The Big Lie is Bush Lied

[CSM]

as I said... Clinton TRIED. Bush not only did NOT try, he stopped the UAV overflights designed to try and FIND OBL.

Maybe Bush realized there was no legal grounds for action against OBL??? As for Clinton "trying" ...did you read the links? I guess not.

 

[GeeWhiz]

[/COLOR]...One good point that has not been made is if Bush was clueless...

The statement above is incorrect. The correct account is Bush just plain didn't care about terrorism he was more concerned about waging a war against Iraq to fattened the wallet of his war profiteer friends.

Terrorism has been known as far back as the Kennedy days. Planes were highjacked back then.

Under Rayguns watch a bus loaded with bombs blew up Marines. Raygun tossed a missle at Libya.

Bush Sr knew about terrorism there were attempts under his watch to secure the airlines. Bush Sr tossed the plan to secure our airlines into the trashcan because Bush Sr didn't want to fund it.

During Clinton's watch there were two groups speaking before the Republican controlled Legislative Branch. One group were experts warning Congress about the danger of terrorism the other group were members of the PNAC who could care less about terrorism they cared more about Middle East domination. Who do you think the Republican controlled Congress listened to?

Cheney has been in and out of government long enough to have known about terrorism he too didn't care. Richard Clark tried to get Rice to draw up a meeting. Ashcroft put terrorism on the back burner and Bush Jr ignored terrorism because he didn't want to swat at flies.

The fact is Bush dropped the ball and whored out his own screw up to con the people into a war with a nation that had zero to do with 911. To this day Bush is still doing zero.

 

[boedicca]

The statement above is incorrect. The correct account is Bush just plain didn't care about terrorism he was more concerned about waging a war against Iraq to fattened the wallet of his war profiteer friends.

Please provide objective proof that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and is only about profiteering Bush's friends.

 

[maineman]

Maybe Bush realized there was no legal grounds for action against OBL??? As for Clinton "trying" ...did you read the links? I guess not.

I did read the links.... and why are you being so willfully obtuse? I state that there was not enough evidence against OBL to take custody of him when the Sudan offered him up. That is fact. Clinton tried.... obviously, he missed opportunities, but at least HE tried to do something about OBL while he was in office. Bush did less than nothing. He ignored warnings...he STOPPED overflights designed to find OBL...and still you adore him and try to make this about Clinton.

 

[maineman]

and passing off MANSOOR IJAZ as a credible source is kinda funny.

 

[boedicca]

Clinton's problem was that he treated OBL (and terrorist bombings) as criminal acts instead of ones of war. He applied Constitutional protections to OBL which didn't apply. If he had properly realized terrorism for what it is, he could have acted. He used appallingly poor judgement - which, if he had been Bush, you would have called A Lie.

EDIT: We'll also never know the whole truth given that Sandy Berger destroyed classified documents.

 

[CSM]

I did read the links.... and why are you being so willfully obtuse? I state that there was not enough evidence against OBL to take custody of him when the Sudan offered him up. That is fact. Clinton tried.... obviously, he missed opportunities, but at least HE tried to do something about OBL while he was in office. Bush did less than nothing. He ignored warnings...he STOPPED overflights designed to find OBL...and still you adore him and try to make this about Clinton.

Wrong...I am not trying to make this "about Clinton". I have already stated that there is enough blame to go around. Obviously we disagree about Clnton's level of effort...but talk about being willfully obtuse: you say Clinton had no legal grounds for action against OBL and then state, "he missed opportunities". Then you say "Bush did nothing"...why should Bush pursue illegal activity, or wasn't it illegal? or was it only illegal when Bush did it and not when Clinton did it?


As for the "adore" part ... puleeze your partisanship is oozing out again. You just can't help it can you!

 

[CSM]

and passing off MANSOOR IJAZ as a credible source is kinda funny.

Well, it made you think, did it not? Besides, It came from MSM; the great bastion of Bush haters...I thought you would love it!

 

[GeeWhiz]

Please provide objective proof that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and is only about profiteering Bush's friends.

The PNAC a group founded in the early nineties. Eleven members of the PNAC became part of the Bush administration at top level too. Members such as Wolfowitz and Perle.

The PNAC call for war against Iraq had nothing to do with terrrorism it had everything to do with Middle Eastern domination and that call was long before 911.

