Quote: That may be true, Danny. OK, dropping barrels of sarin on our cities was a bad example, but he could have easily ordered some Republican Guardsman to plant a chemical or bioagent bomb in a London castle, a Jerusalem temple, or anywhere in between where we have/had allies. And that, my friend, any civilized nation would rule to be an act of terrorism, if not an act of war!
No. Read my entire post. There are specific reasons why Saddam or any other leader of a nation state would NOT do such a thing. Tom Clancy is fiction writer. If that is where you are drawing your opinions of international relations then conservatism is in worse shape than I thought. Do yourself and your country a favor and enroll in a class that will better explain to you the political theory of Realism. It is one of the basic tenants of Republican thought when they conducted successful diplomacy, in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 years.
One of the biggest problems with W is that he often claims to be a realist- and I'm not sure if he gets what that means. Seriously, I think he means to say "keepin it real" which is also erroneous, but another story. To read up on this concept- check out "Faux-Realism" by Joseph Legro.
Regarding Clinton supposedly reading Penthouse, if he did, it never led him to make foreign policy as was asserted by the Republican Congress at the time. However- both Clinton's and the R Congress's characteristically self-indulgent behavior DID have some negative effects, for which all parties are responsible.
When Clinton apologized to the nation for doing what he did with Monica Lewinsky, he also informed the country that he had launched a missile strike against Al-Qaeda. The R's went nuts and somebody (Dustin Hoffman?)even made a movie called Wag the Dog. Years later, that's the closest anyone has gotten to killing Bin Laden and I wish the political climate had allowed Clinton to act again. Unfortunately, Clinton's personal behavior hampered his practical, but vulnerable agenda and the Republicans proudly won a battle that led to 9/11.
Of course, National Security is supposedly the R's thing, so they don't write editorials about their mistake and Clinton would prefer we all forget his lack of self control, so neither does he- but careful watchers of the news know why serious efforts to catch Bin Laden never materialized after that missile strike.
Posted: 29 Aug 2007 20:56
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
And somebody else will say Clinton backed down for his own reasons, and he attacked only to take the heat off himself. How can you prove it was the republicans fault that Bill Clinton didn't get Bin Laden? Was Bill not the one in charge of the military? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 29 Aug 2007 21:02
Captain America
Quote: And somebody else will say Clinton backed down for his own reasons, and he attacked only to take the heat off himself.
Political considerations must be taken into account when a politician is involved.
Fact is, Bill knew that bin laden was a danger. bush and Co. ignored it until after it was woo late.
not placing blame on them: if anything the fbi and cia, who had agents connecting the dots about the hijackers, but supervisors who weren't engaged.
Posted: 30 Aug 2007 01:06 Last Edited By: GOParty
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 137
Join Date: Aug 2007
So what if Clinton launched a missle strike against Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden's still alive and running, so what difference does it make why he did it? The republicans probably went nuts because they thought Osama was just a poser like Saddam, and they couldn't order the military into action like Clinton did, and any attacks that came after the missile strike Osama could now claim they were 'provoked' by Clinton's wagging the dog. Actually killing Bin Laden might have stopped that, but at fighting terrorists, just like keeping his pants on, same old story wtih Clinton.
He Failed, HE FAILED, HE FAILED!
BTW, Saddam had committed atrocities against his own people, as well as his neighbors, and we had been fighting to keep him in line for ten years after we put a stop to the worst of it. 9/11 was a bloody series of atrocities, and Bin Laden had not yet claimed responsibility for them. If you were George W. on September 12, wouldn't Saddam look like a prime suspect to you? He certainly had motive, and claimed to have the means. Incidentally, I believe anthrax is a chemical weapon, and if Bin Laden had kept his mouth shut, Hussein would STILL have been the prime suspect!
And one more point: 9/11 proved you didn't need an air force to attack from the sky, all you needed is a few ready-to-die idiots with concealable weaponry, and you could just commandeer someone else's aircraft & turn them into flying bombs. Of course, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, that's much harder to accomplish now, let alone get away with it!
Oh, hang on a minute.
Quote: There are specific reasons why Saddam or any other leader of a nation state would NOT do such a thing.
That's what Britian & France said before Hitler invaded Poland. That's what the 'experts' said before Kruschev put nukes in Cuba. That's what Nixon's advisers said before North Vietnam broke the cease-fire! You've got a major case of logic overcoming reality with that statement. And if Saddam had good reason not to attack, then why was he THREATENING TO ATTACK?!?
I rest my case for now.
GOParty
__________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin
Posted: 30 Aug 2007 02:43
Captain America
Read the 9/11 Commission Report, please.
Like, right now.
And, by the way, I was near certain it was al Qaeda on 9/11, as I had read about them for nearly 10 years because I read a newspaper (now online) every day.
