isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000

[dontlookdown]

there would be over 900 families in this country that didn't suffer the loss of a son or a husband or father.


amazing and so sad to think the potential that this country could have lived up to had we had a different president in the White House.

[diamondsnake]

Or things could have ended up even worse. Who's to say what would have happened had we had Gore instead of Bush?

[Merf]

Or things could have ended up even worse. Who's to say what would have happened had we had Gore instead of Bush?

Who's to say if Florida knew how to count ballots? Or who's to say what would have happened if Dubya's brother wasn't the governor of your state?

[Keith]

and sadly, there are many more soldiers who have lost their lives because of Iraq. The media tends to report those who were killed after major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

I think those who died before major combat operations ended are just as important, as those soldiers who were initially wounded than died.

Every soldier who died because of this war should be counted. Anything less is disrespect, imho..

I agree that we don't really know where we would be if Gore had been elected, but I can't imagine things being much worse than they are now.

[strandinthewind]

there would be over 900 families in this country that didn't suffer the loss of a son or a husband or father.


amazing and so sad to think the potential that this country could have lived up to had we had a different president in the White House.

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry have supported W's reasons for the invasion of Iraq - they just argued against the timing of it. They say, albeit somewhat after the fact, they would have waited for the inspectors to conclude the inspections and, perhaps, have gotten more world support. Gore is also on record as thinking SH had WMD. So, while I do not think Gore would have pursued the removal of SH with the zeal that W did, I am not so sure he would not have also acted to remove him after 9/11 made it imprudent to do nothing about his non-compliance with the UN resolutions. The UN was on beard with this post 9/11 thinking with Res. 1441. Everyone recognized SH had nothing to do with 9/11. The thought process was he had WMD (which turned out to be wrong) and he could make WMD - which has mostly turned out to be correct - he could transform certain facilities in little time according to Kay. So, I fully agree the way W went about the war in Iraq was a bad thing and he should be called out for it. However, I am unsure the shared reasoning behind the basic premise for the invasion - SH refused to account for his previously admitted WMD and SH was a terrorist with, according to the 9/11 report, ties to terrorist groups including Al-Q (these were slight prior ties, but ties nonetheless, and he aided and abetted a Al-Q refugee during the Afgan. conflict). So, while again, Gore may not have rushed to war, I think it is unfair to conclude he never would have done it at all or in any manner. :cool:

Note: I make no comment on the veracity of the intelligence prior to the war. I comment only on al of our political leaders' willingness and the UN's willingness in 1441 to accept it as true. It is that somewhat bilnd reliance on faulty data that I base my conclusion that like W, Gore would have had no choice to persue some type of action against SH after 9/11 to cure the unknown and potentially highly dangerous variable security threat SH respresented and would do little to dispell. That is all I am saying. I agree the intelligence was flawed. I agree W rushed to war by strectching the truth and preying on the fears of a teriified and Muslimphobic Amercia. We agree on all of that.

[gldstwmn]

there would be over 900 families in this country that didn't suffer the loss of a son or a husband or father.
amazing and so sad to think the potential that this country could have lived up to had we had a different president in the White House.

Don't forget the lives of Iraqi citizens whose lives are so unimportant to the Bush administration that they've stopped counting them.

[gldstwmn]

Or things could have ended up even worse. Who's to say what would have happened had we had Gore instead of Bush?

How do you figure?

[gldstwmn]

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry have supported W's reasons for the invasion of Iraq - they just argued against the timing of it. They say, albeit somewhat after the fact, they would have waited for the inspectors to conclude the inspections and, perhaps, have gotten more world support. Gore is also on record as thinking SH had WMD. So, while I do not think Gore would have pursued the removal of SH with the zeal that W did, I am not so sure he would not have also acted to remove him after 9/11 made it imprudent to do nothing about his non-compliance with the UN resolutions. The UN was on beard with this post 9/11 thinking with Res. 1441. Everyone recognized SH had nothing to do with 9/11. The thought process was he had WMD (which turned out to be wrong) and he could make WMD - which has mostly turned out to be correct - he could transform certain facilities in little time according to Kay. So, I fully agree the way W went about the war in Iraq was a bad thing and he should be called out for it. However, I am unsure the shared reasoning behind the basic premise for the invasion - SH refused to account for his previously admitted WMD and SH was a terrorist with, according to the 9/11 report, ties to terrorist groups including Al-Q (these were slight prior ties, but ties nonetheless, and he aided and abetted a Al-Q refugee during the Afgan. conflict). So, while again, Gore may not have rushed to war, I think it is unfair to conclude he never would have done it at all or in any manner. :cool:

Note: I make no comment on the veracity of the intelligence prior to the war. I comment only on al of our political leaders' willingness and the UN's willingness in 1441 to accept it as true. It is that somewhat bilnd reliance on faulty data that I base my conclusion that like W, Gore would have had no choice to persue some type of action against SH after 9/11 to cure the unknown and potentially highly dangerous variable security threat SH respresented and would do little to dispell. That is all I am saying. I agree the intelligence was flawed. I agree W rushed to war by strectching the truth and preying on the fears of a teriified and Muslimphobic Amercia. We agree on all of that.

I think the more important question to ask is Would 9/11 have even happened under Gore?

[strandinthewind]

I think the more important question to ask is Would 9/11 have even happened under Gore?

I was wondering when you were going to bring that up!!! :wavey:

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed. Much of the planning went on during Clinton's watch and they did not get catch them. Also, there is the evid. that the planew attacks were to have happened in April (I think - maybe May) but they got post-poned. Finally, Clinton/Gore never stopped any other OBL attack, except possibly the Y2K border stop, but I am unsure if that was OBL :shrug: So, who can say for sure.

I do think, however, Gore would have kept much of the same team as Clinton and that team specifically warned W's new team that OBL/AQ was the biggest problem. Yet, W's team, while still concerned about Al-Q and OBL - persued America's policy of the removal of SH apparently with more vigor than trying to catch OBL, who, unlike SH, had directly attacked America two or three times prior to 9/11. In the end, I do not think without a lucky break anyone from either side could have stopped OBL and 9/11 because there was never any chance to connect the remotely located dots, etc. But, all we can do is speculate - so I say it probably would have happened - sadly.