As for war profiteers; are you that naive? Cheney was picked to find a vice president for Bush. Cheney is the first person in history to pick himself. He just so happens to work for a War Profiteering company. Just like Bush Sr who too worked for a war profiteering company. This is the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.

The military industrial complex is when we have people going into government work and then into private contract work and they go back and forth like a revolving door. Just like Cheney.

Guess what Cheney got a nice severance package that made him an instant millionaire and Halliburton got a nice no bid contract that made them an instant billionaire company.

Bush and Cheney are hard core privatizeers that seek only to whore out their souls to the devil for a buck and that buck was made when they fleeced the tax payers hard earned money to fund a useless and senseless war that serves no purpose other than to fatten the wallets of war profiteers.

 

[CSM]

Clinton's problem was that he treated OBL (and terrorist bombings) as criminal acts instead of ones of war. He applied Constitutional protections to OBL which didn't apply. If he had properly realized terrorism for what it is, he could have acted. He used appallingly poor judgement - which, if he had been Bush, you would have called A Lie.

EDIT: We'll also never know the whole truth given that Sandy Berger destroyed classified documents.

There is that too. I tend to think that Dems in particular still want to treat terrorism as "criminal acts" ...

 

[GeeWhiz]

There is that too. I tend to think that Dems in particular still want to treat terrorism as "criminal acts" ...

That is the most stupid post I ever saw on the web. Do you actually believe that all the terrorists in the world stood around the kebob stand in the street corner of Baghadad long before 911?

Bush is such an idiot he wouldn't even know a terrorist from his wife Laura if his next line of coke depended on it.

 

[maineman]

Wrong...I am not trying to make this "about Clinton". I have already stated that there is enough blame to go around. Obviously we disagree about Clnton's level of effort...but talk about being willfully obtuse: you say Clinton had no legal grounds for action against OBL and then state, "he missed opportunities". Then you say "Bush did nothing"...why should Bush pursue illegal activity, or wasn't it illegal? or was it only illegal when Bush did it and not when Clinton did it?


As for the "adore" part ... puleeze your partisanship is oozing out again. You just can't help it can you!

what part of "before May of '96" are you willfully refusing to understand?

We had no evidence of OBL's malfeasance against the US or US interests before that time.... after that time we did.

When we DID, Clinton tried to do something about it.

Bush did less than that. He stopped overflights and didn't pay attention to growing threats of impencing action by OBL.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Just want everyone to know that little baby boy CSM didn't want to debate me like a man instead he ran like a coward and gave me bad rep points. That is so Bush, so Fox news, so little of him.

 

[maineman]

There is that too. I tend to think that Dems in particular still want to treat terrorism as "criminal acts" ...

no...we don't.... but we also don't want to start wars of choice that have no connection to the terror unleashed upon us.

 

[CSM]

no...we don't.... but we also don't want to start wars of choice that have no connection to the terror unleashed upon us.

Terror or terrorism...the two are different ya know!

Truthfully, I do believe that some (not all) do view terrorism as a criminal act (which it CAN be) and should be treated as such...thus the debate over the status of "detainees" (or are they prisoners of war?)...

By the way, I prefer wars of choice over letting another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 occur...

 

[maineman]

Terror or terrorism...the two are different ya know!

Truthfully, I do believe that some (not all) do view terrorism as a criminal act (which it CAN be) and should be treated as such...thus the debate over the status of "detainees" (or are they prisoners of war?)...

By the way, I prefer wars of choice over letting another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 occur...

Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11. Iraq did NOT have any weapons of mass destruction. I am all for taking it to the enemy, but the war in Iraq did not do that. I prefer wars of choice over letting another pearl harbor or 9/11 happen as well as you do...taht doesn't mean that I would, therefore, blythely endorse a war of choice against Sri Lanka, for example, just for the hell of it....


Saddam was an asshole, no doubt...but he did three things better than we did:

1. kept islamic extremists out of his country
2. kept sunnis and shiites from killing one another
3. kept Iran's regional hegemony in check


Our war on terror would be much better served if we had SOMEONE doing those three things better than we have been doing those three things.

 

[CSM]

Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11. Iraq did NOT have any weapons of mass destruction. I am all for taking it to the enemy, but the war in Iraq did not do that. I prefer wars of choice over letting another pearl harbor or 9/11 happen as well as you do...taht doesn't mean that I would, therefore, blythely endorse a war of choice against Sri Lanka, for example, just for the hell of it....


