Bush Strategy Has Aided Terrorism

[Taomon]

The Brits have resolved the issue of IRA terrorism, it was done with a mix of methods, some of those methods involved police work in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The Army was used to assist peackeeping operations in the province and that was entirely appropriate.

And had it been Bush going after the IRA, he would have bombed Boston.

 

[Alpha1]

Had we treated 9/11 like we treated the 1993 attack, the Oklahoma bombing, the Khobar Tower bombing and so on, like a criminal act, we would have not only caught the perpetrators funding the scheme...we would be addressing the larger issues that cause terrorism.

Clever, but so wrong...In your "guess" as to what would have happened...
Had we treated 9/11 like a common crime, there would have been no one to catch, try, or punish....the PERPS are all dead.....and Suspected leaders..do you want us to send Dick Tracy to the ME ?
we did go after the funding schemes and we have had some success

So what are the larger issues that cause terrorism?
Are you now a Muslim...follow the Koran now do you, no longer an infidel. ?
If the Saudis invite us into their country, should we decline, because we fear OBL?
Should be tell the Jews to get fucked, break our treaties with them....?



Instead we are divided as a nation and our leaders spew fear-mongering rhetoric so they can usurp all the capital for military and surveillance instead of protecting our crumbling economy.

If it wasn't for cowardly liberals and Democrats we wouldn't be divided as a nation....we would all support our agreed upon foreign plicy....
And a crumbling economy is but a figment of your imagination at present...

 

[maineman]

If it wasn't for cowardly liberals and Democrats we wouldn't be divided as a nation....we would all support our agreed upon foreign plicy....
And a crumbling economy is but a figment of your imagination at present...

did the republicans do that when Clinton and NATO went into the Balkans?

Do I need to pull up THAT wonderful list of quotes for you, gramps?

 

[Diuretic]

And had it been Bush going after the IRA, he would have bombed Boston.

Point! If you see everything as a nail and all you have is a hammer....

 

[DeadCanDance]

If it wasn't for cowardly liberals and Democrats we wouldn't be divided as a nation....we would all support our agreed upon foreign plicy....

.

Why should we want to follow you and your president's FAILED and incompetent strategy? Why don't you just admit you and your president's strategy had been a complete fuck up, and change strategy?


The Iraq war has precipitated more terrorist attacks and more terrorists. This has been confirmed by the CIA and the State Department.

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe you mean those involved in the first WTC bombing.....? That actually did involve domestic police to a small degree....
The hundreds of followers of those directly responsible for 9/11 were captured on foreign soil by military and detained at Gitmo....

Nope, I wasn't referring to the first bombing at all, I was referring to the events of 9/11. As for the "hundreds of followers....", you're obfuscating again. Hundreds of people were swept up in a big dragnet as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan. Most of them have now been freed.

My point is that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't necessary if the objective had been to capture bin Laden and his associates. My point is that a mix of diplomacy and criminal investigation work would have done that, of course there would have had to be military assistance, that type of work is beyond the capability of civilian police. But that was never pursued. Instead it was decided that the regime in Afghanistan had to be attacked, not bin Laden. Overthrowing the regime and the installation of a puppet government (as in Iraq as well) was seen as being more beneficial than the capture of the terrorist bin Laden and his associates.

 

[Taomon]

Point! If you see everything as a nail and all you have is a hammer....

 

[Alpha1]

did the republicans do that when Clinton and NATO went into the Balkans?

Do I need to pull up THAT wonderful list of quotes for you, gramps?

They bitched and moaned for a short time......

What they DIDN'T do is divide the nation with the continuous hate like the Democrats spew for Bush....not just over Iraq, but over EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that is even remotely connected to Bush or Republicans.....its far beyond just normal political policy ...its personal and has been for years.....

The difference is stark....

 

[maineman]

They bitched and moaned for a short time......

What they DIDN'T do is divide the nation with the continuous hate like the Democrats spew for Bush....not just over Iraq, but over EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that is even remotely connected to Bush or Republicans.....its far beyond just normal political policy ...its personal and has been for years.....

The difference is stark....

to koolaid soaked partisans like you, perhaps.

jennifer flowers, whitewater, vince foster, filegate, travelgate, paula jones, wag the dog attacks on Afghanistan, monica lewinsky, impeachment trial.... nah...that ALL had to do with just normal political policy!

mix up a fresh batch.... you're not quite soaked.

