Let's wait and see if it is true - false flag operations, terrorist attacks

[TallGuyLittleCar]

info************* is pretty damned biased.. and I haven't heard that much paranoia since somebody brought brownies to a flat earth society meeting.

[PAlexC]

I don't see how it could help them. Here's my logic:

1.) You ignored warnings that lead to major terrorist attack.

2.) You lied about intelligence to start a war that was at best tangential to the war on terror, spending a tremendous amount of money and killing hundreds of thousands in the process for nothing.

3.) Bin Laden is still out there, Al Qaeda still releases videos, and they've attacked Europe several times.

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

[villain2]

I don't see how it could help them. Here's my logic:

1.) You ignored warnings that lead to major terrorist attack.

2.) You lied about intelligence to start a war that was at best tangential to the war on terror, spending a tremendous amount of money and killing hundreds of thousands in the process for nothing.

3.) Bin Laden is still out there, Al Qaeda still releases videos, and they've attacked Europe several times.

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

Well, this logic works if you lean to the left. It's half of the truth, the other half is:

1. The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years. Bush didn't do anything for nine months.

2. The "Bush lied" nonsense really needs to stop. For the 100,000th time, British, Jordanian, Russian, German, and U.S. intelligence, along with Bush's admin and Clinton's admin, all believed and reported that Hussein had WMD. A small minority said he didn't. Bush chose to believe the wrong people and Congress did the same.

3. Bin Laden is out in the mountains of Pakistan on the border, where it's no-man's land, and Pakistan is having it's own problems if you hadn't noticed. We'd have to invade another country to get him ... which is what we should have done to begin with, but it's still invading another country ... and the world would look at the U.S. as bullies ... basically, the same situation we have now.

Bush went after Iraq because they have control of a huge oil reserve, it would be a safe haven in the middle of the middle east, and they were the easiest of the 3 axis' of evil to take down. Secondary to that was liberating people who were being tortured by Hussein and giving them democracy. They thought it'd be easy, like Afghanistan and the 1st Gulf War, it wasn't and they had no back-up plan ... and no one else did either.

The United States will get hit again. It's a no brainer, it's to Bush's credit (of the few things we can credit his administration for) that the U.S. hasn't been hit since 9/11. You know people have been trying hard. But when the U.S. does get hit, it'll be to the advantage of the politicians who put forth concrete initiatives to clamp down on security ... not people who are pushing for a wide open border and exaggerating wire taping of overseas calls to terrorists to the point where most people think Bush is actually listening in to my phone call to Granny on Sunday morning.

For now, Obama and Guiliani have the best defensive plans. I'd go for either one of them in the White House.

[japangreg]

Well, this logic works if you lean to the left. It's half of the truth, the other half is:

1. The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years. Bush didn't do anything for nine months.

Wow - for a post trying to point out "the other half of the truth" you sure do come out of the gate with some big lies - no one under Clinton did anything for 8 years? Really? Have you looked this up at all?

[villain2]

Wow - for a post trying to point out "the other half of the truth" you sure do come out of the gate with some big lies - no one under Clinton did anything for 8 years? Really? Have you looked this up at all?

I must have missed the big offensive against Al Queda during the 90s, I know it was all over the news and I was in a cave at the time ... and those financial seizures of Bin Laden's money ... and the securing of the borders and public transportation security measures that were enacted. Yup, all that happened, I must have just missed it.

However, I believe the reason Clinton didn't do much was partially because he was too busy defending himself against Republicans blowing the Monica nonsense out of proportion, which took the eye off the ball so to speak.

But if you find me ignorant of the series of major offensive and defensive measures the Clinton administration took against Al Queda and Bin Laden, please let me know. I can say though, we at least felt safer under Clinton than Bush.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

However, I believe the reason Clinton didn't do much was partially because he was too busy defending himself against Republicans blowing the Monica nonsense out of proportion, which took the eye off the ball so to speak.

I kind of doubt he could have rallied the forces without a major incident like 9/11.

[japangreg]

I must have missed the big offensive against Al Queda during the 90s, I know it was all over the news and I was in a cave at the time ... and those financial seizures of Bin Laden's money ... and the securing of the borders and public transportation security measures that were enacted. Yup, all that happened, I must have just missed it.

Apparently, you did - although much of what he fought for against a resistive opposition party in the congress ultimately got killed or defused when Bush took over, that's a far cry from saying that 'nothing' was done. It's also blind to the fact that the president doesn't write legislation - Congress does, and Clinton had a hostile congress for most of his eight years, whereas Bush had a rubberstamp for 6.