Saddam was an asshole, no doubt...but he did three things better than we did:

1. kept islamic extremists out of his country
2. kept sunnis and shiites from killing one another
3. kept Iran's regional hegemony in check


Our war on terror would be much better served if we had SOMEONE doing those three things better than we have been doing those three things.

I can agree with the above (hedging a bit about WMD but...). I don't think there is any point to attacking Sri Lanka...Monacco maybe, but not Sri Lanka!

No doubt Saddam did all that you point out. Our problem is we cannot or will not allow our military to use the same methods. Your statemnet does tell me that you are not necessarily opposed to such methods but rather only opposed to the US using such methods....is that correct?

 

[maineman]

I can agree with the above (hedging a bit about WMD but...). I don't think there is any point to attacking Sri Lanka...Monacco maybe, but not Sri Lanka!

No doubt Saddam did all that you point out. Our problem is we cannot or will not allow our military to use the same methods. Your statemnet does tell me that you are not necessarily opposed to such methods but rather only opposed to the US using such methods....is that correct?

I think that it is a fool's venture to send the American (predominantly Christian) military into Iraq and have them attempt to keep order using ANY methodology. That is not our fight.... it only makes both sides of their sectarian conflict hate us...it makes all the rest of the middle east distrust us...and it doesn't do DICK to address the real enemy and the real threat that enemy poses for us.

Quite frankly, I think the war in Iraq is the single worst foreign policy blunder of my lifetime and is unambigously counterproductive to our national interests.

 

[CSM]

I think that it is a fool's venture to send the American (predominantly Christian) military into Iraq and have them attempt to keep order using ANY methodology. That is not our fight.... it only makes both sides of their sectarian conflict hate us...it makes all the rest of the middle east distrust us...and it doesn't do DICK to address the real enemy and the real threat that enemy poses for us.

Quite frankly, I think the war in Iraq is the single worst foreign policy blunder of my lifetime and is unambigously counterproductive to our national interests.

Obviously, I disagree....but that dont make you a bad guy!

The bad guys hated us BEFORE we went into Iraq... it's not like the Islamic extremists just decided one day that the US is evil...they have been claiming that since before the Barbary Pirates started their crap in the 1800s. It continued on through WW II when some Arab/Muslim countries sided with the Axis. In other words, the Arab/Muslim states have been a threat for a long time.

Personally, I said when we first went into Iraq it is a mistake but not because of reasons you may stipulate. It is a mistake because the citizens of this country will not make the commitment to see it through. I do not believe the US population will EVER, under ANY circumstances, committ the blood and treasure or provide the moral support or make the sacrifices required over an extended period of time to win any conflict with any country... period. I believe that today.

 

[maineman]

Obviously, I disagree....but that dont make you a bad guy!

The bad guys hated us BEFORE we went into Iraq... it's not like the Islamic extremists just decided one day that the US is evil...they have been claiming that since before the Barbary Pirates started their crap in the 1800s. It continued on through WW II when some Arab/Muslim countries sided with the Axis. In other words, the Arab/Muslim states have been a threat for a long time.

Personally, I said when we first went into Iraq it is a mistake but not because of reasons you may stipulate. It is a mistake because the citizens of this country will not make the commitment to see it through. I do not believe the US population will EVER, under ANY circumstances, committ the blood and treasure or provide the moral support or make the sacrifices required over an extended period of time to win any conflict with any country... period. I believe that today.

I do not disagree entirely with your assessment of arab/muslim countries.... but I do believe that our presence in Iraq is tending to radicalize muslims who would otherwise be relatively non-commital to the US. I can tell you from my own personal experience, that many many arabs had publicly non-commital postions vis a vis the USA, but privately, were very supportive of us and admired us. I do not think that those same arabs would feel that gracious to us today.

And I disagree with your assessment of the will of our people. If Iraq HAD actually attacked us on 9/11, I doubt that America would lose their stomach for kicking Iraqi ass...I know I certainly wouldn't. It is only as America has come to realize that the case for war was hyped and that Saddam did not, in fact, have anything to do with 9/11, and that he did not actually pose any real threat to us,...it is only then that support for this war began to wane.