Bill Clinton says.......

[happythoughts 0]

We invaded Afghanistan because that was where OBL lived in a cave. That is something that Clinton should have done in 1993.

When the Russians were there, it didn't go well either.

The turning point was the political and power vacuum after the Russians left. The military divided among regional or ethnic lines. As the central control dissolved, so did the pay for the military, who started "checkpoints" and demanded "tolls".

At one point, a military group attacked, robbed, and raped a group of travelers. Lawlessness was so pervasive that a group organized by a Mullah attacked and killed the offenders. That event is credited as being the origin of the Taliban.

The initial support that freed Afghanistan was the beginning of the change there. It was the lack of continued contact that allowed the lawless situation.

Once the WTC was car bombed, Clinton should have shown leadership and dealt with it. He didn't and the events continued. He could have gone into Afghanistan at any time and 9/11 may not have happened.

Iraq is a war. If the situation is allowed to progress as Afghanistan did, the results will likely be the same.

[billvon 3,116]

> That's putting a lot of faith in Bush's abilities to say he would
> have stopped the attacks had he taken a shorter vacation.

I was thinking more along the lines of "if he had paid attention to Tenet and the briefing he got."

Would he have been able to stop it had he paid attention to the briefing? Maybe. Could Clinton have stopped it if he went after Bin Laden harder? Maybe.


>>"What actually _happened_ sucked a whole lot more."

>That's a matter of opinion.

No, it's really pretty objective. 3000 dead americans sucks a whole lot no matter how much you support Bush. You can make something up ("maybe he would have taken over the USSR and launched nuclear missiles!") but you are _way_ into wild speculation there.

>I happen to agree that what Bush did in going after OBL in Afghanistan
>was the right move.

I agree.

>I also feel Gore would have done the same as Clinton...nothing.

Bullshit. He would have done exactly the same thing. Heck, Gore was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

8/6/2001 - GWB receives briefing entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US."

Ummm... they already did strike the US. In 1993.
Of course, the response to the briefing was, "Yes, we know that. What have you been doing about it for 8 years?"

Quote

8/6/2001 to 9/1/2001 - GWB on vacation.

9/11/2001 - Bin Laden strikes in the US and kills 3000 people.

And just imagine what could have been prevented if Bush had taken a shorter vacation.

The attack led by terrorists who had been in the US receiving flight training for almost 2 years?
So, what you're saying is that an attack that Clinton ignored for 8 years, could be prevented by Bush not taking vacation for 3 weeks ?

I agree with you for one reason.

After the 93 WTC attack, Clinton did nothing.
After 9/11, Bush got on national tv and said, "We are coming for you." OBL now knows what that means.

In one day, Bush did respond more than Clinton did in his entire presidency. You are correct in your assumption.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that what Bush did in going after OBL in Afghanistan was the right move. I also feel Gore would have done the same as Clinton...nothing. That would have only emboldened the terrorists even more and it's anyone's guess what they would have done next.

Gore would have attacked both the Taliban and Iraq to some degree. How would they have turned out is much harder to make more than a WAG.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

After 9/11, Bush got on national tv and said, "We are coming for you." OBL now knows what that means.

With all of Bush's action, why haven't we found and captured bin Laden with Bush at the helm?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[KelliJ 0]

I must be confused by what you are comparing when you say "what actually happened sucked a whole lot more"
I was under the impression you were saying something could have sucked a whole lot more than Bush going after OBL.
I disagree on what Gore's reaction would have been. After watching him follow Clinton's lead for 8 years I don't feel he would have done anything other than proclaim a promise to catch those responsible. As for him being a hawk, yes. But talk is one thing, action is another.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Quote

After 9/11, Bush got on national tv and said, "We are coming for you." OBL now knows what that means.

With all of Bush's action, why haven't we found and captured bin Laden with Bush at the helm?

Not as easy as many people think.
Josef Mengele hid from the entire world for almost 35 years and wasn't found until after he died.

Besides, Bush is an idiot...remember?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not as easy as many people think.
Josef Mengele hid from the entire world for almost 35 years and wasn't found until after he died.

So how can we say that Bush's methods of putting pressure on bin Laden are better or more effective than Clinton's? According to the results, neither have successfully captured bin Laden. However, Bush has spent hundreds of billions, much of which has been borrowed, in his failed efforts. Unknown lives have been lost due to Bush's failed efforts. The US is stuck in two unsuccessful wars due to Bush's failed efforts.

All things considered, it appears that Clinton had the better approach.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[KelliJ 0]

Ask yourself two questions.
How many terrorist attacks against the U.S outside Afghanistan and Iraq under Clintons watch?
How many under Bush?
The answer is pretty clear.

[KelliJ 0]

Also, don't forget the primary intent was to stop terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. I believe that has been accomplished.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Also, don't forget the primary intent was to stop terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. I believe that has been accomplished.

I guess the 3800+ killed in Iraq..or the 25,000+ wounded by muslim terrorists and insurgents are not US Citizens in your eyes..in Mr Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq.

I think we need more of the right wing OVER THERE.. being fucking targets

[Gravitymaster 0]

1996-1998 Bill Clinton turns down 8 to 10 opportunities to take out OBL when he was literally "in the sights" of US Special Forces.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Why would anyone's idiocy have anything to do with Gore or Kerry?

Simple, for me they both SUCKED. You may believe in your heart of hearts that they would have done better, I don't. I didn't like Bush that much, but I disliked these two worse.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Also, don't forget the primary intent was to stop terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. I believe that has been accomplished.

Are you claiming that US soldiers are not US citizens?

BTW, the primary intent of invading Iraq was to stop SH from launching weapons of mass destruction against the US, which we "knew" he could do with only 45 minutes notice.

Phew…It's a good thing that threat's gone!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Ask yourself two questions.
How many terrorist attacks against the U.S outside Afghanistan and Iraq under Clintons watch?
How many under Bush?
The answer is pretty clear.

Many, many more civilians have needlessly died from Bush's actions than from Clinton's. I don't consider an American life any more valuable than a life of any other nation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

Quote

I disagree on what Gore's reaction would have been. After watching him follow Clinton's lead for 8 years I don't feel he would have done anything other than proclaim a promise to catch those responsible. As for him being a hawk, yes. But talk is one thing, action is another.

I doubt if he would have turned up the heat on finding OBL. After all, it would probably contribute to global warming.

[Royd 0]

Quote

I think we need more of the right wing OVER THERE.. being fucking targets

So you're willing to kill more of our good people, who are willing to stand in the gap?

[KelliJ 0]

U.S. soldiers are U.S. citizens. Why would you say otherwise?
They are not, however, civilians.

Yes, it is a good thing Iraq had no WMDs.
In case you haven't heard, none were found.

[Amazon 7]

Hey... if you dig war.. GO TO WAR...I see a lot of right wing loud mouths.. trumpeting their patriotism....yet they do it from behind their keyboard

Someone is having to do it... but as the Young Republicans pointed out....and their forfathers in the administration did during the Vietnam War... its for someone ELSE to do.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Ask yourself two questions.
How many terrorist attacks against the U.S outside Afghanistan and Iraq under Clintons watch?
How many under Bush?
The answer is pretty clear.

Many, many more civilians have needlessly died from Bush's actions than from Clinton's. I don't consider an American life any more valuable than a life of any other nation.

Is that a fact? I'd like to see some statistics to back up that claim, if you don't mind. Be sure to include those who died because Clinton refused to take action when he could have or should have.
I'll wait.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

High intellect and high effectiveness are mutually exclusive.

Sorry bu that sounds like clichee to make those with neither feel better about themselves

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

U.S. soldiers are U.S. citizens. Why would you say otherwise?
They are not, however, civilians.

You mentioned that there had been no more terrorist attacks against US citizens. I was just pointing out that that was not true.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Is that a fact? I'd like to see some statistics to back up that claim, if you don't mind. Be sure to include those who died because Clinton refused to take action when he could have or should have.
I'll wait.

Yes, that is a fact. I posted a link showing the 1.3 million Iraqi death's from Bush's war previously in this thread. Since the war in Iraq has proven to be a HUGE mistake, and Colin Powell went on record in 2001 claiming that Iraq posed no significant threat to her neighbors, it's tough to blame those deaths on Clinton.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[KelliJ 0]

Sorry, but if you want to play silly games of semantics you'll have to find someone else.

[Amazon 7]

I am going to take my baseball glove and go home.....pout pout pout