[Jason T.]

Don't forget the lives of Iraqi citizens whose lives are so unimportant to the Bush administration that they've stopped counting them.
I find it amazing how those lives don't seem to matter to some people. What a troubled world we live in. :(

[gldstwmn]

I was wondering when you were going to bring that up!!! :wavey:

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed.
Debunked and debunked again. I've posted all of that here. Use the search function if you wish. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself this: Why wouldn't he get Bin Laden? It certainly wouldn't taken some of the heat off of him.

[strandinthewind]

Debunked and debunked again. I've posted all of that here. Use the search function if you wish. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself this: Why wouldn't he get Bin Laden? It certainly wouldn't taken some of the heat off of him.


Spin - period. There is no concrete evcidence that the US knew OBL was going to fly four airplanes on a suicide mission on the morning of 9/11/01. If there is, let's see it. There were memos saying OBL wanted to use planes as weapons or something like that and that he wanted to attack the US. Well, who did not know that even without those memos - the US gets thousands of threats a day. But, to argue W knew it was going to happen that day at that time and did nothing about it is just not supported by any facts I have ever read and I assert I have read most of them :cool:

I think OBL got away. There is no concrete proof it was anything other than that. So, the rest is just speculation. I mean despite the popular OBL will be "captured" on late oct. of 2004 just in time for the election, but that theory if flawed in that W's reelection would be pretty much guaranteed by "capturing" OBL at anytime :shrug: Again, to argue that W let OBL get away in Afgan. makes for good conspiracy theory, but there are no facts (and I am talking facts :cool: ) to support that. If there were such facts, don't you think MM would have SCREAMED them in F-9/11 :shrug:

In any event, until you or anyone else can show me the memo. that said OBL was going to blow up building by ramming airplanes into them on 9/11/01 - I am standing by my conclusion that W did not know about 9/11 and did nothing about it. True, the US was caught with its pants down and out intelligence system was flawed and tainted with territorialism all of which caused the US not to be able to connect the dots that may and I mean MAY have prevented that horrible day, much like we were during all of the other OBL terrorist attacks none of which were prevented :shrug: - but to flat out say it could have been prevented and W knew this but did nothing about it and then let OBL get away for out of some loyalty to the bin Laden family is just flat out unspported by any facts I have ever read, which includes, Lord love ya, all of your prior posts :cool:

But, I still love ya anyway!!! :angel:

AND - it does not excuse the Bush Admin. for not capturing OBL - that was a failure. It also does not excuse the Bush admin. for rushing to war with Iraq, using the National Guard that was not properly trained (prison scandal is a good example), by preying on the scared out of their wits Americans. We have spent billions on billions of $$$$$ when apparently waiting a few more months perhaps could have thwarted the need for the war or at least an all out war. Again, if I had an employee who did that on some corp. scale, I would fire them immediately - who wouldn't :shrug:

EDIT: I am unsure if my response actually responded to your response. On second reading, I think you meant the debunked theory about Clinton having access to OBL and not going after him. So . . . . my response was not in response to you. But, I'll let it stay for posterity sake, etc. :laugh:

I agree though, the man who provided info. about OBL location was suspect as was the whole incident. But, there were other times, when we had a good bet on where he was but chose not to go after him because of the fear of violating another nation's sov. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, I wish we had :shrug:

[diamondsnake]

How do you figure?

Just because you guys like the democrat guys better does not mean that they would have done any better with all this terrorist stuff going on today. I don't have much of an opinion on politics, but it is certainly not a fact that 900 people would not have died in war had there been a different president. For all we know 9,000 people could have died had there been different leadership.

We'll never really know. :shrug:

[diamondsnake]

Who's to say if Florida knew how to count ballots? Or who's to say what would have happened if Dubya's brother wasn't the governor of your state?

No one. :o

[strandinthewind]

Just because you guys like the democrat guys better does not mean that they would have done any better with all this terrorist stuff going on today. I don't have much of an opinion on politics, but it is certainly not a fact that 900 people would not have died in war had there been a different president. For all we know 9,000 people could have died had there been different leadership.

We'll never really know. :shrug:

Exactly. It is all speculation. The one thing I do think is close to the truth as we can get in the speculation is Gore probably would not have rushed to war with Iraq like W did. In my opinion, his hisotry did not support that he would rush to war. But, that is speculation and that is all it will ever be :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Who's to say if Florida knew how to count ballots? Or who's to say what would have happened if Dubya's brother wasn't the governor of your state?

Whose to say what would have happened if Al Snore had been a decent human being and asked for a manual recount of the entire state instead of just those counties he thought he would do better in. I get that Florida had problems and Jeb Bush and crewe were no saints. But, Gore shot himself in the foot with his calculated decision to recount only some instead of all votes. I submit recounting all votes under the same standard instead of a few counties all under a diff standard was the fairer thing to do but Gore chose not to do that - hence the USSC decision or at least a part of it. Although I do not think the USSC should have taken the case, I cannot fault their reasoning that because all votes were not being counted under the same standard it was unfair. In the end, Gore has himself to blame. Note: this does not exonerate Jeb and crewe for their bad acts. It just means Gore was not lilly white in his innocence.

[MikeVielhaber]

How do you figure?

the second sentence was the point of his comment not the first. the one dude said it wouldve been better but he said maybe it wouldve been worse who really know what would've happened.

[gldstwmn]

Spin - period.

You're an attorney. What, exactly would we have extradited Bin Laden to this country for?

[gldstwmn]

Whose to say what would have happened if Al Snore had been a decent human being and asked for a manual recount of the entire state instead of just those counties he thought he would do better in. I get that Florida had problems and Jeb Bush and crewe were no saints. But, Gore shot himself in the foot with his calculated decision to recount only some instead of all votes. I submit recounting all votes under the same standard instead of a few counties all under a diff standard was the fairer thing to do but Gore chose not to do that - hence the USSC decision or at least a part of it. Although I do not think the USSC should have taken the case, I cannot fault their reasoning that because all votes were not being counted under the same standard it was unfair. In the end, Gore has himself to blame. Note: this does not exonerate Jeb and crewe for their bad acts. It just means Gore was not lilly white in his innocence.

And the research has shown that if Gore had done this he would be president today.