I find it somewhat ironic that the list of measures you mention are exactly what he was trying to do in the 90s; a bit of googling may help you out from under that rock.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Apparently, you did - although much of what he fought for against a resistive opposition party in the congress ultimately got killed or defused when Bush took over, that's a far cry from saying that 'nothing' was done. It's also blind to the fact that the president doesn't write legislation - Congress does, and Clinton had a hostile congress for most of his eight years, whereas Bush had a rubberstamp for 6.

I find it somewhat ironic that the list of measures you mention are exactly what he was trying to do in the 90s; a bit of googling may help you out from under that rock.

clinton had a friendly congress his first 2 years, "hostile" for 4, and a split his last 2.

bush had a split his first 2 years and friendly for 4.. hostile for 2.

[FlashLackey]

Wow - for a post trying to point out "the other half of the truth" you sure do come out of the gate with some big lies - no one under Clinton did anything for 8 years? Really? Have you looked this up at all?

It's true. He did do lots of things. Just that none of them were effective, obviously.

[PAlexC]

1. The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years. Bush didn't do anything for nine months.

Nothing? No missiles were fired? Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

2. The "Bush lied" nonsense really needs to stop. For the 100,000th time, British, Jordanian, Russian, German, and U.S. intelligence, along with Bush's admin and Clinton's admin, all believed and reported that Hussein had WMD. A small minority said he didn't. Bush chose to believe the wrong people and Congress did the same.

Colin Powell would like to have a few words with you in private.

3. Bin Laden is out in the mountains of Pakistan on the border, where it's no-man's land, and Pakistan is having it's own problems if you hadn't noticed. We'd have to invade another country to get him ... which is what we should have done to begin with, but it's still invading another country ... and the world would look at the U.S. as bullies ... basically, the same situation we have now.

We could've chased him there when we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We've had years to do something and have done nothing but let him sit there.

Bush went after Iraq because they have control of a huge oil reserve, it would be a safe haven in the middle of the middle east, and they were the easiest of the 3 axis' of evil to take down.

So military priorities are now determined by low-hanging fruit? Not relevance or threat? That alone should get Bush, Cheney and Rummy thrown out on the street.

Secondary to that was liberating people who were being tortured by Hussein and giving them democracy.

I'm just gonna roll my eyes at this. I forgot, this is an altruistic war.

They thought it'd be easy, like Afghanistan and the 1st Gulf War, it wasn't and they had no back-up plan ... and no one else did either.

3/4 Generals disagree. Let's start with Shinseki.

The United States will get hit again. It's a no brainer, it's to Bush's credit (of the few things we can credit his administration for) that the U.S. hasn't been hit since 9/11.

No, it's to the CIA and FBI's credit, as well as Interpol. Not Bush's.

[villain2]

Nothing? No missiles were fired? Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

That was against Iraq, which as we all know, is the wrong target and had nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism.

Colin Powell would like to have a few words with you in private.

This is from "Meet The Press" on June 10th:
MR. RUSSERT: In light of the fact that we did not find the weapons of mass destruction, the president still describes the war as a war of choice—war of necessity, rather than choice. Vice President Cheney said we would do the same thing all over again. Knowing what you know today, would you do the same thing all over again?

GEN. POWELL: If we knew today—or knew then what we know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, I would’ve had nothing to take to the United Nations. The national intelligence estimate, which was the basis of my presentation and, by the way, was the basis of the intimation that was given to the Congress that caused them to vote a resolution of support four months before my UN presentation, we rested our case on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us and could be given to terrorists, making it another kind of threat to us.

We could've chased him there when we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We've had years to do something and have done nothing but let him sit there.

They didn't go further past Tora Bora because it would be entering a mountainous region in another country, and Pakistan brings up a series of other issues that the Bush admin (cowardly so) did not want to deal with. They could have, but by the rationale of most anti-Iraq War people, that would be just as much a violation as Iraq was.

So military priorities are now determined by low-hanging fruit? Not relevance or threat? That alone should get Bush, Cheney and Rummy thrown out on the street.

It would have made even less sense to go after Iran or North Korea to start their war on terror (keep in mind, I don't agree with the strategy at all). You fight wars you think you can win, and of the three, they thought they could win Iraq because of Gulf War I and Afghanistan. It's not that hard to figure out.

I'm just gonna roll my eyes at this. I forgot, this is an altruistic war.

I said SECONDARY. It wasn't their main reason, but it was a secondary benefit to fighting the war. The spin was when they tried to make it seem like that was the main reason, which it never was ... but it was a good thing they thought to point to by getting rid of Saddam.

3/4 Generals disagree. Let's start with Shinseki.

