The prior generations that have given so much to make this country what it is, deserve better than the deceit played by this administration.
You are foolish thinking any of the recent Presidents or candidates for that matter would not have prosecuted the action in Afghanistan.
My country is a little too dear to me than to give it up to school yard bravado, and ham-handed diplomacies.
My family has many old empty graves and yet they still have to suffer through your brand of bullshit. Blow the dust off that civics book and read it this time.
SADDAM CAPTURED
What's that? Someone called?
Ah, but Clinton/Gore sucked at fighting 'terrorism', right? After all, Reagan's ambassador for counter-terrorism, Robert Oakley savaged them when he said in December of 2000, "Overall, I give them very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama..." But then, Oakley's successor in the Reagan administration said that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden." Musta been some screwy stealth Clintonite, right? What was his name? Oh, Paul Bremer. Sound familiar?
While more al Qaeda attacks happened during the Clinton/Gore administration, sadly, more Americans died in terrorist attacks during the Reagan administration than Bush I and Clinton combined (the '83 Beirut embassy and barracks bombings and the Pan Am flight 103 bombing). The only overt action from Reagan was the bombing of Libya. Of course, at the same time they were arming muslim militants in Afghanistan and a certain mustached dictator in Iraq.
Ah, but then Clinton and Gore would go on to just sit by during a rise in terrorism? Of course, they negligently allowed the first World Trade Center bombing - after all, they had a whole 38 days in office to crack that one! Actually, Bush I allowed an al Qaeda cell operate in the US and had the cell understood the structure of the WTC slightly better, they could have done major damage. How did the lazy ol' C/G admin respond to the attack? They captured, tried and convicted Ramzi Yousef and his compatriots. The Clinton/Gore administration went on to crack al Qaeda plots to kill the Pope and blow up 12 commercial flights simultaneously. But then, the administration allowed al Qaeda to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, the LA airport, the Israeli embassy in Washington, and the UN Headquarters. Oh, wait, silly me - I forgot (as you did) that they stopped all those attacks - and more. They took out more than 20 al Qaeda cells around the world. The C/G administration created the national stockpile of counter-chemical weapon drugs and the national supply of smallpox vaccine. We wouldn't want people with an awful anti-terrorism track record like that, would we?
But then there was the bombing of the USS Cole - right? Hmmm, when was that? October 2000. Just before an election. The administration appointed Richard Clarke to put together a comprehensive plan to take out al Qaeda. By December, the plan was complete. What was in the Clinton plan? We'll get to that in a second. You see, this was a big, complicated plan, and with the upcoming inauguration of Bush II, it wouldn't work to launch such a plan while trying to hand off leadership of the world's most powerful nation. But, hey, G W Bush is the super badass of anti-terrorism, so he'd take up the plan and get right on it! Right? Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, arranged meetings to brief is successor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and her staff. Berger attended the briefing in terrorism himself and told Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and al Qaeda specifically, than on any other subject." After Berger's presentation, Richard Clarke explained their plan for fighting al Qaeda to Dr. Rice. But the Bush II administration had their own experts on counter-terrorism, right? No, actually, they hired Clarke to keep on with his current position, although they didn't listen to him much.
It's worth mentioning here that Dr. Rice was a specialist in Soviet Union/Cold War issues. She has been described as "a typewriter repairperson in a computer lab" in terms of her world view when she started her current job. Word is that in 2000, the Bush administration team thought as "though the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." Remember that early in the administration, the Bush II folks were fighting for the "Star Wars" missile defense system. Rumsfeld was focused on force structure review (as I mentioned above). What did the Bush II administration do with the Clinton/Gore anti-terrorism plan? Sit on it.
Time went on. In February 2001 the Hart-Rudman commission issued their report warning that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern." They advised combining several Federal agencies into a "National Homeland Security" agency. The Bush administration went on with their priorities of cutting taxes for the already rich, gutting international organizations and reducing environmental protections. In May of 2001, the administration announced that Bush would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these (anti-terrorism) efforts." In the following 5 months, he never chaired such a meeting. By July 2001, Clarke and CIA Director Tenet were getting on people's nerves at the White House with their plan and warnings of al Qaeda "chatter". In mid-July the CIA Director warned National Security Advisor Rice that "there was going to be a major attack."
Then there was the September 11, 2001 attack.
What was in the Clinton/Gore plan?
- Cut off funding to al Qaeda through sketchy financial operations and front-charities and freeze suspicious assets around the world.
- Work with intelligence agencies around the world to make a major priority to bust al Qaeda cells in foreign countries ASAP.
- Aid governments of countries with al Qaeda problems like Uzbekistan, the Philippines and Yemen.