[gldstwmn]

Spin - period. There is no concrete evcidence that the US knew OBL was going to fly four airplanes on a suicide mission on the morning of 9/11/01. If there is, let's see it. There were memos saying OBL wanted to use planes as weapons or something like that and that he wanted to attack the US. Well, who did not know that even without those memos - the US gets thousands of threats a day. But, to argue W knew it was going to happen that day at that time and did nothing about it is just not supported by any facts I have ever read and I assert I have read most of them :cool:
You're talking about 2001 now, not the right wing talking point about Clinton. :confused: Clinotn was never"offered bin Laden on a silver platter" like your friend Bill O'Reilly says. There were talks in 1996 but again, for what reason would Bin Laden have been extradited had he really been found in the first place?



In any event, until you or anyone else can show me the memo. that said OBL was going to blow up building by ramming airplanes into them

Read the August 6, 2001 PDB. I think it's in the 9/11 commission report. If not, it's here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf [/QUOTE]

then let OBL get away for out of some loyalty to the bin Laden family is just flat out unspported by any facts I have ever read, which includes
Why were the family members of the alleged per allowed to leave the country?
AND - it does not excuse the Bush Admin. for not capturing OBL - that was a failure. It also does not excuse the Bush admin. for rushing to war with Iraq, using the National Guard that was not properly trained (prison scandal is a good example), by preying on the scared out of their wits Americans. We have spent billions on billions of $$$$$ when apparently waiting a few more months perhaps could have thwarted the need for the war or at least an all out war. Again, if I had an employee who did that on some corp. scale, I would fire them immediately - who wouldn't :shrug:

EDIT: I am unsure if my response actually responded to your response. On second reading, I think you meant the debunked theory about Clinton having access to OBL and not going after him. So . . . . my response was not in response to you. But, I'll let it stay for posterity sake, etc. :laugh:
Yeah. :shrug: :laugh:

agree though, the man who provided info. about OBL location was suspect as was the whole incident. But, there were other times, when we had a good bet on where he was but chose not to go after him because of the fear of violating another nation's sov. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, I wish we had :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

the second sentence was the point of his comment not the first. the one dude said it wouldve been better but he said maybe it wouldve been worse who really know what would've happened.

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Finally, Clinton/Gore never stopped any other OBL attack, except possibly the Y2K border stop, but I am unsure if that was OBL :shrug:

According to the August 6 PDB, Bin Laden was "aware" of it.

[MikeVielhaber]

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can. :shrug:

well it didn't seem a proper question to his point.....cause it was self explanatory. you dont know whether it wouldve been better or worse because it never happened and you can just predict things and present them as fact. you just dont know what would've happened had al gore been the president the past 4 years. you just dont know. is that good enough for you? most likely not. and mostlikely you have some smart ass remark and rebuttal most likely containing a rip on george bush. seems to be the trend in your posts.

[gldstwmn]

well it didn't seem a proper question to his point.....cause it was self explanatory. you dont know whether it wouldve been better or worse because it never happened and you can just predict things and present them as fact. you just dont know what would've happened had al gore been the president the past 4 years. you just dont know. is that good enough for you? most likely not. and mostlikely you have some smart ass remark and rebuttal most likely containing a rip on george bush. seems to be the trend in your posts.

Are you saying that I don't have the right to freely express myself?

[paleshadow]

And I asked him to elaborate on that theory and apparently neither of you can. :shrug:


Well, I am still interested in knowing what your thoughts are regarding Michael Moore telling people not to re-elect senators who supported the war, but calling for the election of one such senator to President. You left me hanging on that one. :shrug: That's OK though. If he couldn't answer it, I don't see how anyone else could.

[strandinthewind]

You're an attorney. What, exactly would we have extradited Bin Laden to this country for?

The U.S. Cole. The U.S. embassy in Kenya. The military barracks in I forget where. The first WTC bombing. We had the grounds. There is not really a question about that - the 8/6/01 memo. supports that. The question was would an ARAB country like Saudi Arabia, The Sudan (who curently is screaming for our help mind you), Afgan., etc. give him up. Whatever Arab admin., like the House of Saud, gave him up would be risking anarachy and would be committing political suicide. OBL is a hero to many Arabs whether they openly admit it or not. In the end, Clinton could have done more but did not even though he certainly did alot to stop terrororists. AND - I still assert Clinton must share some but certainly not all of the, for want of a better word, culpability for failing to stop 9/11 because most of the planning of it took place under his, not W's, watch - after all those attacks took years to plan :shrug: Yet, all of the blame goes to W because of some vague 8/01 memo. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

And the research has shown that if Gore had done this he would be president today.

True, but my point was he was IMO greedy and foolish, so he is not. Thus, he must share some of the blame :shrug: The USSC stopped the recounts because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. Their reasoning was not all of the votes were being counted in the same manner. For example, a handmarked ballot or hanging or dimpled chad could be counted as a valid vote in on area but not the other. How that does NOT violate the EP clause I do not see. Had Gore in his initial law suit prayed for a recount of the entire state under one uniform standard, which the USSC essentially ordered the Fla. Sup. Ct. to do in its first Order, there would have been no legal grounds for the second USSC decision. But, Gore did not do that. He picked which counties he thought were favorable to him, which was a move that showed little care and no regard for the rights of the voters in other less favorable counties. Certainly, they had the right to have their ballots examined or did they lose that right just because they lived in a county less favorable to Gore and perhaps voted against him :shrug: Like the entire election, Gore has himself mostly to blame for the recount fiasco no matter how bad the Fla. Admin acted. But, the D's will never admint that because the D's can never ever say ANYTHING that gives W any credit whatsoever - they think to do so is tantamount to sacrilege :shrug: Conversly, I tend to call it as I see it and I do not see how anyone can with a straight face and with facts rebut what I just said.

[paleshadow]

Are you saying that I don't have the right to freely express myself?

I don't mean to speak for Mike, but I think that what he is saying is that there is a tendency for you to change the subject in your replies instead of addressing the topic itself. I seem to recall this being referred to as the "Slippery Slope" in a Reason and Argument class I once took. It's used to take focus off a topic that the person does not want attention drawn to, cannot argue effectively, or that does not support their own point of view. It's not very subtle though. Used car salesman do it a lot.