I am sure officials in the CIA, FBI, the executive and legislatives branches knew who was attacking us. Truth is, the Bushies were looking to get in to Iraq before they were elected.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 04:36
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: So what if Clinton launched a missle strike against Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden's still alive and running, so what difference does it make why he did it?
?
Are you serious? It makes a huge difference. Your party got mad at him for attacking Bin Laden, then they attempted to blame him when Bin Laden was still alive to attack us. What DID you want from Clinton? Does it boil down to leaving the intern alone? I have already said that I wished he hadn't touched her, but your party would also have had to stopped trying to hamper his attempts to kill Bin Laden. Please, re-read my post.
I mean, Clinton was perceived in his first term as a foreign policy lightweight- but his record of success shows otherwise. The R's opposed everything he did with the military except Somalia. When that went bad- they blamed the bi-partisan effort on him (which is fine, he WAS the President). Other than that- he sent troops to Bosnia, the R's opposed, and we won. He kept the lid on Iraq, and they were mad at him for bombing then. He sent troops to Kosavo, the R's opposed, and we won there too.
Contrast that with post 9/11 initiatives to stop Al-Qaeda. Instead of putting the full weight of the military into stopping al-Qaeda where everyone KNEW they were, President Bush decided to go look for them where he had a hunch they might be.
Whether or not they were in Iraq (see CA's post above this one) now the entire Middle East has looked at the declaration that they're either "With us or against us" and chosen the latter.
Congratulations. We used to just have one Bin Laden and one Afghanistan. Now we have an endless supply of people who hate us and live in areas non-conducive to military operations. Al-Qaeda has reconstituted to pre-9/11 levels. Wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are failing to bring any sense of stability to the middle east, so it remains a matter of time...
I live in DC. I have to live there if I want to keep my job. The city basically has a giant bullseye on it, even in times of peace, but the current President has made it more likely than ever that someone will try to attack us. Do you think this is going to make me vote Republican in 08? If the Democrats had screwed up that bad, would you vote for them? I hope not.
Failure isn't pretty at that level. This isn't a football game where we each pick a team, it is the making of policy that can save or kill people. So why are you so excited about Clinton failing that you would write the following?
Quote: He Failed, HE FAILED, HE FAILED!
Well yeah, but that was your President, and the failure was partly his responsibility and the responsibility of your political party. That failure resulted in 9/11. It isn't a game of gotcha- or believe me, I'd be advocating we impeach Bush for being incompetent.
Quote: BTW, Saddam had committed atrocities against his own people, as well as his neighbors, and we had been fighting to keep him in line for ten years after we put a stop to the worst of it.
Correct, but how does that change what we could reasonably do about Saddam? Did you catch Dick Cheney's quote from '94 regarding this matter?
I mean, okay- say the slogan is true and 9/11 changed everything. How does that make invading Iraq a move that would benefit us more than hurt us? It doesn't; things would still go just as Cheney 94 predicted. They did and now anti-American terror groups and stats have more leverage. We have a military stretched beyond the breaking point (Colin Powell's words, not mine). how are we supposed to deal with new threats NOW?
Quote: 9/11 was a bloody series of atrocities, and Bin Laden had not yet claimed responsibility for them. If you were George W. on September 12, wouldn't Saddam look like a prime suspect to you?
If I was Bush? Maybe. But that takes as a given that I had been looking for a reason to invade Iraq for some time now. Read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack".
But if I weren't Bush 43... say if I were Clinton or Bush 41- then I wouldn't mistake absences of evidence for proof of a threat. That wasn't their style and they never attacked a country in error.
Obviously, this is what happened with the WMD. However, Bush had to ignore all of established political theory if he was going to make the mistake you describe above. Saddam and OBL's alignment would depend on an attempt to gain something. They wouldn't cooperate unless something was to be gained. Since they were both essentially global pariahs, neither could help the other without drawing attention to themselves.
Why WOULD Iraq help Bin Laden? He couldn't offer them anything but a hard time. Saddam routinely killed emerging political threats. Why wouldn't he consider OBL a liability to his continued rule?
Why would Bin Laden help Iraq? Read up on Bin Laden's motives. He hated the secular states that had emerged under rulers like Saddam. How could Saddam help OBL bring fundamentalist Islam to the entire Mid East- giving up Iraq's sovereignty in the process. Saddam couldn't even fight Iran to a standstill when he was allied with the US. Now he was surrounded and targeted by the US. Why bother sharing the cross hairs with a loser like him?
And not suprisingly the record shows exactly this line of reasoning on the part of al-Qaeda and Iraq. They essentially didn't return each other's calls for a period of 10 years. All international actors investigate every possibility. To have such a non relationship IN SPITE of that should have showed the President that there was no sense in invading Iraq.