3/4 now, not as many were that outspoken back in 2002 (read Powell's transcript again).

No, it's to the CIA and FBI's credit, as well as Interpol. Not Bush's.

But see, there's a fault in that logic. You can't put everything that goes wrong on Bush but everything that goes right on everyone else in government. It's not intellectually honest. If we're going to fault him for the failures in the "War on Terror", then he gets the successes as well and vice versa.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm going to be fair in my assessment. I have no axe to grind except against exaggerations on either side.

[japangreg]

That was against Iraq, which as we all know, is the wrong target and had nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism.

<pinches nose, shakes head>

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm going to be fair in my assessment. I have no axe to grind except against exaggerations on either side.

Then stop repeating the exaggerations of only one side.

[villain2]

<pinches nose, shakes head>

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan
Then stop repeating the exaggerations of only one side.

I stand corrected, he did drop bombs in 96 and 98 and missed him by a few hours after that. Wonder why nothing much happened after 1998? Oh yeah, Monica!

So, I'm back to my original premise, except for bombs being dropped in the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Correction noted.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Nothing? No missiles were fired?

sure did get those dangerous aspirin factories... and really bombed the stink of bosnia.

Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

The congress was democrat at the time.

[Loyal Rogue]

The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years.

It's true. He did do lots of things. Just that none of them were effective, obviously.

The facts seem to disagree with both of you.
Regarding Clinton's response to the '93 WTC attack:

In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years.

Seems pretty effective to me... and he did it without needlessly spending half a trillion of our tax dollars, killing half a million innocent civilians, and turning world opinion against us in the process.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

...and turning world opinion against us in the process.

And I really wonder if any Bush supporter will ever admit (or should I say "realise") what sort of effect that's going to have on US security for a long time after Bush has left office imho?

[FlashLackey]

Seems pretty effective to me... and he did it without needlessly spending half a trillion of our tax dollars, killing half a million innocent civilians, and turning world opinion against us in the process.

Shirley, you must be joking!

Arresting a couple guys involved in a world-wide network AFTER a successful bombing seems effective to you?

Yeah, that really deterred a lot of other terrorists, didn't it?

[japangreg]

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

It's all in the spin - notice how, when the violence in Iraq dipped a while ago, it was proof that our plans were working? And, now that it has surged right back up with the troop levels, it's proof that the enemy are getting desperate?

The fact that Repubs. have been tooting their own horn on security for so long despite being the dominant party during not only the worst terrorist attack on American soil, but one of the worst natural disasters in history should be downright appalling to anyone paying attention; but their methods of demonizing their opponents and driving voters with emotion-laden wedge issues keeps them around.

[villain2]

About rallying the forces pre-911:
That's what leaders do. They know, before the general public does, who's planning what. There are tons of terrorists out there in the pre-9/11 era but Al Queda had made it a habit of bombing U.S. interests. After the, i don't know, fifth time ... someone should have told the American public about it. I'm personally disappointed that I didn't know jack about Al Queda before 9/11 and then found out they had been attacking U.S. interests for years before that.

The fact that Repubs. have been tooting their own horn on security for so long despite being the dominant party during not only the worst terrorist attack on American soil, but one of the worst natural disasters in history should be downright appalling to anyone paying attention; but their methods of demonizing their opponents and driving voters with emotion-laden wedge issues keeps them around.

I see plenty of demonizing on both sides. "Bush is the Devil", "Republicans are Nazis", "Bush is Hitler". It's about as bad as when Clinton was in office and people were calling him a "pervert", "deviant", "sex addict", "rapist". Exaggerations at best.

Republicans got so much power because when buildings are falling down and there are videos of people talking about killing you and your family and you neighbors, there's a push to the guy who says "I'm going to kick their butts" than the person who says "Let's try to understand and empathize with them ... and by the way, it's your fault".

Not saying either is right (because neither is the right way to deal with this), but when having a choice between the pitbull guarding my house or the poodle, I'll choose the pitbull. But now, maybe we need a poodle to smooth things over because the pitbull is way too wreckless.'

Reason number 4395083902548 we need a third, moderate, independent minded party in the United States that's not beholden to the religious right and big business, nor beholden to pseudo-socialists and anti-anything-Old School America-before-1992 activists.

[japangreg]

Republicans got so much power because when buildings are falling down and there are videos of people talking about killing you and your family and you neighbors, there's a push to the guy who says "I'm going to kick their butts" than the person who says "Let's try to understand and empathize with them ... and by the way, it's your fault".

Actually, they got power by convincing people that the opposition was actually saying anything like "it's your fault."