- And most of all, scale up operations in Afghanistan to go after al Qaeda's leadership, including support for the Northern Alliance and putting significant numbers of Special Forces troops on the ground there.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, this was the core of the Bush II administration's actions.
So you "thank God" that Gore wasn't recognized as the winner of the 2000 election? Just think - if he had won, this plan would have been implemented in the fall of 2000. What if.....
(You repeated a bunch more O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh crap - I'll get to it if I can find some time.)
And I'm sure GW accepts God's thanks everyday that he 'acquired' the 2000 election. As you won't be surprised to learn, I wish that the folks who got the most votes in the last election had taken office.cfdpiper wrote:I thank God everyday that Al Gore was not elected President.........
That's a great question - let's follow it up with "What did the Bush II administration do about it prior to Sept. 11?" One of the early things that Clinton/Gore did was create our current 'smart' military. When a Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan sent coordinates through a satelite to target a cruise missle that was launched hundreds of miles away, he was able to do that because Clinton/Gore bought fewer warships and heavy tanks (for which they were savaged by the dumb right), and spent military budget on advanced communications equipment and smart weapons. In the invasion of Afghanistan, spotting a target to making it go boom could take less than 30 minutes, during Bush I's Gulf War, that process took more like three days. Because Clinton and Gore were smart, they saw that the end of the cold war would bring a complex, multi-polar world that demanded a light, fast, flexible military - and spent 8 years remaking the US military to handle that. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded by Clinton's military - Rumsfeld spent most of 2000/01 PLANNING to change the military (and pissing off much of the Pentagon) and implementing fairly little. As Dick Cheney said in August 2000, "A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him."G.W. has the fortitude, courage, and resolve to stay on these bastards wherever they choose to hide or fight. "Let's keep the whole world happy so they'll donate to my campaign" Gore would have botched this whole thing, just like his "daddy" Clinton did when he had the opportunity. Let me remind you that more acts of terrorism by al Qaeda occured to the U.S. (both at home and abroad) on his watch. What did he do to stop it ??
Ah, but Clinton/Gore sucked at fighting 'terrorism', right? After all, Reagan's ambassador for counter-terrorism, Robert Oakley savaged them when he said in December of 2000, "Overall, I give them very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama..." But then, Oakley's successor in the Reagan administration said that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden." Musta been some screwy stealth Clintonite, right? What was his name? Oh, Paul Bremer. Sound familiar?
While more al Qaeda attacks happened during the Clinton/Gore administration, sadly, more Americans died in terrorist attacks during the Reagan administration than Bush I and Clinton combined (the '83 Beirut embassy and barracks bombings and the Pan Am flight 103 bombing). The only overt action from Reagan was the bombing of Libya. Of course, at the same time they were arming muslim militants in Afghanistan and a certain mustached dictator in Iraq.
Ah, but then Clinton and Gore would go on to just sit by during a rise in terrorism? Of course, they negligently allowed the first World Trade Center bombing - after all, they had a whole 38 days in office to crack that one! Actually, Bush I allowed an al Qaeda cell operate in the US and had the cell understood the structure of the WTC slightly better, they could have done major damage. How did the lazy ol' C/G admin respond to the attack? They captured, tried and convicted Ramzi Yousef and his compatriots. The Clinton/Gore administration went on to crack al Qaeda plots to kill the Pope and blow up 12 commercial flights simultaneously. But then, the administration allowed al Qaeda to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, the LA airport, the Israeli embassy in Washington, and the UN Headquarters. Oh, wait, silly me - I forgot (as you did) that they stopped all those attacks - and more. They took out more than 20 al Qaeda cells around the world. The C/G administration created the national stockpile of counter-chemical weapon drugs and the national supply of smallpox vaccine. We wouldn't want people with an awful anti-terrorism track record like that, would we?
But then there was the bombing of the USS Cole - right? Hmmm, when was that? October 2000. Just before an election. The administration appointed Richard Clarke to put together a comprehensive plan to take out al Qaeda. By December, the plan was complete. What was in the Clinton plan? We'll get to that in a second. You see, this was a big, complicated plan, and with the upcoming inauguration of Bush II, it wouldn't work to launch such a plan while trying to hand off leadership of the world's most powerful nation. But, hey, G W Bush is the super badass of anti-terrorism, so he'd take up the plan and get right on it! Right? Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, arranged meetings to brief is successor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and her staff. Berger attended the briefing in terrorism himself and told Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and al Qaeda specifically, than on any other subject." After Berger's presentation, Richard Clarke explained their plan for fighting al Qaeda to Dr. Rice. But the Bush II administration had their own experts on counter-terrorism, right? No, actually, they hired Clarke to keep on with his current position, although they didn't listen to him much.
It's worth mentioning here that Dr. Rice was a specialist in Soviet Union/Cold War issues. She has been described as "a typewriter repairperson in a computer lab" in terms of her world view when she started her current job. Word is that in 2000, the Bush administration team thought as "though the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." Remember that early in the administration, the Bush II folks were fighting for the "Star Wars" missile defense system. Rumsfeld was focused on force structure review (as I mentioned above). What did the Bush II administration do with the Clinton/Gore anti-terrorism plan? Sit on it.
Time went on. In February 2001 the Hart-Rudman commission issued their report warning that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern." They advised combining several Federal agencies into a "National Homeland Security" agency. The Bush administration went on with their priorities of cutting taxes for the already rich, gutting international organizations and reducing environmental protections. In May of 2001, the administration announced that Bush would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these (anti-terrorism) efforts." In the following 5 months, he never chaired such a meeting. By July 2001, Clarke and CIA Director Tenet were getting on people's nerves at the White House with their plan and warnings of al Qaeda "chatter". In mid-July the CIA Director warned National Security Advisor Rice that "there was going to be a major attack."
Then there was the September 11, 2001 attack.
What was in the Clinton/Gore plan?
- Cut off funding to al Qaeda through sketchy financial operations and front-charities and freeze suspicious assets around the world.
- Work with intelligence agencies around the world to make a major priority to bust al Qaeda cells in foreign countries ASAP.
- Aid governments of countries with al Qaeda problems like Uzbekistan, the Philippines and Yemen.
- And most of all, scale up operations in Afghanistan to go after al Qaeda's leadership, including support for the Northern Alliance and putting significant numbers of Special Forces troops on the ground there.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, this was the core of the Bush II administration's actions.
So you "thank God" that Gore wasn't recognized as the winner of the 2000 election? Just think - if he had won, this plan would have been implemented in the fall of 2000. What if.....
(You repeated a bunch more O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh crap - I'll get to it if I can find some time.)
No doubt! Did you really have to worry because of Sadaam? It happens so infrequently here that nothing will keep me from the sale at the GAP.ynot wrote:You were on a roll there untill the last sentence. "It is because of him you can go to the mall and have to be worried about being blown to bits by a suicide bomber"
Think you need a not in there?
However, if you are writing us from Iraq, my apologies.
Tom;
I'm no fan of the C/G administration, but I do try to get an unbiased view of how the country is being run. The hard part, obviously, is gleaning some meaningful information from all the party propoganda.
I have not heard these things you posted, and I am not inclined to buy into it as quickly as Yas or overhung. My initial question is this: The media has always seemed very friendly towards the C/G admin and always willing to defend them. Why haven't they trumpeted this stuff in their defense already? Keep in mind I am not following many news sources that have an obvious leftward slant. In the absence of a reasonably impartial source, it sounds like after-the-fact spin.
M.
I'm no fan of the C/G administration, but I do try to get an unbiased view of how the country is being run. The hard part, obviously, is gleaning some meaningful information from all the party propoganda.
I have not heard these things you posted, and I am not inclined to buy into it as quickly as Yas or overhung. My initial question is this: The media has always seemed very friendly towards the C/G admin and always willing to defend them. Why haven't they trumpeted this stuff in their defense already? Keep in mind I am not following many news sources that have an obvious leftward slant. In the absence of a reasonably impartial source, it sounds like after-the-fact spin.
M.
No chalkbag since 1995.
-
Guest
I hate to bring the facts into this arguement (seeing as how you are on a roll, and all that) But I digress.tomdarch wrote:
And I'm sure GW accepts God's thanks everyday that he 'acquired' the 2000 election. As you won't be surprised to learn, I wish that the folks who got the most votes in the last election had taken office.
Correct me if I am wrong. THe Miami Herald financed an independant vote count of Florida and Bush won by 1600 or so votes. The reason that you didn't hear about this is (1) It was several months after the election that it finally played out. (2) George Bush......ahem, excuse me, PRESIDENT George Bush is not a media darling like Al Gore. Pres. Bush doesn't hold to the liberal/socialist policies that the media endorses.
Hey, it's all spin. ALL. What get's released by the media has been so chopped up and rearranged by consultants that I doubt that it's remotely close to the truth. Politicians are manipulators, pure and simple. As far as George II is concerned, my gut feeling is that he is a figure-head (mouth piece), and a bad one at that. I vote for the person I feel will do the least damage. I'd vote for Hillary because I do think that Bill had a clue about the economy, and that he would guide her in a lot of policy matters. She's a charlatan too, but we know that beforehand so I don't feel like someone is getting over on me.
I've had just about enough of this shit.