So you can see what I'm talking about, here is the section from the 9/11 commission report on al-Qaeda and Iraq:
Quote: Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
Cutting to the next mention:
Quote: There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76
So, they knew each other and they both hated the US, but other than that- what have we got? Is there anything in there to justify an attack on a place that Dick Cheney explained was a disaster to invade? Now that we've deposed Saddam and everything Cheney 94 said would happen has happened- how has this stopped al-Qaeda? It hasn't. They're more dangerous now than ever.
Quote: And one more point: 9/11 proved you didn't need an air force to attack from the sky, all you needed is a few ready-to-die idiots with concealable weaponry, and you could just commandeer someone else's aircraft & turn them into flying bombs.
Then why do you need Saddam? Why do you need any nation state? You don't. You just find some ungovernable territory to train and indoctrinate and there ya go. By invading Iraq, we created more of that territory.
Quote: Of course, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, that's much harder to accomplish now, let alone get away with it!
I am a bit too close to this matter to comment fully. But you are correct on this point, it did get done and it was kept free of partisan influence to a remarkable degree given everything else the past 6 years have wrought- so whatever it is- there it is.
Quote: That's what Britian & France said before Hitler invaded Poland. That's what the 'experts' said before Kruschev put nukes in Cuba. That's what Nixon's advisers said before North Vietnam broke the cease-fire! You've got a major case of logic overcoming reality with that statement. And if Saddam had good reason not to attack, then why was he THREATENING TO ATTACK?!?
First, because saber rattling was Saddam's core occupation. He also had other geo-political realities to deal with besides us. I believe I explained this to you a few posts back.
As far as Germany and Cuba, those are terrible examples, but I'll see this through. Germany is right next to France and not far from Britain. Cuba is about 100 miles from Florida. If Saddam had been Mexican- maybe that would be different.
Regarding the World Wars- Britain and France did what they felt was appropriate and so did we. How that turned out for each is a direct result of the steps of their leaders. In both wars a global coalition eventually stemmed the threat. In both cases, the US reluctantly got involved after most of Europe had been blown apart because we had an interest in restoring the status of our attacked allies. We had a big uniformed army we had to fight, in a defined territory foreign to both parties.
If ever there was a Germany- Iraq comparison, that was in 91. It was dealt with and contained, just like Germany- by a global coalition. What we had in 2003 was a toothless old dictator who happened by dumb luck to be the lynchpin in a historically ungovernable part of the world. Your analogy would have been more appropriate if we had re-invaded Germany in the 50's for no reason and ended up fighting Nazi's, Poles, Czech's and eventually- the Soviets (in this case a more dangerous Iran).
Cuba was invaded pre Cuban missile crisis as you seem to suggest. I'll leave it to you to read up on how that one turned out.
Regarding the crisis itself, it was solved by diplomacy. By carefully balancing our threats to the USSR, determining the best strategy among many, and negotiating according to interests instead of listening to Khrushchev's bluster, the Kennedys prevented the destruction of the East Coast. They dealt a major blow to the Soviet Union. Had someone less rational, clever and patient been involved we'd be living in a very different America indeed.
1.
According to Laurie Mylroie who served as Clinton's adviser on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton’s decision to hit Baghdad with cruise missiles on June 26, 1993, was made in part because he believed Iraq had been involved in the first World Trade Center bombing four months earlier. New York FBI really believed Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing -- Clinton avoided raising the possibility the public might demand that the United States do a lot more than just bomb one building, and Clinton didn't want to do more. Clinton wanted to focus on domestic politics, including health policy, according to Mylroie.
2.In 1994, Bill Clinton hushed up a federal report that warned of possible terrorist strikes, including how hijackers could use airliners to hit landmarks such as the Pentagon or White House.
3. The Clinton administration never released "Terror 2000" to the public, purportedly because of concerns in the State Department it would cause panic. The Sept. 17, 2001 story by UPI Pentagon correspondent Pam Hess said the report, which was obtained exclusively by United Press International, not only outlined the changing face of terrorism but also seemed to predict the scope and timing of the attacks carried out against the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
"Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but because of their symbolic nature provide more bang for the buck. In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government's ability to respond, as well as to demonstrate their professionalism and reach," states "Terror 2000." The report was compiled in 1994 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, from research and interviews of 41 intelligence, government and private industry experts, including foreign governments such as Israel and Russia. The report was distributed to the Defense Department, State Department, FEMA, intelligence communities and members of Congress on June 24, 1994, according to author Marvin Cetron.
4. On March 8, 1995, two US diplomats are killed in Karachi, Pakistan. Bill Clinton had no response to the attacks.
5.On June 25, 1996 a fuel truck explodes outside the United States military's Khobar Towers building, killing 19 military personnel and wounding 515. Bill Clinton had no response to the attacks.
6.On November 12, 1997 four US businessmen are killed in Karachi, Pakistan by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Council. President Clinton had no response to the attacks.
