatworld said:I don't know of anything Clinton did that was productive when it came to terrorism. Read "My FBI" by Louis J. Freed, the Director of the FBI under Clinton. Some disturbing stuff.
After a terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Freed went through two years of frustration just trying to get someone from the Clinton administration to simply bring the subject up. Nothing. After one meeting with President Bush and Condi Rice, the wheels started turning.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june1998/0698khobar.aspBrig. Gen. Terryl J. Schwalier, commander of the 4404th Wing (Provisional), was already packed, ready to leave after the change of command ceremony planned for the next day. Then came the blast. At approximately 9:50 p.m., a truck bomb exploded, throwing the force of more than 20,000 pounds of TNT against the concrete structure of Khobar. By the next day, the Air Force knew the worst. Nineteen Americans had died in the line of duty.
Intelligence Failure?
Initial reports from the scene strongly suggested an intelligence failure was to blame for the terrorist attack. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry declared, "Our commanders were trying to do right but, given the inconclusive nature of the intelligence, had a difficult task to know what to plan for." "We will pursue this," President Clinton pledged. "Those who did this must not go unpunished."
In Washington, officials launched investigations of the Khobar Towers incident specifically and military force protection policy in general. Within three days, Perry had chartered a retired Army officer, Gen. Wayne A. Downing, to do a fast, unvarnished review of the facts. In Congress, the House National Security Committee organized a fact-finding team and had it on the ground in Saudi Arabia within two weeks. Rep. Floyd D. Spence, the South Carolina Republican who heads the House National Security Committee, soon claimed that his staff study found "intelligence failures" at Khobar Towers.
Then, in late August, came Downing with his report, which singled out Schwalier for not protecting the wing. Downing's report took DoD and the entire chain of command to task for failings in its force protection policy. Then the report went on to charge that "it appears that the 'fly and fight' mission and 'quality of life' took precedence over force protection" at Khobar Towers and that Schwalier "did not adequately protect his forces."
Downing's decision to point the finger at Schwalier made light of the idea that there had been an intelligence failure or shortcomings in military-wide policy. "Intelligence did provide warning of the terrorist threat to US forces in Saudi Arabia," Downing said. "As a result, those responsible for force protection had both time and motivation to reduce vulnerabilities."
Ultimately, Downing's accusation
jAZ said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_oil
McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil
WASHINGTON - A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president.
Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.
"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.
"We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Mideast.
Chavez, a frequent U.S. critic, accuses foreign oil companies of having looted Venezuela. He has promised that his socialist "revolution" is freeing the country from "imperialist" interests and restoring its sovereignty.
It would be hard not to. I respect him and his indepence from the far-right GOP.Bonnie said:I take it then that if McCain runs for office in 2008 you will be supporting him over Hillary?
As they say, it's better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all. I'll take Clinton's record over Bush, anyday.theHawk said:You also gotta love things not widely reported in the Media. Like the fact that the base commander of the Khobar Towers was demanding better barricades to protect the towers since anyone could just park..say a truck full of explosives right next to an airmans dorm. Washingtion ignored the request.