Christopher, what you said is very wise in it's simplicity, and it's true as well. There really is no way of knowing "what could have been" in any situation. Life isn't like the film "It's a Wonderful Life". That's a fact no matter what political party you support. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Read the August 6, 2001 PDB. I think it's in the 9/11 commission report. If not, it's here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

I know - but all that says is OBL wanted to hijack airplanes and he wanted to attack the US here and elsewhere as he has done before. It did not in any way provide any specifics of the attacks; it did not in any way say OBL wanted to hijack four or more planes and fly them into the WTC and the capital and Pentagon. The memo provides no specifics. I agree W's admin. and Clinton's admin. did not connect the dots (interstingly Clinton failed to connect the dots for attacks (Cole, Kenya emb. etc.) many more times than W's) - but I think you are asserting this memo. is a smoking gun of sorts that should have been this grand beacon illuminating OBL's 9/11 plans for even the most simple minded idiot to discover with ease. I just do not see how this memo. casts anything but a general light on OBL's willingingness and continued want to attack us, which was already known.

Here is the text of the memo.:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladensince 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladentold followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative'saccess to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he preparesoperations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members — including same who are U.S. citizens — have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guiltyin the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
______________________________________________________________

Again, this was general information. This did not in any way say - OBL is attacking on 9/11. Interestingly, as I have asserted before, that "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related" indicates W's administration was active is persuing leads. It does not in any way support the theory that W's administration was concentrating solely on Iraq and ignoring OBL :shrug: But, the D's will never admit that and many have said this part of the memo. is false and no such investigations were occuring. I think that is silly. How would anyone outside of the FBI know that and why is okay to pick the part of the memo. that supports the "W did nothing and knew about it" part of the memo. (if such actually exists which I submit it does not) and cast aside without factual basis the parts that does not? But, once again, to admit this is to give W credit for something and that is NEVER allowed under any circumstances :cool:


Why were the family members of the alleged per allowed to leave the country?

Innuendo once again :shrug: What did these people have to do with the attacks of 9/11? Are they part of Al-Q.? Granted some but not all were related to OBL, but OBL has been by all credible accounts estranged from his family for years even though some distant cousins attended the wedding years ago or something like that. Finally, these people were given a screening before they left, granted the screening was slight. I think we would have had to show these people people were connectd to the 9/11 events other than by estranged familial connections. Thus, while I agree on its face this smacks of conspiracy, guilt by association is not really fair and is in many ways tantamount to saying al Arabs are resp. for 9/11 :shrug:

Note: I am not saying W should not be held accountable for failing to stop 9/11. I am just saying your assertion or at least implication that it was somehow known that on 9/11 OBL would commit these acts is just not supported by any evidence I have seen, granted I and we the public probably have not seen all the evidence :shrug:

[estranged4life]

If Gore would've won his own homestate Tennessee, Flor-I-duh would NOT have mattered what-so-ever...He could have let Shrub take Flor-I-Duh and still would have WON the election.

But that was nearly 4 years ago...I really could care less about the 2000 voting SNAFU/FIASCO anymore, If Gore would've won Tennessee then I'm sure no one else would care either.

[strandinthewind]

If Gore would've won his own homestate Tennessee, Flor-I-duh would NOT have mattered what-so-ever...He could have let Shrub take Flor-I-Duh and still would have WON the election.

But that was nearly 4 years ago...I really could care less about the 2000 voting SNAFU/FIASCO anymore, If Gore would've won Tennessee then I'm sure no one else would care either.

Brilliant - :thumbsup:

[dissention]

and sadly, there are many more soldiers who have lost their lives because of Iraq. The media tends to report those who were killed after major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

And, unfortunately, the mainstream media doesn't do their job. :(

[dissention]

I am not so sure that would have happened. I know it is not popular to think it, but the Clinton/Gore Administration was set on removing SH from power and had exercised military might to make SH comply with the UN resolutions.

Hogwash. :wavey:

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

[dissention]

Who can say. The Clinton administration of which Gore was No. 2 did not get OBL when they had the chance if the alleged story is to be believed.

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next. :laugh:

[dissention]

Spin - period. There is no concrete evcidence that the US knew OBL was going to fly four airplanes on a suicide mission on the morning of 9/11/01. If there is, let's see it. There were memos saying OBL wanted to use planes as weapons or something like that and that he wanted to attack the US. Well, who did not know that even without those memos - the US gets thousands of threats a day. But, to argue W knew it was going to happen that day at that time and did nothing about it is just not supported by any facts I have ever read and I assert I have read most of them :cool:

Ha. That's the story told by Minute Rice, who said during her 9/11 commission testimony that she didn't know her job was national security advisor. That's the story told by Asscroft, who told his staff that he didn't want to hear a peep about bin Laden or terrorist attacks. So much for shaking the trees, eh?

I think OBL got away. There is no concrete proof it was anything other than that. So, the rest is just speculation. I mean despite the popular OBL will be "captured" on late oct. of 2004 just in time for the election, but that theory if flawed in that W's reelection would be pretty much guaranteed by "capturing" OBL at anytime :shrug: Again, to argue that W let OBL get away in Afgan. makes for good conspiracy theory, but there are no facts (and I am talking facts :cool: ) to support that. If there were such facts, don't you think MM would have SCREAMED them in F-9/11 :shrug:

Why did he get away, again? Oh, that's right, Bush and Co. gave him a two month running start. ;)

[dissention]

Just because you guys like the democrat guys better does not mean that they would have done any better with all this terrorist stuff going on today. I don't have much of an opinion on politics, but it is certainly not a fact that 900 people would not have died in war had there been a different president. For all we know 9,000 people could have died had there been different leadership.

We'll never really know. :shrug:

:shrug:

Gore was second-in-command in the administration that warned Bush that Al Qaeda was a priority. There's no doubt in my mind that if Gore had been at the wheel, he would've jumped into action the minute that the chatter began in spring of 2001.

[dissention]

Well, I am still interested in knowing what your thoughts are regarding Michael Moore telling people not to re-elect senators who supported the war, but calling for the election of one such senator to President. You left me hanging on that one. :shrug: That's OK though. If he couldn't answer it, I don't see how anyone else could.

I explained that three times. There's quite a difference between getting rid of Bush and getting rid of seantors. Getting rid of Bush is the priority right now, surely you don't disagree.

[dissention]

The U.S. Cole.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You? Are Losing It.

The Bush administration dropped all investigations into the Cole bombing and practically murdered John Dean because of it.

[gldstwmn]

Well, I am still interested in knowing what your thoughts are regarding Michael Moore telling people not to re-elect senators who supported the war, but calling for the election of one such senator to President. You left me hanging on that one. :shrug: That's OK though. If he couldn't answer it, I don't see how anyone else could.

I've answered your question twice. :shrug: Do you want me to call Michael on the phone?

[gldstwmn]

The U.S. Cole. :

The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The USS Cole wasn't struck until 2000.

The U.S. embassy in Kenya.
The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The Kenya Embassy was strike in 1998.

Also, the 9/11 Commission report directly states there never was any offer to Clinton. :)

[gldstwmn]

supports that. The question was would an ARAB country like Saudi Arabia, The Sudan (who curently is screaming for our help mind you),

Yeah, screw those people in Darfur who are living in refugee camps and being ethnically cleansed by their radical Muslim goverment.
No WMD's in Iraq, a dictatorship but a stable one that we had a tight grip on and we invade them because "You tried to kill my daddy" and "let's secure the oil field" and well, "****, I can't find Bin Laden, so look over here, this guy's dangerous, we're going to take him out and we had already planned to do this. Hurry, my poll numbers are dropping again and the sentiment of patriotism is fading from 9/11. They're starting to ask questions." :shocked:

But Africa? Why the hell should we do anything about Africa? [/sarcasm]

[gldstwmn]

I don't mean to speak for Mike, but I think that what he is saying is that there is a tendency for you to change the subject in your replies instead of addressing the topic itself. I seem to recall this being referred to as the "Slippery Slope" in a Reason and Argument class I once took. It's used to take focus off a topic that the person does not want attention drawn to, cannot argue effectively, or that does not support their own point of view. It's not very subtle though. Used car salesman do it a lot.



I try to base my arguments on facts and research. "Mike" responded to this by telling my to go screw myself and telling me that I was being childish. How did your reason and Argument prof. view that?

[gldstwmn]

.




Innuendo once again :shrug: What did these people have to do with the attacks of 9/11? Are they part of Al-Q.?

If you had murdered 3000 people, wouldn't the police want to talk to your friends, family and business associates?

EDITED TO ADD:

Attorney General John Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he did not want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 265
After Bush was informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, he went ahead with his classroom event. After Bush was informed that the nation was under attack after the second plane hit, Bush stayed in the classroom for nearly seven more minutes, continuing to read with the children. Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 35, 38-39.
Bush failed to have even one meeting to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism Richard Clarke. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 201.
Bush failed to react to the August 6, 2001 security briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 260-262.
142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after September 13. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 556, n. 25 [Note that Fahrenheit 9/11 understates the number of Saudis who left.]
Individuals were interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave (although the report confirms that most individuals on these flights were not interviewed.) Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 557, n. 28.

[gldstwmn]

The first WTC bombing.

The perps were tried and convicted during Clinton's second term. :)

[paleshadow]

I explained that three times. There's quite a difference between getting rid of Bush and getting rid of seantors. Getting rid of Bush is the priority right now, surely you don't disagree.


Yes, you did thanks again, but again this post wasn't directed at you, unless you are also gldstwmn?

[paleshadow]

I try to base my arguments on facts and research. "Mike" responded to this by telling my to go screw myself and telling me that I was being childish. How did your reason and Argument prof. view that?


Well, she would say to review the facts. Can you quote where Mike told you to go screw yourself and that you were being childish, because I couldn't find that anywhere.

[gldstwmn]

Well, she would say to review the facts. Can you quote where Mike told you to go screw yourself and that you were being childish, because I couldn't find that anywhere.

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=15625&page=3&pp=15

[paleshadow]

I've answered your question twice. :shrug: Do you want me to call Michael on the phone?


No, you didn't. You explained why Moore didn't want people to vote for Nader 2x, shrug and all, which wasn't the subject of discussion. Dissention has explained why he feels Moore is justified in his contradiction.

[gldstwmn]

No, you didn't. You explained why Moore didn't want people to vote for Nader 2x, shrug and all, which wasn't the subject of discussion. Dissention has explained why he feels Moore is justified in his contradiction.

No. I said that Moore Is ABB and that while he may not want Senators who voted for the war to be reelected as Senators, that the importance of getting Bush out superseded that. I believe dissention echoed that sentiment. You can find my original quote and post it if you wish.

[paleshadow]

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=15625&page=3&pp=15

Thanks. I didn't see that. It's unfortunate when people get carried away like that because they feel so strongly about something. The worst thing about that is, even if you are relaying the most researched, undisputed facts, you lose credibility when you go that route.

[paleshadow]

No. I said that Moore Is ABB and that while he may not want Senators who voted for the war to be reelected as Senators, that the importance of getting Bush out superseded that. I believe dissention echoed that sentiment. You can find my original quote and post it if you wish.
Here is a copy and paste of your original post from that thread:

"Moore asked people not to vote for Senators who were running for reelection. He is ABB and realizes this election is too serious to consider a third party candidate whose votes will translate into absolutely nothing come November 4."

But again, that answers the question "Why does Michael Moore feel people shouldn't vote for Ralph Nader". Which no one asked.

[gldstwmn]

Thanks. I didn't see that. It's unfortunate when people get carried away like that because they feel so strongly about something. The worst thing about that is, even if you are relaying the most researched, undisputed facts, you lose credibility when you go that route.

Well, I have done that myself. I guess the most frustrating thing is the need for people to have their information in the form of a soundbite. Otherwise they don't have time, or I'm being partisan, etc... The majority of this group is pretty well informed, though. With everything that's happening now, it's hard to keep up with the developments.

[gldstwmn]

Here is a copy and paste of your original post from that thread:

"Moore asked people not to vote for Senators who were running for reelection. He is ABB and realizes this election is too serious to consider a third party candidate whose votes will translate into absolutely nothing come November 4."

But again, that answers the question "Why does Michael Moore feel people shouldn't vote for Ralph Nader". Which no one asked.

You may interperet it that way. I may have been pressed for time but what I was, however inarticulately trying to say was that Moore felt the need to unseat Bush by voting for Kerry, even though he did vote for IWR and that a third party vote was a waste of time this time around. Does that clarify it?

[dissention]

You may interperet it that way. I may have been pressed for time but what I was, however inarticulately trying to say was that Moore felt the need to unseat Bush by voting for Kerry, even though he did vote for IWR and that a third party vote was a waste of time this time around. Does that clarify it?

I understood it correctly. You clearly stated that Moore was ABB, which answered the original question posed, then elaborated on that point. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Yes, you did thanks again, but again this post wasn't directed at you, unless you are also gldstwmn?

No but we look out for each other. ;)

[dissention]

No but we look out for each other. ;)

Us two have to stick together in the fight against imperial hubris and neo-conservatism. :laugh: ;)

[paleshadow]

You may interperet it that way. I may have been pressed for time but what I was, however inarticulately trying to say was that Moore felt the need to unseat Bush by voting for Kerry, even though he did vote for IWR and that a third party vote was a waste of time this time around. Does that clarify it?


Yes, but again, it really wasn't a question. Like I said in that thread, I just thought that it was ironic that Moore digs to find those kind of contradictions in other people. I do understand his rationalization for it, but I can't say I agree with it though.

[gldstwmn]

I understood it correctly. You clearly stated that Moore was ABB, which answered the original questione dposed, then elaborated on that point. :wavey:

Thank you. :xoxo: Since neither of us can speak for Moore we can only surmise by his statements that this is what he means.
Why are you stuck on this paleshadow?

[gldstwmn]

Us two have to stick together in the fight against imperial hubris and neo-conservatism. :laugh: ;)

I can't imagine my life would go on could I not be a fancy pants elitist. :laugh:

[dissention]

I can't imagine my life would go on could I not be a fancy pants elitist. :laugh:

:laugh:

I bought that sticker from the Air America online store, too. It's on my mailbox. :lol:

[paleshadow]

Well, I have done that myself. I guess the most frustrating thing is the need for people to have their information in the form of a soundbite. Otherwise they don't have time, or I'm being partisan, etc... The majority of this group is pretty well informed, though. With everything that's happening now, it's hard to keep up with the developments.

Yeah, I think we all have our moments. I think it's great that so many people here give a damn one way or the other, wether we agree or not. Sometimes you just have to take a deep breath though before you hit "submit" and just make sure you aren't being disrespectful. :o

[MikeVielhaber]

Well, I have done that myself. I guess the most frustrating thing is the need for people to have their information in the form of a soundbite. Otherwise they don't have time, or I'm being partisan, etc... The majority of this group is pretty well informed, though. With everything that's happening now, it's hard to keep up with the developments.

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.

many people here may be informed but theyve all taken a side. and they will only say things, accept things, and show things that go for their side. it's only natural though. thats why i stick to my guns and am not swayed by the stuff written here because its all here with an agenda and by no means shows both sides of anything.

[DeeGeMe]

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.


So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

[strandinthewind]

Hogwash. :wavey:

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections :shrug: So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

True, bombing a country with quasi-UN approval is not and never will be invading a country. We agree on that. My point was and is however, both Clionton and W did it on essentially the same info. and for the reason that SH was a dangerous person that left unchecked was a major threat to the world. The only difference in motive was W's assertion that after 9/11 the US could not longer afford to allow SH to be defiant of the UN. I submit that is not that bad of a reason and Clinton agrees with me. I mean Kay admitted that although WMD were not found SH had the ability to go back to making them at any minute with just a few alterations of some plants and although there was no collaborative relationship, SH had according to the 9/11 report met with Al-Q on a few sep occasions and SH helped that huigh ranking Al-Q official during the Afgan war. That suggests a link to me. AND - Al-Q is not the only terrorist organization out there :shrug: So, I submit Gore or any other Pres. may have made a similar choice to W - perhaps not all out war or the improper rush to it that W did - but similar action if they are to be believed now. Again, all of this is speculation - and that is mine, which I submit is supported by many if not all facts.

Note: my tone is civil not contrary. Please do not respond by attacking me by saying what I am saying are right wing talking poins. If they are, then Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Kerry, and many other left wingers are all right wing talking point promoters because I am saying exactly what they pretty much all say :shrug: I would much rather you cite facts and let's have a real debate :cool: Otherwise, I am not participating as I have said all I can say and have said this repeatedly and all I get is I am saying right wing talking points, which is an insult, not a debate :shrug: :wavey: ;)

[strandinthewind]

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next. :laugh:

Apparently, I had hope too soon. Well, at least you are consistent :laugh:

I know this may come as a surprise to you and it may be hard for you as a far far ledt person to comprehend, but some of the things the Bush Admin. has said are true and admitting that is not the end of the world. :cool:

Again, please tell me why trying to stop SH from giving WMD, which the world agreed he had, to terrorists was a bad idea?

I am not excusing W's rush to war. I am talking only about that exact premise, which the world supports was true - see UN Res. 1441.

[strandinthewind]

Ha. That's the story told by Minute Rice, who said during her 9/11 commission testimony that she didn't know her job was national security advisor. That's the story told by Asscroft, who told his staff that he didn't want to hear a peep about bin Laden or terrorist attacks. So much for shaking the trees, eh?

Once again, sacrcasm and insults, but no facts to support what you say. in my book and to these old eyes, that is an excuse for not answering the question and changing the subject :xoxo: Again, please cite facts to support your position and leave the rhetoric aside as I have heard it all :wavey:

[MikeVielhaber]

So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

i know what you mean. and thats why people dont argue that way. but everything is shown to where kerry has all these good qualities and bush has all these bad qualities. i disagree for my own reasons. and i support who i support for my own reasons. but i do have those reasons and it is my opinion that kerry will do no better than george bush. and apparently approximately half the country agrees with me so we'll see who gets those few percentage points come november.

[dissention]

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections :shrug: So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? :shrug: Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

[gldstwmn]

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.

many people here may be informed but theyve all taken a side. and they will only say things, accept things, and show things that go for their side. it's only natural though. thats why i stick to my guns and am not swayed by the stuff written here because its all here with an agenda and by no means shows both sides of anything.

Then why on earth are you wasting your precious time reading these threads? You've gone far out of your way to point out how very little extra time you have-especially for politics.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: :lol: You? Are Losing It.

The Bush administration dropped all investigations into the Cole bombing and practically murdered John Dean because of it.

Once again insults. Please explain to me why Clinton failed to stop it and the many other attacks, save the lucky border stop which prevented the Y2K attack.

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

[gldstwmn]

So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

That's alright, honey. :wavey: As long as you show up.

[dissention]

Once again, sacrcasm and insults, but no facts to support what you say. in my book and to these old eyes, that is an excuse for not answering the question and changing the subject :xoxo: Again, please cite facts to support your position and leave the rhetoric aside as I have heard it all :wavey:

Sarcasm, yes. Insults, no.

Read the transcripts and the interim reports from the 9/11 commission, they fully back up what I say about Minute Rice and Asscroft.

[strandinthewind]

The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The USS Cole wasn't struck until 2000.


The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The Kenya Embassy was strike in 1998.

Also, the 9/11 Commission report directly states there never was any offer to Clinton. :)

I nknow that. I agree the source of the 96 offer was tainted. I was talking about after the subsequent attacks we had reason to go after OBL but did not. Clinton has stated at times after those, the intelligence provided windows of opportunity to take OBL out. However, the decision to do so would essentially be an act of war on the nation in which OBL was. So, he did not act. That is what I am talking about. Make no mistake, I think Clinton did many good things to stop terrorism. I just think he failed not only to get OBL, but also to pick up on the intelligence that suggested OBL was planning to use planes as missles to ram into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a third target speculated as being the WH or the Congress. Again, a lot of that planning occurred during the Clinton Admin. - if we are going to hold W accountable for failing to stop it, I submit Clinton is just as accountable no matter how good he was at stopping it in other areas :shrug:

[dissention]

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

As soon as the Bush administration took office and leading up to the 9/11 attacks, they stopped all investigations into the Cole bombing. John Dean was removed from Yemen and all inquiries were halted. Only after 9/11 did the investigations resume. ;) Must we go into this again?

[gldstwmn]

i i disagree for my own reasons. and i support who i support for my own reasons.

Well, what are they? :blob2: :blob2: :blob2: I'm open to reading them. but please...keep it short. :rolleyes: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Once again insults. Please explain to me why Clinton failed to stop it and the many other attacks, save the lucky border stop which prevented the Y2K attack.

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

In the last month...what timing! :laugh:

[dissention]

Apparently, I had hope too soon. Well, at least you are consistent :laugh:

I know this may come as a surprise to you and it may be hard for you as a far far ledt person to comprehend, but some of the things the Bush Admin. has said are true and admitting that is not the end of the world. :cool:

Again, please tell me why trying to stop SH from giving WMD, which the world agreed he had, to terrorists was a bad idea?

I am not excusing W's rush to war. I am talking only about that exact premise, which the world supports was true - see UN Res. 1441.

You're getting sidetracked.

Again, you do not address my response that the stories of Clinton being offered Osama were bunk. They were and among many tlaking points employed by O'Lielly, actually.

[strandinthewind]

The perps were tried and convicted during Clinton's second term. :)

I know, but they were just the soldiers following orders from OBL - we could have tried to extradite OBL based on that :shrug: We did not. I suggest that was a mistake :shrug:

[dissention]

In the last month...what timing! :laugh:

Exactly. :lol:

Tell it to John Dean (lord, I hope I have his name right this time, Goldie! :laugh: ).

[gldstwmn]

I know, but they were just the soldiers following orders from OBL - we could have tried to extradite OBL based on that :shrug: We did not. I suggest that was a mistake :shrug:

Prove it. And what would we have charged him with in order to extradite him?

[gldstwmn]

Make no mistake, I think Clinton did many good things to stop terrorism. I just think he failed not only to get OBL,

When did he have an opportunity to get Bin Laden? The man tried. In one of your earlier posts, you say that Bin Laden would never have been handed over anyway because of his close relationship with the House of Saud and the ensuing uproar that would've followed. So what are you proposing that he could have done?

[dissention]

When did he have an opportunity to get Bin Laden? The man tried. In one of your earlier posts, you say that Bin Laden would never have been handed over anyway because of his close relationship with the House of Saud and the ensuing uproar that would've followed. So what are you proposing that he could have done?

Shake the trees? :laugh: :lol:

I couldn't resist. :p

[gldstwmn]

Exactly. :lol:

Tell it to John Dean (lord, I hope I have his name right this time, Goldie! :laugh: ).

O'Neill? Dean was Nixon's.

[dissention]

O'Neill? Dean was Nixon's.

F*ck. :laugh:

I always get those two mixed up, dammit!

[gldstwmn]

Shake the trees? :laugh: :lol:

I couldn't resist. :p

Smoke 'em out of their hole. ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? :shrug: Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

I agree the U.S. was trying to promote it through internal methods. But, my point is and was 9/11 changed that. After 9/11 W came out with a policy that said America can no longer afford SH as a variable in the war on terror. Clinton and Kerry agree with that.

Here is a pretty thorough doc. on the regime change policy

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14391.pdf

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

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."

That sounds awfully familiar to W's policy - granted Clinton did not invade in a rush to implement it.

[dissention]

Smoke 'em out of their hole. ;) :laugh:

We're gonna smoke 'em out! :lol:

[MikeVielhaber]

Then why on earth are you wasting your precious time reading these threads? You've gone far out of your way to point out how very little extra time you have-especially for politics.

i read about politics all the time. i watch it on tv. i read it in the paper. i dont read it off of john kerry's website. i don't read it off of george's website either though i do visit occasionally. we talk about it in government class as well. i don't go read things that take me an hour to read. and if i were to pull my stuff from a website i wouldn't posted hour long excerpts either. i would sum it down what i got out of it and then posted the link. nobody here probably went and read all the long ass stuff you posted.

plus this must be your job or something for you to have all of these websites and links about everything known to man. do you spend alot of time doing this stuff? cause i have other things i do. i work....i go to school....i have hobbies.