7. In response to the attack, on August 22, 1998, President Clinton launched airstrikes on Afghanistan and a Shifa Pharmaceutical company in Sudan. According to a New York Times article Clinton admits that the air missiles were not aimed at Bin Laden. "Let our actions today send this message loud and clear," Clinton said in an address from the Oval Office. "There are no expendable American targets. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists." Apparently the strike was to just send a message, but not to kill Bin Laden.
8.On December 4, 1998, Bill Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks". This was almost 3 years before the 9-11 attacks.
(This next one isn't about Bill's record of bad management, but it's interesting for those that claim there is no link between al Qaeda and Iraq.)
9.After Bill Clinton learned of the link between al Qaeda and Iraq, On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton launched military strikes against Iraq. The president said “Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said. (Clinton speaks Bush listens. As Spock might say, Fascinating)
10.In September, 1999 Bill Clinton received a federal report that warned that terrorists could hijack a plane and crash it into the Pentagon or another government building.
The report, titled "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," cautioned that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network might seek revenge for the 1998 US air strike on bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. ( Wait I thought they wanted revenge on something Reagan did in the 80's or some crap like that.)
It goes on a lot more might ought to read it. It's kind of interesting. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 21:10
Captain America
Dude, are you kidding? That source is a wingtard fantasy site that purports to be "researched opinion," not news. Again, read the 9/11 Commission report.
Actually, Osama bin Laden's biggest gripe with the U.S. was the huge base we built in Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, we abandoned it. And the terrorists got what they wanted.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 22:07
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well what parts are false? I take it you are an expert on the time line. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 22:13 Last Edited By: Tim
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Thank you CA.
Tim, the headline on that site reads: "Why I'm a conservative". Of course they're going hate Clinton and misrepresent or lie accordingly. Would you trust my sources if they were editorials by Michael Moore?
Now you can try the same thing again, or you could just read the darn 9/11 Commission Report. I've done most of the work for you. Yeesh.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 22:39 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Would you trust my sources if they were editorials by Michael Moore?
Aren't they?
Say isn't that 911 Report on the net for free somewhere? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Assuming reading the 911 report is going to take forever. Could you all answer one question first. Exactly which specific part of my post did you disagree with beside the fact the resource was from a conservative? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 03 Sep 2007 23:05
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Sorry that its a bit long and the text is by no means perfect, but hopefully this post will put something really dumb to bed once and for all. In summation, if you want to pick a fight over Iraq or 9/11: read the 9/11 Commission Report!!!
Anyway. Here:
Quote: Aren't they?
Whatever Tim. I referenced, as per usual, a bi-partisan source. In this case it happened to be the definitive analysis of the events preceding 9/11. If you really want to do some research, why don't you go trolling through your own websites to find the last time I actually used a partisan source? (As you do nearly every time you bother to cite something...) See you in a couple of weeks.
Quote: Assuming reading the 911 report is going to take forever.
Wow, what a perfect example of the problem here. It is precisely this sort of intellectual laziness that got us into this foolish war in the first place. You wonder why I'm not a Fred Thompson fan? Because given W's run, the "lazy and proud of it" attitude he perfected and you and Fred Thompson champion, would have us on the brink of apocalypse before the Thompson administration had reached its second week. FromFred:"They say hard work never hurt anybody, but I figure why take the chance?"
(Apparently too lazy to even come up with his own excuse, at least Thompson stole it from the master. Read to the bottom...)
Anyway, the point is if you only look for the answers you want, if you never bother yourself to do the hard work of learning the objective facts- you are going to end up wrong!!!!
As I have tried to explain to you regarding your skewed understanding of evolution- science is not an argument where people defend what they want to be true. Political science isn't hard science like biology, but at least the above remains true when people are being honest in their research.
So here we are. Exhibit A:
Quote: Exactly which specific part of my post did you disagree with beside the fact the resource was from a conservative?
Though this means more work for me and very little work from you (attempting to ignore whatever I find can't be that hard), I will indulge you. After all, one of us might learn something. (Sorry, I'm not betting on you...) Anyway, here we go.
Quote: In response to the attack, on August 22, 1998 [ first of all, they've got the date wrong], President Clinton launched airstrikes on Afghanistan and a Shifa Pharmaceutical company in Sudan. According to a New York Times article Clinton admits that the air missiles were not aimed at Bin Laden. "Let our actions today send this message loud and clear," Clinton said in an address from the Oval Office. "There are no expendable American targets. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists." Apparently the strike was to just send a message, but not to kill Bin Laden.
There are three major problems with the spin your source issues:
1.) So what? How is killing members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda not a good idea? How is attacking a possible chemical weapons plant not a good idea? Does killing al-Qaeda members have to be connected to the US getting into a military quagmire before you people will agree to it?
