FUBARRed

[Dogger]

He's the one that asked for the report your talking about. Obviously he did recognize a potential problem but he wasn't in office long enough.

Bullshit. You don't buy that excuse for Waco, do you?

Even if Bush asked to be briefed, that does not excuse inaction. It makes his dismissive treatment of the briefer even more puzzling and his decision to keep vacationing inexcusable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a laugh. No one reported to the Government in August 2001 any SPECIFIC threat. Nothing other than a nebulous " they are coming" report. And Clinton spent 8 years ensuring that the different Agencies would not and could not share information. There was a group that had strong suspicions of what was coming but Clinton ignored them and eventually shit canned them. That would be why he sent Berger to steal documents from the archive, to cover his ass on the matter.

As for doing something, you whine and ***** that Bush DID do something on what he felt were credible dangers from Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Yet after the fact he should have "done something" in August 2001 on a report that a terror organization wanted to attack us. No specifics, no dates, no uncovered plans, no names.

YOU ***** and moan about what the Government does NOW to try and catch terrorists and complain our rights have been eroded, BUT then in the same breath claim Bush should have "done something" in August 2001 on a non specific report of a potential threat.

You ***** and moan that 7 guys in Florida were rail roaded on terror charges when the Government has taped evidence of them announcing CLEAR plans to attack facilities, asking for training, money and association with a TERROR organization, BUT demand Bush should have done "something" in August 2001 on a non specific threat of an unknown terror attack "somewhere, someday, somehow" in the USA.

There is a word for that.

If we had caught the 19 terrorists on September 10 you would be demanding we release them because they hadn't actually done anything and Bush was "fear mongering". I mean all they had were box cutters and before September 11 2001 no one was worried about them.

You can ignore this all you want, it is NOT going away.

 

[Dogger]

You can ignore this all you want, it is NOT going away.

I know. I've tried ignoring you, and you don't go away either.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Don't you think, Rayboy, that he was referring to terror attacks, you know it's called the War on Terror.

The war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR. IT IS A WAR AGAISNT A BUNCH OF INSURGENTS AND SOME TERRORISTS. IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE, YOU WOULDN'T MAKE YOUR REMARK.

A war on terror goes to the root causes of terrorism, not the ******* symptoms. If you just bandaid up a serious cut, it doesn't get any better. You have to perform surgery on the cut to stop the bleeding.

A real war on terror performs covert surgery on the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations. It also looks at what causes for terrorism can be eliminated or alleviated. Too often we are great at symptom fixing. Unfortuantely all that does is put off the invetible for a while. "The easy way out, often leads right back in."

The problem with this covert approach is that it is not as showy as launching an unneeded war so you can say your a "War President" who doesn't golf anymore. It also doesn't make billions for the war profiteers.

Firght the war on terror or get off the frigging bully pulpit.

You also don't make the arms deals "obscenely rich" (new sin for catholics) by giving them no bid contracts or worse open ended ones.

 

[jreeves]

The war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR. IT IS A WAR AGAISNT A BUNCH OF INSURGENTS AND SOME TERRORISTS. IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE, YOU WOULDN'T MAKE YOUR REMARK.

A war on terror goes to the root causes of terrorism, not the ******* symptoms. If you just bandaid up a serious cut, it doesn't get any better. You have to perform surgery on the cut to stop the bleeding.

A real war on terror performs covert surgery on the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations. It also looks at what causes for terrorism can be eliminated or alleviated. Too often we are great at symptom fixing. Unfortuantely all that does is put off the invetible for a while. "The easy way out, often leads right back in."

The problem with this covert approach is that it is not as showy as launching an unneeded war so you can say your a "War President" who doesn't golf anymore. It also doesn't make billions for the war profiteers.

Firght the war on terror or get off the frigging bully pulpit.

You also don't make the arms deals "obscenely rich" (new sin for catholics) by giving them no bid contracts or worse open ended ones.

AQ in Iraq doesn't exist....ok...no terrorism there.
AQ in Iraq isn't in shambles as a result of the Iraq war?
Of course....Bush and his friends are loading up on kinds of underhanded deals...please show me this proof?

Using your bandaid analogy, you keep the cut clean(AQ in Iraq) you don't allow the cut to get infected and spread throughout your body(terrorism spreading throughout the world).

 

[jreeves]

Bullshit. You don't buy that excuse for Waco, do you?

Even if Bush asked to be briefed, that does not excuse inaction. It makes his dismissive treatment of the briefer even more puzzling and his decision to keep vacationing inexcusable.

What part of no specific threats do you not understand? So you would have spent millions, possibly billions of dollars protecting us from what, Bush didn't even have a specific threat to combat? It would be like trying to squash a gnat blindfolded.

 

[Larkinn]

So he was going to break international and US law...oh ok

No matter what the public perception may be, one
thing is certain: assassination is illegal under both U.S. and
international law.3

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?55+Duke+L.+J.+677+pdf.

