I'd like to thank Bush for bringing Socialism to the EUFollow

Lol, you proved my point, just stick those fingers in your ears and start chanting I cant hear you, its worked well for you so far Gbaji and you once again prove that you can write 8 paragraphs about how well you can do it =).

Ah yes the good old everyman defense to be employed after one gets beat down with the facts.

Still sounds like a Jack Nicholson quote to me, " you can't handle the truth."

Interesting article in today's Newsday.




A quote from Bush's one time counterterrorism coordinator:

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

Now, I'm the least likely guy on this board to defend Bush, however...

Rich Clarke is a bitter underapreciated mid level beurecrat. He's one of those people with an axe to grind anytime presicely what he asks for doesn't get carried out by a government.

Trust me, I can relate to that.

The Bush administration absolutely did ignore a very real impending threat they were aware of, but it wasn't because they ignored Rich Clarke. It was mainly because they simply didn't bother to pay much attention to any foriegn policy at all untill forced to by 9-11. That's why Powell is so pissed off. As Sec-State he was essentially weilding carte blanche to effect his vision of American influence throughout the world. After 9-11 that was put into the hands of men like **** Armatige, Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz.

With disaterous consequences.

Considering there's nothing to pull up I imagine that's largely and irrelevently true.




The presidency. If the president doesn't have a majority of Congress from his party, that's his problem.


I heard you the first time.


No, what makes my position easier is that I simply don't do it. Now, the fact that you randomly accuse me of something without anything to back it up at all, well, that's your problem. I see the excuses have allready started however. We both know how this will end. You'll run like a coward and stop posting or create imaginary things that don't exist and refuse to provide any actuall facts.

As ussual.


No, that's what you would do. Don't project on to me, Skippy. I'm not the one justifying every Republican failure by saying the Democrats in Congress did it, or that it was the fault of the previous Democratic President.


Perish the thought that you might actually have to spend some time studying the history of politics in America. The fact that you don't know offhand the last time is rather enlghtening actually.



Good thing they're not then I guess.


Because the Republican's are in power now, and no, nothing was "clearly brewing" during the Clinton administration other than the greatest economic period in the history of the nation.


Sure. Qualify everything. It makes it easier not to have to actually take a position or have an oppinion. Maybe the universe exists, maybe not. Maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming to be a man. Grow a pair and take a position. Maybe if Bush didn't set a record for days on vacation in the first nine months he would have done something.


Well, that's a matter of oppinion, I suppose. Contrasted with Bush's record after the same terrorist events I'd say it was a pretty outstanding record. No one flew any airplanes into massive office buildings if I recall. Or does Bush not have to respond to terrorist events that occured before he took office? Look, when Kerry wins I fully expect him to respond to the ludicrous Bush tax cuts by rolling them back. If he instead ignores them and the economy colapses, I'd blame Kerry, not Bush. Inaction applies as much responsibility as action.



Aside from that whole "capturing the responsible party" part. How's Bush doing with that, by the way?


It WAS AND IS a criminal matter and not one of national security.


One could argue that it was the best possible course and that there would have been a nuclear holocaust if we had responded diffrently in any way. One could argue that they paid for Lewinsky's services as barter for not being attacked. One could create any sort of fantasy they want. It wouldn't be plausible, just as arguing that Clinton's response somehow emblodened people willing to die to carry out attacks wouldn't be plausible.

Think about what you're saying for just a minute here. You're making the argument that if the people willing to kill themselves to harm us were more afraid that we'd...what? Kill them? They wouldn't have attacked us? Intresting theory. Maybe if the Japanese Kamakazie had only realized that we'd try to shoot them out of the sky they wouldn't have attacked our ships.

[quote]
Contrast to Bush's actions after 9/11. Whether you agree with the actions (and I don't even 100% agree with them), they have been decisive.
[/quote]
Sure. He did nothing for a fairly long period of time, allowing the leaders of Al Queda to go underground and then he destabilized Afganistan. Fantastic. Oh, and then he invaded Iraq at the cost of ~600 US lives because 9-11 was a good excuse to do that even though Iraq is wholly unrelated to 9-11.