2.) From CNN:
"Rumsfeld, in his testimony Tuesday, expressed skepticism that killing bin Laden would have done anything to prevent the attacks of September 11 because the sleeper cells who carried out the attacks were already in the country. "Ironically, much of the world, in all likelihood, would have blamed September 11th on the U.S. as an al Qaeda retaliation for the U.S. provocation of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden," he said."
(By the way, I did hesitate to quote a man so often wrong, and he may well have been trying to get his boss off the hot seat, but that IS a somewhat credible perspective. Even a busted watch is correct twice a day.)
3.) Clinton claimed in 2001 that he hadn't been completely forthcoming with his motives for the bombing in 1998. Now, the notion that Bill Clinton might not tell the world the entire truth should be familiar to you, but taking into account Rumsfeld's explanation, one can see why Clinton might have tried to convince people that OBL was not the target when the air strike hadn't worked. Regardless, the 9/11 Commission determined that Clinton HAD tried to kill OBL that day and missed him by something by a couple of hours (Chapter 4 of the 9/11 Commission Report).
So given the above, we have two answers. We have an easy answer and an answer that involves reading and research into a complex historical, political and
policy driven subject. The easy answer is that the info in question is from a biased website that convinces intellectually lazy people of what they wanted to believe anyway: that Bill Clinton is a big jerk who didn't want to kill Bin Laden. The researched answer is that Bill Clinton and the people of his administration DID make an effort to kill OBL on August 20, 1998.
Of course, your source's logic is somewhat dubious to begin with. According to that logic the following could apply: "I mean jeez, Bush hasn't killed OBL. He must not care about national security, or he would have killed OBL."
Though the hypothetical conclusion above has a certain ring to it, that logic still sucks. (We all know that Bush would probably like to kill Bin Laden, but is probably just incompetent.)
Since you asked what is wrong with your post- we'll take a serious look at Clinton's motives on August 20, 1998. Plenty of people took a stab at why he issued the air strike. For political background, here are some excerpts from a news report by the BBC, issued shortly after the bombing.
Quote: Reaction in the US itself was split between politicians backing the president and those suggesting that the timing might have been related to Mr Clinton's continuing problems in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
So, that was you guys right? The Republican position regarding attacking OBL's organization was that Clinton just wanted to take the heat off the most important thing that ever happened in the history of the world: a guy cheating on his wife.
But Clinton also speculated upon why he tried to bomb people who had issued a fatwa against the US. For some reason this wasn't on your conservative website:
Quote: "Our actions were aimed at fanatics and killers who wrap murder in the cloak of righteousness."
And there's Clinton's perspective' essentially he did this because these nuts had killed our people before and would like to again.
But perhaps that wasn't clear enough. In another statement, Clinton said this:
Quote: I ordered this action for four reasons.
First, because we have convincing evidence these groups played the key role in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Second, because these groups have executed terrorist attacks against Americans in the past.
Third, because we have compelling information that they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties we saw so tragically in Africa.
And fourth, because they are seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons.
Okay, that is good enough for me- but I'm not a Clinton hater. Back then, but especially knowing what I know now, any attempt to get al-Qaeda members before they did something really bad (like 9/11) was fine by me. Not so for everyone.
As Rumsfeld explained (ugghhh) there were reasons for not killing OBL before 9/11. To attack him at that point came with tons of political ramifications, the worst of them coming from the Middle East and the US Congress.
So far as I can tell, the Bush people handled this delicate situation by ignoring al-Qaeda until the President finished reading "My Pet Goat". Hopefully, he found details there that the rest of us have missed.
The Clinton people also did what we have come to expect from them: they acted hawkish while talking dovish. They made an attempt on Bin Laden's life, then attempted to cover it up so as to dull any political support al-Qaeda might draw from a successful or unsuccessful attack on OBL. Honest? No. Probably the smart thing to do? Yes.
If one just buys the Clinton Administration's statements at the time, then one might conclude that Clinton wasn't interested in killing Bin Laden. However, I know you didn't research what Clinton actually said, nor read the 9/11 Commission Report. Please allow me to provide some context. I encourage you to fact check accordingly. Here is the statement given by William Cohen on August 20, 1998: "Speaking in Washington after the attacks, the US Defense Secretary William Cohen denied that the strikes had been aimed at assassinating Mr bin Laden."
Except Bin Laden had been standing on the spot the bombs fell just a couple of hours before. Maybe that was a coincidence. Maybe not.
(By the way, page 482 of the 9/11 Commission Report details where Cohen, a former Republican Senator, claims he would have resigned had he suspected that any wagging of the dog were true. Cohen felt that Clinton's attacks on al-Qaeda were important to national security.This becomes important later.)