From your article.

The United States is entitled to kill Osama bin Laden to defend
against a series of continuing threats,

Did you even read it? Assassination is illegal, but its unclear what the difference between assassination and targeted killings (which are legal) are.

Interesting article though.

AQ in Iraq doesn't exist....ok...no terrorism there.

It didn't exist before the US invaded.

AQ in Iraq isn't in shambles as a result of the Iraq war?

Actually compared to where it was before the Iraq War, its thriving.

 

[Gunny]

No. It's because Baby Bush is *almost* always wrong. And if one said he's always wrong, you'd probably come back with the one thing he ever said that was correct.

Nah ... conservatives don't much use liberal tactics. There's only so much fertilizer to spread and y'all got to it first.

 

[Gunny]

Al-Qaeda let 8 years pass between attacks on the homeland. Proves nothing except their patience.

Bush's response after 9/11 was nothing compared to his lack of response the month before. Nostradumbass can't even make a solid prediction when it's handed to him in a PDB.

It proves there have no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

What lack of response do you refer to? Last I checked, he hasn't done much in the way of responding to left wing mud being slung. I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt and allow you to clarify prior to calling it that.

 

[Gunny]

Motherfucking moron. Can't you read simple English? I never said that.

I was being charitable. Bush sat on his ass the entire period, but he received the PDB on August 6, 2001, that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike within the USA", and continued to sit on his ass.

THAT's it? As I suspected, left wing mud. You DO realize that if we responded ot every threat prior to anything actually happening we'd be at war with half the world every day?

Not to mention having to listen to the chorus of parrots whining about preemptive strikes, needless wars, etc.

Had Bush arrested the 9/11 terrorists prior to 9/11 y'all lefties would be pissing all over yourselves in indignation over their civil rights being violated.

So please ...

 

[Gunny]

Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism

Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base. By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."

"At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."

Say it isn't so .... a Democrat President sanctioned the murder of a religious cleric?

How come "I tried" is good enough excuse for Clinton but not Bush? Such blatantly obvious partisanship.

Tsk tsk

 

[Gunny]

So, he's fucked either way he goes with you?

Why so shocked? He deserves a better deal from conservatives than you liberals have given Bush?

What goes around ....

 

[Dogger]

How come "I tried" is good enough excuse for Clinton but not Bush? Such blatantly obvious partisanship.

Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.

Really? Provide us with a link to a report that in August 2001 the President was briefed on HOW, WHERE, and WHEN terrorists were going to strike the US. Clark is so smart perhaps he can provide you with that source?

Once again you have had a fit because Bush acted against a KNOWN terror State, Iraq, on what he considered good intell, but demand to know why he failed to act on a non specific report a month before a terror attack. Come on Counselor tell us EXACTLY what Bush could have and should have done in 2001. Be specific and explain how he had the authority and power to do what ever it is you are going to claim he should have done.


Remind us again how 7 men in Florida CAUGHT on TAPE asking for training, money, supplies and providing detailed plans of terror attacks were railroaded but if 19 Arabs had been arrested on September 10th with nothing more than box cutters we would have thrown them in prison for terror.

 

[Dogger]

Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.

That's all you get RGS. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.

 

[Larkinn]

It proves there have no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

What lack of response do you refer to? Last I checked, he hasn't done much in the way of responding to left wing mud being slung. I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt and allow you to clarify prior to calling it that.

No terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

Do you read the news? Remember that bomb that went off at Times Square not that long ago? Or that pipe bomb in San Diego? What were those if not terrorist attacks?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's all you get RGs. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.

In other words you can not answer because your claim is so idiotic you are at a loss to defend it. But hey "Thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS

 

[Dogger]

That's all you get RGS. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.

Read it again, asswipe.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Be very careful, Dogger. You are upsetting the Conservative gods on these threads.

Liberal Loonies can not be taken seriously by compassionate conservatives. They are the holders of the Holey Grale of political wisdumb.

 

[jreeves]

From your article.



Did you even read it? Assassination is illegal, but its unclear what the difference between assassination and targeted killings (which are legal) are.

Interesting article though.



It didn't exist before the US invaded.



Actually compared to where it was before the Iraq War, its thriving.

In Dogger's quote, Clinton said Assassination not targeted killing.

I'm sure there were no terrorist in Iraq before the war started.

No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.

Though largely dismissed by the Democratic Left, America’s “surge” policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is in retreat, violence is down, and political reconciliation is up.

In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists.

“We were mistreated, cheated, and betrayed by some of our brothers,” he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the USA. This shift “created panic, fear, and the unwillingness to fight,” another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered “total collapse.”

Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq -- as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) cheered and Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) jeered -- only 8 percent of Baghdad’s neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25044

AQ is thriving in Iraq, I think not.....