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. 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). 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.

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. That was clearly our wonderful CIA to blame for that failure there, not Clinton. Follow the news and you'd already know this.

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. 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?

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.

Lets face the facts here. Despite what Bush claims Al Queda and Iraq are two entirely separate animals. Not connected in any way. His war with Iraq is nothing more than a misguided war of aggression, pure and simple. And his conduct of the war with Afghanistan has been absolutely abyssmal, to say the least. Just like in Iraq, he obviously had no clue what he was doing then, and he still doesn't now. His shoddy military plans had no hope at all of capturing Bin Laden, and as proof I'll point out that Bin Laden remains free to this very day. Shitty planning, shitty implementation, and shitty follow-through. All hallmarks of any Bush plan. Bush is obviously a man given to making grandiose gestures with little or no thought for the consequences of his showboating. He's bellicose and cocksure, and as hopelessly dumb as they come. Brutalizing Iraq has not made us any safer, either. Far from it. More Americans died in Iraq today than on any day since the initial invasion, and it's getting worse, not better, in that regard. And there are more anti-US terrorist wannabe's all over the world today than there have ever been. Ever. Thanks, Bush. Where would we be today without you?

To qoute Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, Commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq: "Tell me how this ends?"

'In the Company of Soldiers': A Long Slog to Someplace

Huh? Not according to Richard Clarke. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
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.
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.
Oh, so it's the CIA's fault. Why isn't it the CIA's fault now?
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
Hmmm, booming economy... low unemployment... need a reason to smear... sounds just about right.
Which explains why Clinton was charged with war crimes. Got it.
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.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Well, the Twin Towers were still standing proudly when Clinton left office, and the Pentagon was still unblemished, and that's more than Bush will ever be able to claim at the end of his Presidency, that's for sure. There were also a lot fewer dead Afghan and Iraqi civilains and a lot fewer dead American soldiers when Clinton left office than there are now, as well. Take that for what you will, I guess.


- QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

"We may work for the government now. But if anything happens, we all work for Sadr." - LT. MOHAMMED ABU KADAR, of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, on the support in his neighborhood for Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric.

Okay, let me see if I understand this.
So, the guy that got the warning, and was able to act before the violence escalated is good. The guy who was in office when it happened is bad. Got it. Makes total sense.

And the cop who is on the scene when the bomb goes off is guilty of negligence, but the cop who got the bomb threat and knew where the bombers were is just doing his job.

Couldn't be clearer.
Well, maybe Afghans. But you're right, better to be the pacifist appeasers that marked Clinton's entire tenure. The time when bin Laden called us "paper tigers" and urged attacks with no fear of retribution. The time of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starving and dying due to UN sanctions and despotic rule. Sanctions and rule that could have been eliminated if but one country refused to tolerate any more obfuscation and stalling.

Yea, good times... good times...

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

There were many reasons for the starvation: Hussein and his regime and their little efforts to help the Iraqi people, the sanctions, and the often forgotten "United States' deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War".

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...nctions07.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/300words.html

Do you suggest that the situation in Iraq is better now that one country "refused to tolerate any more stalling"?

Does this include Bush voters?

__________________

[QUOTE=fatboy]
Well, maybe Afghans. But you're right, better to be the pacifist appeasers that marked Clinton's entire tenure. The time when bin Laden called us "paper tigers" and urged attacks with no fear of retribution. The time of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starving and dying due to UN sanctions and despotic rule. Sanctions and rule that could have been eliminated if but one country refused to tolerate any more obfuscation and stalling.

Yea, good times... good times...
[\QUOTE]

So do us a favor and explain why the dead Iraqi civillians do not count and why the dead Afghan civilians are a "maybe". Both civilian killings by US forces are well documented (although not in the US and nobody wants those figures in this government).

And whi in the hell do you think you are claiming dead women, children and kids are better than to be a paper tiger?! Maybe you should join the armed services and go where you condemn others to! I have seen Bosnia and can only imagine Iraq. My heart goes out the the civilians and my brothers in arms that die for ignorant assholes like you!

Despotic rule yes, but this despotic ruler was more than once kept in power by the US governments throughout his rule by cash and weapons deals. You may want to research what all was given to this cruel killing despot. Mind you that the US was still giving him weapons aids throughout the gulf war with Iran while he was using b-weapons on the Kurdish people. Maybe you should explain in the same stroke why the despot was not stopped at that time! His killing started right after he took power and was also well documented and please enlighten me why he was not stopped then either.
I am apparently too stupid to figure it out and am unable to read history 101 by Dubya.

__________________
_____________________________________________

Oh, that's right. I forgot that the US waged war against Iraq in 1991. I keep telling all the major news services, but for some reason they keep reporting that the UN waged that war. Silly me for forgetting.
Yes. I think, eventually, the US will be gone and the Iraqis will be able to determine their own destiny. With Saddam in power, and two equally ruthless (if not more so) heirs to the throne in waiting, the Iraqis would never be free.