But here's the question: Given the details of August 20, 1998, was an attempt made by the United States, under authority from President Bill Clinton, to kill OBL? The following is the benefit of reading the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission Report instead of biased websites:
From page 116: "...terrorist leaders were expected to gather at a camp near Khowst,Afghanistan, to plan future attacks. According to Berger, Tenet said that several hundred would attend, including Bin Ladin."
"The principles quickly reached a consensus on attacking the gathering. The strike's purpose was to kill Bin Laden and his chief lieutenants."
From page 117: "By the early morning hours of August 20, President Clinton and all his principle advisers had agreed to strike Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan near Khowst, as well as hitting al Shifa. The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Laden."
"Berger told us (the 9/11 Commission) that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but
probably missed Bin Laden by a few hours."
Okay, so IT WAS an attempt on Bin Laden's life! But why didn't they keep trying?!!
Well first, as W can tell you- finding OBL isn't as easy as it sounds. Secondly, if you have a problem with Clinton not getting OBL later, then you also have a problem with the morons who wouldn't let the Monica thing go.
Sandy Berger, ever loyal to the President, insisted to the 9/11 Commission that the uproar the Republicans had over the strikes didn't effect later attempts at getting Bin Laden. However, from page 118 of the 9/11 Commission Report is this: "The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Laden."
So the Commission disagreed with Berger; political stupidity DID play a part in Bin Laden's ability to bring about 9/11. Like I have explained before, if Clinton had major flaws contributing to 9/11 they were these:
1.) He screwed up his Presidency by handing the Republicans political ammo when he got those blowjobs.
2.) He actually gave a damn about what the Republicans said, instead of just ignoring their usual shortsighted partisan attacks.
So there ya go- at least one reason why I think your posting of claims from a biased website were a bad idea.
Beyond that, what problems do I have with your source?
#1.) It doesn't address the fact that W convinced the US to invade the wrong country, which you bought and still try to defend, in spite of a wealth of bi-partisan evidence that invading Iraq was pointless with regard to the War on Terror. Read the previous posts- that IS what we were discussing- not Bill Clinton.
#2.) The obvious bias doesn't restrict the obvious lies to the one I picked out to debunk. Any of it is an obvious bunch of BS. Don't try to get beyond the fact that this came from an extremely biased source. When I followed the link the other day, the "headline" read "Why I Am A Conservative" and the following opinion column was an attempt to convince other conservatives of the writer's conservative street cred. (Regarding capital punishment: God didn't really say "Thall Shalt Not Kill.) They weren't even attempting to hide their bias. Where would I go to research your claims if many of the events never happened? The Onion?
I'm not interested in waging a little political war with you like this was Crossfire. If you want that, just admit at the beginning that you don't want to learn anything and are here to regurgitate what people who make money off creating this stuff have told you. The reasons why 9/11 and Iraq took place aren't about conservatives vs. liberal so take a chance and think outside of those terms for once. If I've referenced the definitive bi-partisan source on these matters and you won't take the time to read it- then why bother with responding you? I might as well teach my dog algebra to get results like that.
Well, there is a reason I still respond. First, I learn plenty even if you don't. Second, I really don't believe you are that far gone Tim, and hopefully all this will lead you and others to a responsible choice in November of 2008. No matter how impossible, I feel I have to continue to try to get evidence in front of the public so we can all make an informed choice before it is too late.
Or at least, as W supposedly replied on August 6, 2001 to the person who brought him a memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"...
Quote: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 00:16
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Let's cut to the chase.
Did Bill Clinton say or did he not say,
“Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"
Just answer that one question first before we go on further. You can tell me if you agreed with his assertion as well if you wish. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 21:52
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
1.) Did he say that? How about we cite that source.
2.) Again, Clinton is irrelevant to the argument. We were talking about why invading iraq was a bad idea, not why talking about invading Iraq was a good or bad idea.
3.) So, now you're advocating we do things based of the advice of Bill Clinton? Now there's an argument I didn't suspect from you.
4.) Even though I'm pretty sure Clinton DID say that, lets keep things in context:
a.)When he said that, and what he did afterwards is relevant. Did he bomb Iraq before or after saying so? was this before or after the 2003 invasion? Was he rattling the saber the way most Presidents occasionally do? This is why citations help.
b.)Did Clinton actually invade Iraq? Negative. I'm sure you are familiar with Clinton's amazing ability to say one thing and do something else. It is his actions that we are usually interested in. If he didn't get us involved in foreign policy crippling quagmire- then that is his actual record. He could have said "I am the Walrus", but that wouldn't have made it so. He had 8 years and way more agression from Saddam than Bush ever had. Why not a ground invasion?
c.) I'm pretty sure Clinton has said since the invasion, that he supported many of Bush's actions, but saw a fundemantal mistake on behalf of many people: "war could have been avoided if the UN had passed a resolution threatening military action". Read this closely..
