Al-Qaeda Stronger Than Ever After 5 Years Of Obama’s Policies

[WelfareQueen]

Bush doesn't get a pass. It happened under his watch. He owns a lot of it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bush doesn't get a pass. It happened under his watch. He owns a lot of it.

If I leave my home, lock all the doors and set the alarm....I have done all I really can to prevent a break in.

Some asshole throws a rock through my bathroom window, goes in and takes shit out of my medicine cabinet. Gone in 30 seconds.

Am I responsible?

 

[Camp]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nice job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

Read Ghost War. Clinton had several direct opportunities to take out bin Laden. He did not in one instance because he saw a swing set in one of the satellite photos. He did some things, and fucked up some things in a huge way. Every expert would agree with that assessment. If you want o make it political...whatever...it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Kosh]

There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.

Far left propaganda!

Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?

 

[Camp]

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

Read Ghost War. Clinton had several direct opportunities to take out bin Laden. He did not in one instance because he saw a swing set in one of the satellite photos. He did some things, and fucked up some things in a huge way. Every expert would agree with that assessment. If you want o make it political...whatever...it doesn't change the facts.

Do you mean the Steve Coll book Ghost Wars?

 

[HUGGY]

Al-Qaeda Stronger Than Ever After 5 Years Of Obama’s Policies

OHHhhhh...!! NOOOoooo....!!

Do ya think they will enter the Olympics and take the GOLD ????

Let's start another phoney war an go kill em !!!

Howz come if they are so STRONG and everything they haven't been able to come over here and kill us?

HMMMmmm...??? Could it be Obama's policies?

That fear card is so worn out I just can't read it anymore...

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.

Far left propaganda!

Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?

Why would you believe something for which there is widely diverse and contradictory opinion AND evidence?

 

[Kosh]

There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.

Far left propaganda!

Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?

Why would you believe something for which there is widely diverse and contradictory opinion AND evidence?

You believe Obama your messiah above all else so you tell me.

 

[The T]

This just goes to show you how popular Al Qaeda is within the general population of the middle east. The muslim brother hood won the Egypt elections with the extremist out right a few years ago.

How can you tame such a beast???

Exclusive: With Muslim Brotherhood crushed, Egypt sets sights on Hamas

Read. And you may think your dear leader for his meddling in Egypt. WHY did he support Morsi? Hint: It wasn't "Democracy" as he claimed.

Want more? Sure...

Libyan Intelligence Confirms Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian President Morsi Involved in Benghazi

 

[rdean]

Too bad Republicans let Bin Laden go and went after the enemy of al Qaeda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Far left propaganda!

Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?

Why would you believe something for which there is widely diverse and contradictory opinion AND evidence?

You believe Obama your messiah above all else so you tell me.

That's not true,

and not an answer to my question.

 

[The T]

Too bad Republicans let Bin Laden go and went after the enemy of al Qaeda.

Too bad Clinton did as well, ain't it Deany-Bub?

 

[saveliberty]

Obama was SO passionate about these wars being bad and yet, we are still there. Did he lie to us again?

 

[rdean]

Too bad Republicans let Bin Laden go and went after the enemy of al Qaeda.

Too bad Clinton did as well, ain't it Deany-Bub?

Yea, too bad Republicans were protecting Bin Laden even back then.



Since Republicans don't see the value of education and only want to rewrite history, of course there is no surprise every single one of their middle east policies have been terrible disasters. They deal with people they know nothing about, don't care to know anything about, arrogantly and blindly and are surprised these people don't react they way they are "supposed to". It's like asking Republicans to teach science classes. They believe science is a faith. They have nothing to add. How can they teach something they know nothing about? It was the same with Iraq.

 

[saveliberty]

Then explain how Obama's continued involvement in Afghanistan helps the US rdean.

 

[hazlnut]

I love how the far-right jumps from one boogy man to the next.

Yesterday it was the NSA.

Tomorrow the gun "grabbers".

Next week, Al-Qaeda.


Fox/Drudge says BOO! and they jump like kittens.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Nobody gets the blame when one of hundreds of attempts on the part of crazy people to inflict damage succeeds. You cannot stop committed terrorists from getting a "win" every now and then.

This topic sort of fits with the other discussion we are having on government transparency. When it comes to matters of national security.....we don't have the luxury of knowing what is going down......for obvious reasons.

You want to blame Clinton for 9-11. For some reason......

The lack of communications for allowing important intelligence to be gathered and passed on between agencies, is a very important factor. You can't prevent an attack when every organization works within themselves to acquire a small bit of information, and none of the pieces are being shared to try and formulate the bigger picture. Pearl Harbor resulted from a lack of intelligence gathering, while failing to examine and address issues that left our military force in Hawaii more vulnerable to attack. You can't afford to be passive, under the illusion that being surrounded by miles of ocean somehow insulates us from the possibility of sustaining a serious terrorist attack within our own borders.