 

[Alpha1]

Nope, I wasn't referring to the first bombing at all, I was referring to the events of 9/11. As for the "hundreds of followers....", you're obfuscating again. Hundreds of people were swept up in a big dragnet as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan. Most of them have now been freed.

My point is that the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't necessary if the objective had been to capture bin Laden and his associates. My point is that a mix of diplomacy and criminal investigation work would have done that, of course there would have had to be military assistance, that type of work is beyond the capability of civilian police.

You have no point....Musharraf told Clinton to fuck off in 1999 and the government of Afghanistan, as it was, ignored Clinton..and were not about to co-operate in any fashion...

But that was never pursued. Instead it was decided that the regime in Afghanistan had to be attacked, not bin Laden.
The regime in Afghan. protected OBL....you can't that dense to no know that....and if Bush was not successful in woeing Musharraf in Pakistan, it would have been nearly impossible and very dangerous to even try to oust the Taliban and get OBL in this landlocked country.........damn, get a clue....

Overthrowing the regime and the installation of a puppet government (as in Iraq as well) was seen as being more beneficial than the capture of the terrorist bin Laden and his associates.

....

 

[Alpha1]

to koolaid soaked partisans like you, perhaps.

jennifer flowers, whitewater, vince foster, filegate, travelgate, paula jones, wag the dog attacks on Afghanistan, monica lewinsky, impeachment trial.... nah...that ALL had to do with just normal political policy!

mix up a fresh batch.... you're not quite soaked.

You imply the Republicans invented Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, filegate, travelgate, Paula Jones and the rest....

They were people with problems with Clinton ....not fantasy's of the right...

The Republicans didn't plant prohibited FBI files in the White House....

The Republicans didn't compel Hillary to fire the employees of the White House Travel Office without cause...

The Republicans didn't send Paula Jones to then Gov. Clintons room to see if the pervert would expose himself to her....

The Republicans didn't match Flowers with Clinton so he could cheat on his wife...commit adultery, etc....

The Republicans didn't send Monica into the Oval Office to give Clinton oral sex.....

The Republicans didn't cause Foster to take his life...but something did...

The Republicans didn't compel Clinton to lie under oath in a legal deposition, and obstruct justice....but I'm proud the R's did their duty and at least tryed to get Justice to prevail....

So blaming the Republicans is just a crock of bullshit .... the Clintons were responsible for every scandal that hit them...and they walked away as clean a OJ from a double murder.....

as opposed to Bush, who has no scandals on his record....just slimey accusations and lieing innuendo....from a nonstop left wing and co-operative media.....and no proof....

 

[Gunny]

If we had finished the job in Afghanistan, the Taliban there would be severely weakened by now and Ossamer would probably be dead.

Instead Bush's attack on Iraq, took a country, where Al Quaeda had no real influence, and created a breeding and recruting grounds for them Now they are able to export their terrorism to neighboring countries.

When will the dikheads in charge realize that we will defeat terrorism with good intelligence and police work, not some fukking grandstanding on a conventional battlefield? But their friends will get millions/billions.
MTABIH





http://tinyurl.com/ywtjk6

Bullshit, and you know it. We DID finish the job in Afghanistan once already. If Bush had given the order to invade Pakistan against Pakistan's wishes you'd be on the front line of cryin' in your wheaties over THAT just as you are Iraq.

GMAFB.

 

[Diuretic]

I hate it when the quote thing gets like this. Anyway to take your points:


You have no point....Musharraf told Clinton to fuck off in 1999 and the government of Afghanistan, as it was, ignored Clinton..and were not about to co-operate in any fashion...

Clinton wasn't president when 9/11 occurred.


The regime in Afghan. protected OBL....you can't that dense to no know that....and if Bush was not successful in woeing Musharraf in Pakistan, it would have been nearly impossible and very dangerous to even try to oust the Taliban and get OBL in this landlocked country.........damn, get a clue....

I didn't assert that the Taleban should be ousted, that's the job of the military, I asserted that bin Laden and his associates could have been captured after a proper criminal investigation (that's the part of the thread I've been referring to).

I know the Taleban refused to allow the extradition of bin Laden and his associates. Getting bin Laden could have been achieved by the military, even though it would have been very dangerous (albeit probably less dangerous than a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan which of course occurred). US courts aren't fussed how a suspect gets to them for trial (eg Noriega) and kidnapping a suspect and presenting them for trial is okay.

 

[Alpha1]

I hate it when the quote thing gets like this. Anyway to take your points:


You have no point....Musharraf told Clinton to fuck off in 1999 and the government of Afghanistan, as it was, ignored Clinton..and were not about to co-operate in any fashion...

