Mishandling Terrorism

[Zhukov]

Acts of War were perpetrated against our country by al Qaeda during Clinton's term of office:

1.) The 1993 WTC bombing

2.) Aid to our enemies in Somalia

3.) The terrorist attack in Dharhan in 1996 that killed 19 American soldiers

4.) The 1998 attack on two American embassies in Africa

5.) The 2000 attack on a U.S. ship of war, the USS Cole

And Clinton basically did nothing. In certain instances he actually obstructed the investigations of these acts when it became apparent that some of them (like Dharhan) were state sponsored (by Iran) and the ramifications of such knowledge coming to light would have demanded action.

Should Bush have declared war as soon as he came into office? Yes. And had he, what do we suppose would have been the left-wing reaction to it? They'd doubtlessly have called it unilateral war mongering. At any rate, in hindsight it's obvious he should have anyways, but does that necessarily make 9/11 his fault? He did nothing with respect to no terrorist attacks on his watch. But how many acts of war were perpetrated against us before President Bush thought it was a good idea to respond? One. And was his response an attempt to simply punish those responsible for that one particular instance with trials or to wage a campaign to destroy those responsible and assure that it never happened again?

Blaming W for 9/11 is like saying George H. W. won the cold war.

 

[Zhukov]

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill

"That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Good, finally someone who knows how to do their job. Lets hope they've also explored the possibility of ground invasions of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, and Indonesia.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Good, finally someone who knows how to do their job. Lets hope they've also explored the possibility of ground invasions of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, and Indonesia.

Yay Zhukov! Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!!

-Bam

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Acts of War were perpetrated against our country by al Qaeda during Clinton's term of office:

1.) The 1993 WTC bombing

2.) Aid to our enemies in Somalia

3.) The terrorist attack in Dharhan in 1996 that killed 19 American soldiers

4.) The 1998 attack on two American embassies in Africa

5.) The 2000 attack on a U.S. ship of war, the USS Cole

And Clinton basically did nothing. In certain instances he actually obstructed the investigations of these acts when it became apparent that some of them (like Dharhan) were state sponsored (by Iran) and the ramifications of such knowledge coming to light would have demanded action.

Should Bush have declared war as soon as he came into office? Yes. And had he, what do we suppose would have been the left-wing reaction to it? They'd doubtlessly have called it unilateral war mongering. At any rate, in hindsight it's obvious he should have anyways, but does that necessarily make 9/11 his fault? He did nothing with respect to no terrorist attacks on his watch. But how many acts of war were perpetrated against us before President Bush thought it was a good idea to respond? One. And was his response an attempt to simply punish those responsible for that one particular instance with trials or to wage a campaign to destroy those responsible and assure that it never happened again?

Blaming W for 9/11 is like saying George H. W. won the cold war.

Bush was sternly warned about Bin Laden, he did nothing. The events happened and Clinton responded. Clinton failed to get Bin Laden and Bush STILL doesn't have him. You know, why don't we just wait and see what the 9/11 investigation reports and then let's see how vigilant and proactive Bush was. Until then, all you have is theories and right wing conspiracies. There is nothing in the record that shows Clinton was derelict in his duty regarding Bin Laden. He was obviously pursuing him and he passed the torch to Bush.

Let's just wait and see what the professionals discover who have access to info and data that you or I don't.

-Bam

 

[Annie]

Ok, no links or anything substantive. I think Clinton was distracted because of his lack of morals and defending himself on the sex charges. Yeah, I think he should have been convicted on obstruction, but given a slap. Should have served out his term. Too much for libs, too little for the cons. Anyways, it didn't happen, instead he was constantly on the defensive and finished term without accomplishing whit, but he wasn't convicted of anything, but disbarred all the same.

Assuming the Clinton administration REALLY DID EMPHASIZE AL QUEDA THREAT, and there are those in Clinton administration that have already said Bush was following their recommendations, I think he came into office already decided not to deal with Euros, Middle Easterners, etc. He wanted to deal with Mexico and Japan, and that was IT for foreign affairs. 9/11 forced him to change of plans.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
LINK

I thought you already knew this though. That's why I didn't post it.

-Bam

And this is why I ask for links!

"The official, who asked not to be identified"

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And this is why I ask for links!

"The official, who asked not to be identified"

Woh, do we hear that alot lately Hmm, thou wonders if they dont want to be liable for what they say.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Woh, do we hear that alot lately Hmm, thou wonders if they dont want to be liable for what they say.

Or there is either no person in the administration, or it's a lie. It's always possible it's the truth too. I have to wonder though, the anonymity and the refusal to release documents. I think it's a bunch of crap.

 

[jones]

It is! and I've come to the conclusion that its straight up secrecy. I dont like it, I want some transparency in my gov.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
It is!

Care to explain what exactly you're referring to here?

 

[jones]

Ya, was referring to your last statement. You said its a bunch of crap.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Ya, was referring to your last statement. You said its a bunch of crap.

My statement was about Paul O'neill, that I thought him and his book were full of crap. The only supposed witness wishes to remain anonymous and O'neill claims to have proof but won't release it. Are you sure you are in agreement?

 

[jones]

I guess so, its bullcrap he has not released the documents already.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
I guess so, its bullcrap he has not released the documents already.

I can't comment on the documents until they are made public. Who knows, maybe he's waiting for the election to draw nearer before releasing anything. I doubt it'll be looked at as anything more than sour grapes until he comes forth will ALL his evidence.

 

[jon_forward]

he hasnt recieced them from the forger yet

 

[Annie]

I'm assuming we are speaking of David Kay, who despite the Reuters quotes, is today in the Telegraph claiming that Syria is holding some of Iraqi intel. I think he was frustrated in the level of uncooperation between CIA and DOD.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I'm assuming we are speaking of David Kay, who despite the Reuters quotes, is today in the Telegraph claiming that Syria is holding some of Iraqi intel. I think he was frustrated in the level of uncooperation between CIA and DOD.

Actually, we were referring to O'neill, former treasury secretary. He made a lot of claims about Bush, and also claims to have 19,000 documents of evidence, but I haven't heard of just one being made public yet. Then there was another member of the Bush administration that supposedly backs up O'neill, of course this person remains anonymous.

 

[Annie]

Gee last I heard of O'Neill was last weekend, when he was backpedaling, but thanks for the heads up Jimmy.

 

[jones]

Ya he got a phone call from Rumsfeld. I bet this guy got a phone call too. Wonder what changed their minds? Hmm

 

[jones]

"The real irony of the Patriot Act is that it's just plain unpatriotic," Ortiz laughs. "The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence grants every American unalienable rights, and we've allowed the Patriot Act to erode those rights without question. And the worst of it is, if you dare to question the Patriot Act you're immediately labeled unpatriotic. What could be more patriotic than standing up for the rights of citizens and taxpayers? And what could be more unpatriotic than to happily watch those rights trampled upon?"



HAHA