Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:43 PM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,279,111 times
Reputation: 3296

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Is this why GWB went after Saddam instead?
Saddam had invaded a country earlier and was NOT cooperating with the UN anymore.

Clinton had Osama and also gave China through Loral the ability to fix their missiles and guidance systems so China could not nuke with precision any target in the world that they couldn't do before. Thanks Bill....NOT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2012, 01:08 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,428,607 times
Reputation: 1257
9/11 happened on the Republican's watch. Deal with it. Besides I thought the war on terror started in 1998 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America. And if a war on terror was so damn important during the Clinton years why the hell did Bush wait until 3,000 people were killed before doing anything
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 01:12 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,428,607 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
1993 was mistakenly treated as a crime, not terrorism. In the context of the era, understandably, as OBL did not have a history of violent acts on his resume than. He was a nobody. The reality is, while I am glad OBL is dead, he is and was of less consequence then he was credited for. W/O OBL, with inept intelligence, 9/11 would still have happened. Firing Clarke was idiotic, the one guy from BC's cabinet who really "got it". Bill O'Neill also "got it". But the vast majority never "got it".
Isn't that better than cutting and running which was Reagan's response to the 1982 Beruit Barracks bombing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
9,189 posts, read 7,595,629 times
Reputation: 7801
I wasn't planning on responding to this thread just to bump it to the top with the thread title that is an absolute lie but you should change the name in your title to George W. Bush and Condi Rice.

No matter how you republicans like to point the finger at President Clinton but the facts show and the whole world knows that it was your lazy president and his cabinet that was the cause of the terrible tragedy that happened on September 11, 2001. Deal with it please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 07:37 PM
 
8,885 posts, read 5,366,263 times
Reputation: 5690
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I dare say that in the event of Obama's re-election you'll live for another four years unless of course you have other plans.
You'll do the same if we have President Romney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 08:39 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,035,296 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
You'll do the same if we have President Romney.
Pretty much, although a President Romney would be immensely more entertaining
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,214,990 times
Reputation: 6553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Isn't that better than cutting and running which was Reagan's response to the 1982 Beruit Barracks bombing?
The UN mission????? Impossible ROE's. Yeah I was there for that hop. The right decision was to get out and let them settle their own problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,722,465 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles22 View Post
If anything bad happens, Bill Clinton is a likely culprit.
especially if it involves spewie stains on your good dress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,474,193 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Is this why GWB went after Saddam instead?
instead...you mean we didnt go into Afganastan???

and as to WHY saddam:

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002

======================

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1999

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

============================

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,474,193 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Never an opportunity?????? They were never told before 9/11 that bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States and might use plans? They couldn't maybe make the plans more by having them close and lock the cockpit doors?
not quite what you think

they were told that alq was CONTINUING to THREATEN an attack..not knowing when, what, or where

Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.


Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top