Clinton wasn't president when 9/11 occurred.


The regime in Afghan. protected OBL....you can't that dense to no know that....and if Bush was not successful in woeing Musharraf in Pakistan, it would have been nearly impossible and very dangerous to even try to oust the Taliban and get OBL in this landlocked country.........damn, get a clue....

I didn't assert that the Taleban should be ousted, that's the job of the military, I asserted that bin Laden and his associates could have been captured after a proper criminal investigation (that's the part of the thread I've been referring to).

I know the Taleban refused to allow the extradition of bin Laden and his associates. Getting bin Laden could have been achieved by the military, even though it would have been very dangerous
It would have been impossible, not just very dangerous, IMPOSSIBLE

(albeit probably less dangerous than a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan which of course occurred). US courts aren't fussed how a suspect gets to them for trial (eg Noriega) and kidnapping a suspect and presenting them for trial is okay.
I don't know about the courts, but the god damn Democrats wouldn't stand for it.....where have you been lately....

You miss the point, Musharraf was not about to give Clinton any help at any time, and neither was the Taliban...OBL and his followers could not in reality be captured by any stretch of the imagination without the someones co-operation....not by the military, not by spys, not by anyone, period.......Musharraf's aid made a military operation possible to get troops into Afghan. and start the hunt...ousting the Taliban was a necessity in giving US troops at lease some safety in operating in the country...and even with some cooperation from Musharraf we still can't operate independently in capturing OBL....

 

[Diuretic]

Meandering off the point. I'm not discussing Afghanistan. I was referring to it as an example of failure of doctrine and policy, I'm not interested in trading insults over it. The point I made was that when it comes to terrorism the most effective way of dealing with it is by using the criminal justice system. The military is very effective at what it does but investigating (as opposed to performing counter-terrorist ops in a domestic situation with law enforcement) terrorism and putting terrorists in prison is not the task of the military. That was my point. The clusterfuck in Afghanistan isn't the point.

 

[Warner]

Actually, had we secured the borders and sent in coalition troops instead of carpet bombing, the Taliban would be dead or surrendered, al Qaeda would be dead and public enemy number one would be dead.

But let's think about this, if Osama bin Laden were dead, would Bush still be able to tout terrorism as a reason to invade and occupy other countries?

WRONG!

We needed to carpet bomb any and all areas where we thought the Taliban dominated the population and/or contained Al-Queda. And we needed to do this immediately following 9/11 in such a way that they would not expect it (so quck) and thus not have gone to ground. It would have been best to give the Taliban a week to hand over Bin-Ladin and then bomb them within 48 hours. There would have been some collateral damage but the losses would have been far less than what has been suffered through the manner in which Afghanistan has been dealt with.

The US had the imperative to respond to 9/11 in a very harsh manner right after the event and no one would have blamed us for the collateral damage as long as it was clear Taliban/AQ were the targets. But this was only true for a few days following 9/11, after that diplomacy is expected to play a part in the response. Its silly but that's how things work.

 

[eots]

WRONG!

We needed to carpet bomb any and all areas where we thought the Taliban dominated the population and/or contained Al-Queda. And we needed to do this immediately following 9/11 in such a way that they would not expect it (so quck) and thus not have gone to ground. It would have been best to give the Taliban a week to hand over Bin-Ladin and then bomb them within 48 hours. There would have been some collateral damage but the losses would have been far less than what has been suffered through the manner in which Afghanistan has been dealt with.

The US had the imperative to respond to 9/11 in a very harsh manner right after the event and no one would have blamed us for the collateral damage as long as it was clear Taliban/AQ were the targets. But this was only true for a few days following 9/11, after that diplomacy is expected to play a part in the response. Its silly but that's how things work.

YA WHATS A FEW HUNDRED OR SO DEAD AND MAIMED WOMAN AND CHILDREN TO THE CAPTURE OF A SUSPECTED CRIMINAL

 

[maineman]

as opposed to Bush, who has no scandals on his record....just slimey accusations and lieing innuendo....from a nonstop left wing and co-operative media.....and no proof....

are you suggesting that the republican party did not smear Clinton with slimey accusations and lying innuendo? Are you suggesting that right wing radio did not make a career out of slamming Clinton day in and day out for eight fucking years? I have not made any slimey accusations about Bush. I believe that he lied by conveying the false impression of absolute certainty and total absence of doubt regarding Saddam's WMD's. I believe that he allowed his Vice President and other minions to make and remake the implication that Saddam was connected to AQ even BEFORE 9/11. I believe that he took us to war precipitously and foolishly. No innuendo there. No slime. I certainly have not accused him of anything akin to having Vince Foster murdered.

