28th March 2004, 5:19 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:Which is why Clarke said he would fully support opening the testimony he gave in 2002 to public record?
Anyway it's not just him that presents a picture of Bush essentially continuing Clinton-ish terrorism policies for those 8 months, it's everything else too! There is nothing that denies it. And why not? America was complacent... it was hardly just the Democrats who didn't see it coming (despite some warnings)! Your continual attempts to blame every ill this country has (and many it doesn't) on Clinton is so idiotic that it's just about pointless to try to say how stupid you are...
Yes, Clinton didn't make a maximum effort to catch Bin Laden. But Republicans are equally to blame! How about Clarke? Put in office by Bush I. And from 1994 they controlled the House. And people like the Defence Seceratary (Cohen for the second term at least) were Republicans... and Bush before 9-11 didn't try any harder than Clinton! Acting like he was something special and worse is completely false and it's just like you to try it.
8 Years! Several terrorist bombings! We should have started this war on terror the FIRST time Bin Laden targeted the WTC! There was one terrorist attack on the United States during Bush's tenure: 9/11. How many under Clinton? Bush responded to a terrorist attack the way Clinton should have responded to the many we took while under his control. Now, should Bush have done something the minute he took office? Yes, he should have. But the simple fact remains: The worst Bush could be accused of is lack of initiative (and honestly, given the Democrats' anger over losing the election, I find it incredibly hard to believe they'd allow any proactive anti-terror policies to survive the thinking phase when they never responded to direct attacks). Clinton can be blamed for worse: Failure to respond. Multiple failures to respond. No way in hell could Bush and Clinton's terror policies be considered similar. The differences are so staggering it doesn't begin to compare.
Quote:We should have seen something coming, but America is insular and doesn't really feel like it can be hurt... they're so far away... and we had inservice rivalries (FBI-CIA not sharing info was crucial for the intelligence failures here...), etc... there are many factors...
Oh, as for why Clinton didn't get Bin Laden, well, there was that one missile strike and they said that they were very close several other times but other factors -- unsure intelligence, the possibility for innocent casualties -- made them not do it...
Oh, come on. Clinton did not make one single concerted effort to nail this guy, even when he was to be given to us! He might very well have totally prevented 9/11 by taking Bin Laden in 1998! Nope. Let him get away.
Quote:Check: We will make ourselves safer by getting everyone in the world to hate us more than they ever have before. Makes a lot of sense to me, uh huh!
They may hate us. But they also fear us. And most nations care more about self-preservation than destroying an enemy exponentially more powerful than themselves. Of course, the evidence of enemy nations backing down means nothing to you. The Iraq war will end up a stroke of genius, if these other nations keep dummying up and continue deleting their weapons programs.
And I doubt that they're holding back that much. For one thing it's just easier to strike those places. Much closer to home. They also have more terrorists there and have much larger local groups that might support them...
Quote:Anyway, if anyone's holding back from going after Al Quaida it's Bush. Why? Iraq! Iraq and Bush's insane hatred of peacekeeping. We should be in Afghanistan in force. We are not. Why not? Iraq. Iraq is also draining our money so Afghanistan is abandoned. Hmm, kind of defeating your own position of "destroying the terrorists", you think? I sure do!
See above.
Quote:See, Sadaam was evil and supported the Palestinians, but wasn't big behind anti-US (directly) terrorism. Al Quaida obviously was, as things like the USS Cole show... there isn't a good 'terrorism' excuse for attacking Iraq. As I said, there's a better terrorism excuse for NOT attacking Iraq!
No, there isn't.
[/quote]Oh, and liberals aren't any easier on terrorists. They just use methods like "international law" to go after them that you detest... maybe because they'd actually make the US more "popular" in the world and you'd rather be detested? I don't know...[/QUOTE]
How has using international law ever stopped terrorism? What has the UN done that ever curbed a terrorist organization? Hell, many UN members openly applaud the Palestinian terrorists!
You see, I don't care about America winning a Miss Popularity contest like you do. I care about American dismantling Islamic terrorism. Playing nice did not do that. Ignoring the problem certainly did not make it go away. The last option is to perform surgery and remove the cancer. And so far it's worked beautifully.
And if the rest of the world doesn't like it, fuck em. They're not the ones in the crosshairs, they ignore and sometimes excaberate the problem, therefore, their opinion means nothing.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR