Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ranger
What had Al Queda actually done, either before or during the Clinton administration, that even comes close to what they had cooked up for us on 9-11? SHOULD Clinton have been as concerned during his administration as Bush obviously needed to be during his? During the Clinton administration Al Queda was just seen as yet another shadowy little group of rather nasty fanatics. Just one such group out of of many.
|
Huh? Not according to Richard Clarke. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Quote:
|
But Bush had much more recent and much more specific intelligence information that Clinton had not had, and Bush simply chose to ignore it (while he busied himself with plundering our tax system for his rich business buddies).
|
Huh? What did al Qaida do between Clinton's departure and 9.11? What specific information did Bush have that Clinton did not? What more reason did Bush have that Clinton did not? Attack on the WTC in 1993 - Clinton's watch. Attack on embassies in Africa - Clinton's watch. Attack on the USS Cole - Clinton's watch. To use your argument - if Clinton wasn't so busy screwing interns, putting hits out on every person who could bring harm to his career, or covering up his long list of fiscal malfeasance then maybe he would've had time to address the gathering threat that culminated in 9.11.
Quote:
|
Did Clinton have any real reason to be even more concerned than he already was at the time? Given what little Clinton actually knew at the time (about the actual up-and-coming 9-11 plans of this little group known as Al Queda) he acted appropriately for that particular period of time, I think.
|
Wow. That's so devoid of reality that it stretches my mind. Please, explain to me how Bush could've ever postulated that al Qaida was a greater threat than Clinton ever knew. What changed between January of 2001 and September of 2001 that should've so sealed in his mind that al Qaida was planning an attack? Was it the almost monthly videos from bin Laden vowing to "make the Americans suffer". Ooops! Nope, those came during... wait for it... Clinton's watch. You can't blame Clinton though, his terrorism czar was telling him that al Qaida wasn't a threat. No wait, his terrorism czar just wrote a book about how he's warned three administrations that al Qaida's a threat.
Plain fact is Clinton had opportunity and cause to deal with bin Laden et. al. and he refused to do it. To saddle Bush with the responsibility simply boggles the imagination.
To further argue that Bush should've done something while at the same time criticizing him for attacking al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan makes me laugh at the utter hypocrisy.
Quote:
|
It's also quite clear now, from a wide variety of sources, that Clinton approved the killing of Osama outright, without any reservations at all, really. It was the CIA that chose to interpret their general orders in such a way as to make the avoidance of any collateral damage the "main" priority.
|
Oh, so it's the CIA's fault. Why isn't it the CIA's fault now?
Quote:
|
Personally, I think that if the pathetic Republicans hadn't been trying so very hard to make a mountain out of a little mole-hill with their silly, meaningless little attack on Clinton over a stupid blowjob, maybe Clinton may have been able to focus his attention a little better on the problem of Al Queda at the time.
|
I think you underestimate Clinton's ability to multi-task. After all, wasn't he getting several of those blow-jobs while on the phone with heads of state? Still, I have to agree with your point; maybe we should look for presidents who can focus on more than one thing at a time? Clearly, Clinton's mind was on more important things - like his legacy
Push for Mideast peace could raise Clinton's stature in history
Quote:
|
But with the economy booming, and jobs more plentiful than job applicants, they had to do something to smear Clinton, no matter how trivial and totally irrelevant it might actually be, right?
|
Hmmm, booming economy... low unemployment... need a reason to smear... sounds just about right.
Quote:
|
And no US President in the last 40 years can even come close to equalling Bush when it comes to showing a total disregard for civilian casualties, either foreign or domestic. His score thus far remains unequalled.
|
Which explains why Clinton was charged with war crimes. Got it.
Quote:
|
Lets face the facts here....
|
None of which relate to how Bush should've solved a problem in 235 days that Clinton could not solve in 8 years. Especially since Clinton started with a full intelligence deck and Bush inherited the one Clinton decimated.