 

[nibor]

You imply the Republicans invented Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, filegate, travelgate, Paula Jones and the rest....

They were people with problems with Clinton ....not fantasy's of the right...

The Republicans didn't plant prohibited FBI files in the White House....

The Republicans didn't compel Hillary to fire the employees of the White House Travel Office without cause...

The Republicans didn't send Paula Jones to then Gov. Clintons room to see if the pervert would expose himself to her....

The Republicans didn't match Flowers with Clinton so he could cheat on his wife...commit adultery, etc....

The Republicans didn't send Monica into the Oval Office to give Clinton oral sex.....

The Republicans didn't cause Foster to take his life...but something did...

The Republicans didn't compel Clinton to lie under oath in a legal deposition, and obstruct justice....but I'm proud the R's did their duty and at least tryed to get Justice to prevail....

So blaming the Republicans is just a crock of bullshit .... the Clintons were responsible for every scandal that hit them...and they walked away as clean a OJ from a double murder.....

as opposed to Bush, who has no scandals on his record....just slimey accusations and lieing innuendo....from a nonstop left wing and co-operative media.....and no proof....

Actually Alpha there's more than enough shame, scandle and TYRANNY to well over flow both aisles, AND IT AIN'T THEIR JOB TO DIVIDE THIS FUCKING NATION but they are.....................keeping EVERYONE in that look over there posture........while our nation goes down the shitter.............they're all a bunch of frat monkeys throwing shit at eachother and it's totally disgusting that they call themselves leaders...........they all ought to be horse whipped............AND FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alpha1]

are you suggesting that the republican party did not smear Clinton with slimey accusations and lying innuendo? Are you suggesting that right wing radio did not make a career out of slamming Clinton day in and day out for eight fucking years? I have not made any slimey accusations about Bush. I believe that he lied by conveying the false impression of absolute certainty and total absence of doubt regarding Saddam's WMD's.

And that belief that Bush lied is total fantasy, proven to you over and over...that fact that you can't understand simple English is your personal problem...
and your minions that chant the same lies over and over for the past 7 years have only served to divide the nation...your insistance that you fantasys are fact doesn't make it so...

I believe that he allowed his Vice President and other minions to make and remake the implication that Saddam was connected to AQ even BEFORE 9/11. I believe that he took us to war precipitously and foolishly. No innuendo there. No slime. I certainly have not accused him of anything akin to having Vince Foster murdered.

This is your opinion, and your welcome to it..You ignore the fact that Clinton made the first connection between Iraq and AQ....fine with me...
You ignore that fact that war was impossible without the aid of Dem. leaders....fine with me....I can point out you errors, but I can't made you smart...

Suggesting? No...I'm saying flat out the almost all of the slime that hit Clinton was of his own making....

The Republicans didn't plant prohibited FBI files in the White House....

The Republicans didn't compel Hillary to fire the employees of the White House Travel Office without cause...

The Republicans didn't send Paula Jones to then Gov. Clintons room to see if the pervert would expose himself to her....

The Republicans didn't match Flowers with Clinton so he could cheat on his wife...commit adultery, etc....

The Republicans didn't send Monica into the Oval Office to give Clinton oral sex.....

The Republicans didn't cause Foster to take his life...but something did...

The Republicans didn't compel Clinton to lie under oath in a legal deposition, and obstruct justice....but I'm proud the R's did their duty and at least tryed to get Justice to prevail....

So blaming the Republicans is just a crock of bullshit .... the Clintons were responsible for every scandal that hit them...and they walked away as clean a OJ from a double murder.....

R's don't accuse the Clintons with illegally posessing the FBI files...its fact
R's don't accuse Clinton of exposing himself to Jones....she does
R's don't accuse Clinton of having an affair with Flowers...She proved it....
R's don't accuse Clinton of getting oral sex in the Oval Office....He admits it...
R's don't accuse Clinton of lying under oath....He admits that, too...
R's did bring impeachment on Clinton, and the facts show he was quilty as charged and was acquitted by loyalists that would rather ignore the facts.....
Because there happen to be a few right wing nuts that accuse the Clinton on murder or other off the wall is not and never was taken seriously by anyone...and its just some much crap to cloud other issues....

The slime and lying innuendo hitting Bush has gone on 27/7 for 7 yrs...
Some real slimeballs even accusing his wife of DUI and murder....