Perhaps you think being murdered, raped, tortured, or being forced to watch your loved ones go through that is better than being in the middle of a war. I don't. At least you can escape the war, or work to end it.
Huh? Why would it not?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I never said they didn't matter, did I? Why do you have such a hard time with what I write? It's not like I said something in passing - it's written down. You can read and re-read it, look up definitions, analyze the context of what has come before. Is all of that really so hard?

I implied that it was questionable that more Iraqis and American soldiers died as a result of Bush's actions than as a result of Clinton's actions (or, more aptly, inaction). In order to arrive at the number of American soldiers who died as a result of Clinton, you would have to factor in the soldiers at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the soldiers who died in the Balkans (and, while we're at it, we should include all of the civilians killed by American bombs during that war into Clinton's tally), the soldiers who died on the USS Cole, and the soldiers who died in the Pentagon on 9.11. But, even after all of these American soldiers are tallied up, Bush probably has more dead on his hands. But not by much.

The list of Iraqis killed as a result of Clinton's (and the UN's) appeasement of Saddam Hussein must begin with those who died as a result of the unnecessarily prolonged sanctions - conservative estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. The list would include those whom Hussein and his sons were able to kill, rape, and torture from the time it was obvious he wasn't cooperating until the time Clinton left office. How can we even estimate that number? Whatever it is, I think Clinton wins on sanctions alone.
And where in the hell did you get that? Why in the hell would you think that being perceived as a paper tiger would reduce civilian deaths? If you knew anything of history you would know that appeasement is the quickest way to the morgue. It brought down the Roman Empire, condemned Europe to at least one long and bloody war, gave Japan the balls to attack Pearl Harbor and bin Laden the idea that he could drive a couple plane loads of civilians into some tall buildings. If you were concerned with civilian life you would stop trying to negotiate with terrorists.
Oh, thank you. And fuck you, too. When did I become an asshole? When I started proving to you that you're full of shit? Or was I an asshole before that?
Blah, blah, blah, blah. The same old anti-US bullshit. Everything's the fault of the US, Grisu. There's nothing we haven't fucked up. So just keep babbeling. Why on God's green Earth would I ever want to explain anything to you? I'm an asshole, remember? Why would you ever want to hear from an asshole?

Oh, besides that, it's not the topic of debate. I know it can be hard when you're busy throwing around assumptions and ad hominem attacks, but do try to stay on tack.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

..Muahahahaaaha...
ROFLMAO

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Hah, hah, how delightful sarcasm. I'm laughing my ass off. :sleepy:

It is true that the UN passed resolution 678 to authorize "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660" (660 condemning the invasion and demanding the withdraval of Iraqi troops). Technically this is not quite the same as waging a war.

Anyway, that's not the point. Had you actually read my post and the article, you would've noticed that I wasn't talking about who started the war. I was talking about the starvation and deaths in Iraq after the Gulf war and the reasons for them (a topic you brought up). Here is a quote from the article:

--------------------------------------------------

"As the New England Journal of Medicine put it, "The destruction of the country's power plants had brought its entire system of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children.... Although the allied bombing had caused few civilian casualties, the destruction of the infrastructure resulted in devastating long-term effects on health."

Also missing were statements by Pentagon strategists of their intention to cause just these results. In a 1991 interview with The Washington Post, one of the planners candidly admitted: "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.' What were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions -- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."

Why did we want to accelerate the effect of the sanctions?

Three weeks after the end of the Gulf War, The New York Times -- echoing statements of the first President Bush -- gave us a candid answer: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." This appeared in a front-page story covering a major United Nations report on Iraq that predicted epidemic and famine if massive life-supporting needs were not rapidly met.

Simply put, sanctions -- with epidemic and famine -- were there to force "regime change.""

---------------------------------------------------



Things are sure going great now that the US have set the mistakes made by the UN straight (more of that good ole sarcasm ;) )

When will the US be gone, in 10 or perhaps 20 years? Bush probably also thought he could just waltz right in and say "Here is freedom and democracy á la USA for you. Enjoy!" and all would be well. The truth does not quite work that way however. And until "eventually" happens (if it happens), the positive things are all just speculation. What we do know is that the situation is now very bad.

There is no proof that the US can make all murders, rapes or torturing disappear from the Iraq by attacking them. True, some systematical mass murders by Saddam and his regime will disappear. But there will also be new unrest (as can be seen at the moment) which may very well also continue after the peace some day is possibly achieved. This unrest can cause all the bad things you mentioned to happen to the Iraqi people.


This must sound very comforting to the Iraqi people, or to the coalition soldiers. Very easy to say, not that easy to do.


I just wanted to be sure before I call half of the population of the USA evil. Since Bush turned out to be one evil sob for the whole world and since Bush supporters passively accept the things he's doing they must also be evil, right?

(I hope that didn't sound provocative ;) )

__________________