[quote]
Lot of other nations may not agree with what we've done, but you can bet that there are no terrorists in the world right now thinking that if they take action against the US, the US wont do anything back to them.
[/quote]
I don't know what it takes for this to sink in for you. You can't defend yourself from suicide attacks with an overwhelming force docterine. People who are willing to die to hurt you really aren't terribly detered because you make it clear you're willing to kill them. Ask the Isralis. Oh yeah, them! This isn't a new idea, you realize. We're essentially following the doctrine of a nation who's been fighting terrorists for 20 years. As models of sucess in keeping your nations people from being killed I wouldn't put them at the top of my list, personally. Clinton understood that the solution to Islamic terror attacks resides in the middle east peace process. Bush doesn't understand that.

[quote]
You can also bet that there are no nations in the world that are thinking that they do not need to police terorrists within their borders since the US will not take action against them merely for the actions their citizens take against us.
[/quote]
Saudi Arabia. QED.


[quote]
Right, wrong or indifferent, his administration has made some decisive actions. They have changed the face of the terrorism equation.
[/quote]
Yes, they've recuited an etire new generation of suicide bombers. They've also taken US citizens out of the US, put them next door to where many of the terrorists reside, painted large targets on the US troops backs and effectively provided a shooting gallery on the borders of Syria and Lebanon. How much easier for a Jihadist to kill American's when they're just an hours drive away instead of across the world.


[quote]
I think it's pretty clear that the methods we've been using for the last 20 years have not been working, and it can be argued led directly to the 9/11 attacks.
[/quote]
I think it's pretty clear that the methods we're using now have been used by Isreal for the last 20 years with disaterous results. I imagine next we build a big wall around the borders too, right? It can be argued that the US unwavering support of Isreal regardless of what actions it takes, including the outright assasination of the families of suicide bombers led directly to the 9/11 attacks. One could easily argue that the Mossad is state sponsered terrorism. It'd be hard to counter that argument. If Isreal was run by Muslims we'd be bombing them about now.

This isn't to say I'm anti-Isreal, because I'm not. But if you want to look at the causes of Islamic terror attacks on the US, that's the place to start, not with some ludicrous theory that we've been to permissive with them.

[quote]
Clearly, some policy needed to be changed. Bush changed it. Again, you can argue the appropriateness of the actions taken, but you cannot say that he did nothing in reaction to 9/11.
[/quote]
Well, I can say he didn't do enough. He took resources out of fighting Al Queda and used them in Iraq. QED again. That can't be argued against. There's a finite number of resources that can be applied and he applied a good deal of them to Iraq instead of Al Queda.


[quote]
Unlike Clinton, who literally did nothing not just the first time, but the 6th time we had a major terrorist action against us.
[/quote]
Firstly, Clinton certainly did do a great many things in response to those attacks. Arguing he did nothing just exposes your partisan bias. Or perhaps your lack of understanding of the history of terror attacks. Either way, it's wrong. You can take ignorance as a way out if you want, it's probbaly easier.


[quote]
But hey! We're not pointing fingers here are we? After all, the OP wasn't finger pointing, right? So why sould anyone point fingers in response? That's just silly...
[/quote]
No, I think we should absolutely point fingers. I think we should hold the President in power acountable for things that happen on his watch. Period. It's not a complex idea to understand. I realize you can't do it because it exposes your party for the greedy, exploitive, beholden hacks they are. But hey, that's not my problem.

To avoid another 9000 word post let me reply breifly (for once).

Blaming Clinton for a terroist event that happened on Bush's watch is the quintessential example of being a partisan hack brainwashed beyond the ability to see the facts.

Thanks for proving my point.

To your specefic questions, a couple of things: One, Bin Laden has never ever been tied to the '93 WTC bombing. He was named as an unindicted conspirator with 172 other people. Basically a laundry list of Islamic militants at the time. That he was somehow the "mastermind" behind the first bombing is something that's been manufactured after the fact because it's much easier to point a finger at one person than it is to admit that there are several orginisations out to kill us. So unless he had a magic crystal ball Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, wouldn't have arrested Bin Laden in February '93 if he was on the White House tour. Hammas had more to do with the '93 bombing than Al Queda. Pakistan had more to with it than Al Queda. So your imaginary brainwashed propaganda that he was somehow Puplic enemy #1 after that event is slightly flawed to say the least.