Now, if you read my last post, you'll note that I tend to agree with Clinton's nuanced assements of foreign policy, but I fully ackowledge that he bends the truth at will. Here's why:
I happened to sit in a lecture from Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix in late 2003 and the old guy insisted that those inspections would have been indefinite, because as we all now know- Saddam didn't have any WMD. When BClinton says he would have wanted an international coalition, that would have pressed forward with inspections to avoid the war- what did he mean? (This is a rhetorical question, you'll have your answer and I certainly have mine.) I suggest reading between the lines, because that's where you'll usually find the real Bill Clinton, just as described in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Bear in mind that IF he was weaseling past again with an answer that doesn't hurt his wife (who voted for giving Bush the authority to invade, whatever you make of that- I personally disagreed) and doesn't attack a sitting President AND doesn't disagree with what he has said OR his actual record on Iraq- not bad. Classic Clinton, he shoots for pleasing all the people, all the time, and almost does so.
But maybe you want a simple answer to rectify what Clinton said and what he didn't do despite having reason enough, by W's standards, to invade.
I'm no mind reader, but maybe he didn't because he knew what a GIGANTIC MISTAKE that would have been. He said other things in public, because he's Bill Clinton. If W bought all that, it was because he's W.
Or, maybe Clinton didn't even entertain the idea that Saddam was linked to Bin Laden, because he was using basic logic and realized they didn't have any reason to be linked.
One way or another though- Clinton didn't invade and Bush did. So what really does it matter what Bill Clinton said?
Thanks for trying again to water down the argument to your partisan dislike of all things Clinton.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007 17:41
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: 1.) Did he say that? How about we cite that source.
Quote: 3.) So, now you're advocating we do things based of the advice of Bill Clinton? Now there's an argument I didn't suspect from you.
Just pointing out that even from the other end of politics there was a view that suggested action be taken.
Quote: Did Clinton actually invade Iraq? Negative.
That's doesn't say much. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 04:20
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Just pointing out that even from the other end of politics there was a view that suggested action be taken.
Sure. You are 100% correct. It was one of the most frustrating things I've ever been through watching the Democrats fold like that. I don't often agree with Mike Gravel, (Or however that is spelled) BUT he may have been onto something when he questions whether people who voted for this war should be allowed to run for President. I personally feel the DNC should have stepped in on that. Plenty of people who knew better, signed onto this thing knowing full well that it was a huge sham.
But of all Democrats, especially given his numerous opportunities to do so- with the full support of what would become the Bush 43 administration- BILL Clinton chose not to invade Iraq. He said a lot of things, Bill Clinton always does- but only he knows why he didn't do it. My guess is because he knew it was a bad idea.
And ya know Tim, the fact that he didn't commit troops to Iraq DOES say a lot. It speaks for itself.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 15:36
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: And ya know Tim, the fact that he didn't commit troops to Iraq DOES say a lot. It speaks for itself.
One might look at it as tough talk and no action. Action speak louder than words you know. Don't just assume Clinton had noble reasons for not going into Iraq. I don't think he wanted the headaches or wanted to do anything that might become unpopular. He wanted his high approval rating. Maybe we will never know for sure, but that's just my take. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 21:48
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Well sure, because you don't like him. But bear in mind that Clinton waged 3 successful wars in the 1990's, one of which was an extensive bombing campaign against Iraq. You can speculate all day upon his motivations- but you can't argue with what worked.
Posted: 08 Sep 2007 19:13
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well what was the deal with that major motion picture called Black Hawk Down? Was that successful too? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Sep 2007 19:38
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
The incident you're referencing cost the US 18 soldiers, all from Delta Force if I'm not mistaken. It was a terrible loss, it wasn't well planned and the policy activities beforehand doomed it when we turned the Somalian population against the US.
But it wasn't the war we're in now. Clinton didn't lie to get us there, he didn't ignore reality to keep us there and those who were involved in the Delta Force Operation knew exactly what their mission was. It was intended to last about 20 minutes- not indefinitely. Maybe it cost us 18 of our people for Bill Clinton to learn from his mistakes. It has cost George W. Bush 3,810 as of this writing and he still claims the invasion was a great idea.
So, one way of interpreting this is, given that neither operation has done our country a bit of good, Bush has been 204.5 times as careless with the lives of our troops than Clinton. Of course, Bush's number will keep growing- especially if he has his way. At least we could and DID leave Somalia once we realized our error.
Usually, both Presidents in the 1990s were successful in their foreign policy efforts, especially with war torn non-industrialized states. Somalia is an obvious exception to that.
Maybe there's a historical lesson as to WHY nation building is such a difficult thing that seldom ends well. Maybe Clinton learned his lesson and thats why he was successful later- I don't know. Nobody's perfect.