As to Clinton having "eight years" to do something about him, I'm not sure where to start there. Pretending that Bin Laden was an equal threat when Clinton took office and when Bush took office is insanity. I mean if you're going to go that route why not question why Kennedy didn't take him out when he had the chance? That being said, at a certain point he became an equivilent threat to what he was when Bush took office. '98 say. Is Clinton responsible for not capturing him between '98 and '01? Sure he is. Does that make him repsonsible for 9/11? Nope. Does that make Bush responsible? Yup. Why?

Because it happened on Bush's watch. I'm not sure which word of my easily understandable philosophy regarding this you don't understand. I hold the person in power accountable for things that happen while he's in power. Simple.

We didn't accept the offer to extradite him in '96 because there wasn't enough evidence to indict him. Evidence, remember that? Remember back when we killed people for specefic reasons we could prove and not just arbitrarily because they had a lot of oil reserves? Anyway...

Was that a mistake? Yes it was. Was that Clinton's fault? Yes it was. Does that make him responsible for 9/11? No it doesn't.

As to Bush, he had every opportunity to turn up the heat on Al Queda and did nothing. I know, I know, that's Clinton's fault too. It's all Clinton's fault, of course. It's Clinton's fault that Bin Laden shows up at his son's wedding in 2001 in Kandahar and we do nothing. It's Clinton's fault that we used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, pulling invaluable resources off teh search for Bin Laden. Clinton had eight years to remove Saddam from power too.

I imagine it's Clinton's fault also that North Korea is building Nuclear Weapons. He, after all, had eight years to do somehting about Kin Jung Ill. I'm sure it's also Clinton's fault that we resolved a massive Genocide in the Balkans. Oh wait, that ended well, that must be Regean's doing somehow, I'm certain of it.

The Recession is Clinton's fault too, right? I mean you've made that clear previously. It's Clinton's fault that Cheny let Enron dictate energy policy in secret meetings and now won't release them to Congress I imagine.

Here's what I see you saying. Correct me where I'm wrong, please:

Regean get's credit for an economic boom which Clinton inherits and somehow screws up before Bush gets into office.

Regean causes the collapse of the Soviet Union by spending a ******** of money on star wars. (even though it happens when Bush Sr. is in office).

The national debt is unimportant because it finances growth, so any problems related to it are just in the imagination of Democrats who foolishly ballance budgets and reduce it.

Bush inherited such a horrible economy from Clinton that he will be the first President not to create jobs during his tenure since Hoover (a Republican by the way, I'm sure that was really Wilson's fault).

Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he didn't capture Bin Laden when he had the chance.

Clinton is responsible for terrorist attacks on the US in general because he wasn't "tough enough" on terror groups.

Clinton is responsible for intelligence failures in Iraq because...I'm sure you have a reason, fill me in.

Startlingly what you believe looks remarkebly like a Fox News broadcast. I wonder why that is? What could possibly be the connection? Hmm.

At any rate, you're a pathetic true believer brainwash victim of the Republican Party machine. Don't feel bad though, you haven't become a Nascar fan yet. It's good that you haven't sold out completely I guess.

I think you should get a little sign for your desk that reads "The Buck Stops OVER THERE". With an arrow pointing to a map of Massachussets. Liberal paradise and cause of every ill known to man.

Edited, Tue Mar 23 01:31:19 2004 by Smasharoo

What event in the first 9 months of the Bush Administration or what unclassified or top secret known intelligence analysis was available during the first 9 months that would have allowed Bush to LEGALLY "turn up the heat on Al Queda"? Let's say Bush Had gone after Al Queda before 9/11 you'd be ******** right now that he had no right to go after "innocent" people that where just trying to get flying lessons on our own soil.

The fault does not lay with the Commander In Chief at the time, the fault lies in the inability of a buraucratic system that legally did not allow interaction between the agencies that could have, should have and probably would have been able to piece together an accurate risk assessment and scenario had they only been able to talk across the hall. Do not blame the Bush administration for the lack of attention to the situation that occured on Clinton's watch. Planning, coordination, and preparation for execution of such a disastrous event as 9/11 takes more than 9 months of effort. You're a buraucrat Smash you know this. Hell it probably takes you 3 meetings just to decided to have a meeting about a single project.