But it is easy to see who WASN'T taking notes.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 14:45
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
No loss of life is ok, but the question remains is what would have happened had we not gotten into Iraq? Would terrorist have banded with Saddam? Would Al queda have more resources to attack us with? Would have Saddam came at us later? What are the consequences of leaving Iraq now? You have to ask yourself all these questions, and the truth is you don't know for sure so you can't possibly sit in judgement of Bush's policies with such assurance. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:08
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Sorry to interrupt here, guys, but I have a connected question.
Has anyone given any measure of thought that, just maybe, the Bin Ladens (purported friends of the Bush family and reported shareholders in Halliburton) wanted Saddam removed from the region to further their own goals?
Not an expert on the subject, won't debate this at length and have no proof to offer- just wondering. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 18:50
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Pak,
I'm leaning toward probably not. Osama Bin Laden has been considered radioactive even within his very large family for a long time.
Sure, family is still family, but it appears that after he left home for Afghanistan in the 80's to fight the Soviets in Rambo 3, he became one of those kids who only call home for money. While Osama has been hiding in caves and in zealot camps in the mountains, the rest of the family remained semi-public figures as a very rich Saudi Arabian family. Also, from what I have seen of them they appear very Westernized and tend to put out statements reflecting that their brother was always a bit of a nut.
(Most of this I gather from Peter Bergen's excellent book "The Osama Bin Laden I Know"
You never know, but it doesn't seem like it would behoove them to help him out. One of Bin Laden's chief goals is to destroy "the Near Enemy". Those are considered corrupt, secular governments on the take from "the Far Enemy". We are, of course, considered the latter.
While it is true that the execution of another "Near Enemy", Saddam Huisein, might have pleased Bin Laden- (especially since it furthered his goals on all fronts) one of his chief goals has always been the destruction of the Saudi regieme. If that were to happen, the Bin Ladens still in Saudi Arabia would have a great deal to lose.
So I think they probably wouldn't be quick to help him. They seem to enjoy Western decadence. Of course, bear in mind that his "immediate family" in the Western sense is probably about 100 people.
Quote: No loss of life is ok, but the question remains is what would have happened had we not gotten into Iraq? Would terrorist have banded with Saddam? Would Al queda have more resources to attack us with? Would have Saddam came at us later? What are the consequences of leaving Iraq now? You have to ask yourself all these questions, and the truth is you don't know for sure so you can't possibly sit in judgement of Bush's policies with such assurance.
As Captain America would say (prob both of them) read the 9/11 Commission Report. I didn't invent this stuff out of thin air- a bipartisan commission painstakingly went through all the evidence and reported back to the county. Bush said himself that the hardest part of his job is to demonstrate the link between the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. Well, there's a reason its so hard- according to people who looked at it obectively- THERE IS NO LINK.
The results are in accordingly. Are you better off today than you were 6 years ago? Nope.
Al Qaeda has reconstitued (stronger than pre-9/11 levels said the National security estimate this summer)in remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan and we can't leave Iraq to go deal with it.
Iran went from getting better to horrible threat and we can't leave Iraq to go deal with it.
A hurricane decimates the Gulf, we need our National Guard troops to maintain order, but they can't leave Iraq to go deal with it.
People stream across our borders, but we're too busy attempting border security in Iraq so.... you guessed it! We can't leave to get down there and deal with it.
How did Iraq solve our problems? If there were no WMDs, there wasn't any way to deploy them here (read my old posts, I'm done retyping why) and Saddam wasn't in Al Qaeda... well? Whats in it for us? Originally we thought we could make things peaceful there but- if you were watching the news yesterday... not so much.
I don't need what ifs about Iraq. They sat dormant for 10 years, surrounded by the American military. How do we know Canada won't invade? We don't, but we don't resolve that question by invading them.
Regarding the consequences of leaving now- we don't have the troops to keep this thing going. Many of those guys are on their 4th rotation. I don't know anybody who is signing up now. Nothing there has worked yet, and the situation seems to get worse the more force we apply (of course, thats battling an insurgency for you- ask the French). I'm not saying we up and leave no questions asked- obvioulsy what to do next will be a complex process- but the guys who got us into this mess aren't capable of extracting us from it. That much is clear.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 19:49
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Have you been hearing on the news that there has been a lot of progress made in Iraq? Violence is down dramatically. In fact the dems have been more violent attacking General Betraeous. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 20:22
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Fox does report plenty of progress in Iraq.
I've seen no other mention of anything positive from any other news source anywhere. Maybe I missed it. Could you post something from outside Fox? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 20:59
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
As SOON as I clicked on Google News, there was this:
He certainly had motive, and claimed to have the means. Incidentally, I believe anthrax is a chemical weapon, and if Bin Laden had kept his mouth shut, Hussein would STILL have been the prime suspect!