[dissention]

I agree the U.S. was trying to promote it through internal methods. But, my point is and was 9/11 changed that. After 9/11 W came out with a policy that said America can no longer afford SH as a variable in the war on terror. Clinton and Kerry agree with that.

Here is a pretty thorough doc. on the regime change policy

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14391.pdf

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

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."

That sounds awfully familiar to W's policy - granted Clinton did not invade in a rush to implement it.

I've read it numerous times, darling, and have that exact doc on my bookshelf. ;)

What I was asking for were the specifics on the policy. You simply posted the most general of assessments. ;) To be more specific, his policy was to promote regime change in Iraq by giving $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces to overthrow Saddam and promote democracy. The US was not going to do anything but give them military assistance and, in the end, US involvment with Iraq in the late-nineties was looked at with scorn by the US population and this policy was abandoned. By 2000, Iraq was a non-issue. :wavey:

Oh, and from '93 up until '98, the policy was simply to enforce sanctions. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Here is the Iraq Liberation Act Clinton signed in 1998. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Interestingly, here is a quote from it "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

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."



And if you read more of that document you will see that it supports regime change from within. Clever editing there.

Bush I supported this policy when he told the people of Iraq to "rise up" after we left them hanging after the Gulf War. Of course, since they had little means of resistance, they were crushed by Saddam's army. Hence the mass graves and ensuing hatred that propelled the terrorist acts agianst the US since.

[dissention]

i read about politics all the time. i watch it on tv. i read it in the paper. i dont read it off of john kerry's website. i don't read it off of george's website either though i do visit occasionally. we talk about it in government class as well. i don't go read things that take me an hour to read. and if i were to pull my stuff from a website i wouldn't posted hour long excerpts either. i would sum it down what i got out of it and then posted the link. nobody here probably went and read all the long ass stuff you posted.

plus this must be your job or something for you to have all of these websites and links about everything known to man. do you spend alot of time doing this stuff? cause i have other things i do. i work....i go to school....i have hobbies.

I've read it all...and then some. How else would any of us involved in these discussions know what we know? Turn off MSRNC and surf the web!

Again, it's called Google.

PS: As Americans, it is our job. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Sarcasm, yes. Insults, no.

Read the transcripts and the interim reports from the 9/11 commission, they fully back up what I say about Minute Rice and Asscroft.

I know you are insulting in humor, etc. :xoxo:

I know they do a little. But, Rice also said and I quote:

Here is a copy of Rice's http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

It seems she was not all you say because she ways she was persuing leads on OBL :shrug: You may not believe her, but she said she was and the 8/6/01 memo. indicates there were about 70 FBI investigations that were ongoing. How much more proof is needed.

Again, they were caught with their pants down - no question about it. But, I think you are implying Dr. Rice sort of patted the pesky loudmouthes about OBL and Al-Q on the head and then concentrated solely on Iraq (humor :cool: ) - her testimony does not support that. Here is an example:

After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton administration on many national security issues during the transition. The president-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al Qaeda network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and al Qaeda.

This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed the Clinton administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East and the Balkans.

Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of al Qaeda over the years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against al Qaeda.

On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as director of central intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff.

I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.

At the beginning of the administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of central intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office -- meetings which I attended, along with the vice president and the chief of staff. At these meetings, the president received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials.

From January 20 through September 10, the president received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al Qaeda, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al Qaeda and terrorism.

Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers.

We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration -- not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda.

Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al Qaeda network.

It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities.

For instance: It directed the secretary of state to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al Qaeda. It directed the secretaries of the treasury and state to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al Qaeda and its benefactors.

It directed the director of central intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al Qaeda and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

It tasked the director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.

And it directed the secretary of defense to -- and I quote -- "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers."

This was a change from the prior strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 -- which ordered the secretary of defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.

More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.

Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al Qaeda was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided al Qaeda with a powerful umbrella of protection, and we had to sever them. This was not easy.

Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office, President Bush sent a strong, private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al Qaeda training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis, including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban.

I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a rote, expressionless response.

America's al Qaeda policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.

To address these problems, I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion.

I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the secretary of state and his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance, we emphasized the importance of the south -- the social and political heartland of the country.

Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability on the subcontinent.

While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last administration, and some had been on the table since 1998.

We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al Qaeda.

When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both simultaneously.

For the essential crisis management task, we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs of Staff), the State Department, and the Secret Service.

The CSG had met regularly for many years, and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes daily, to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.

The threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that spring and summer: "Unbelievable news coming in weeks," "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar," "There will be attacks in the near future."

Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.

In this context, I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized.

On August 6, 2001, the president's intelligence briefing included a response to questions that he had earlier raised about any al Qaeda intentions to strike our homeland.

The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible al Qaeda plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting that from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5, chief of staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland.

Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.

Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance, the Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al Qaeda might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al Qaeda attack on U.S. interests.

The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out.

The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.

The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al Qaeda in more than 20 countries.

During this period, the vice president, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.

Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the president that day.

___________________________________________________________

There is bunch more too much to post.

[gldstwmn]

I've read it numerous times, darling, and have that exact doc on my bookshelf. ;)

What I was asking for were the specifics on the policy. You simply posted the most general of assessments. ;) To be more specific, his policy was to promote regime change in Iraq by giving $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces to overthrow Saddam and promote democracy. The US was not going to do anything but give them military assistance and, in the end, US involvment with Iraq in the late-nineties was looked at with scorn by the US population and this policy was abandoned. By 2000, Iraq was a non-issue. :wavey:

Oh, and from '93 up until '98, the policy was simply to enforce sanctions. ;)

Ding! Ding! Ding! Tell the man what he's won. :thumbsup:

[dissention]

And if you read more of that document you will see that it supports regime change from within. Clever editing there.

Exactly! :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I've read it all...and then some. How else would any of us involved in these discussions know what we know? Turn off MSRNC and surf the web!

Again, it's called Google.

PS: As Americans, it is our job. ;)

Reading is one of my hobbies. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

As soon as the Bush administration took office and leading up to the 9/11 attacks, they stopped all investigations into the Cole bombing. John Dean was removed from Yemen and all inquiries were halted. Only after 9/11 did the investigations resume. ;) Must we go into this again?

You said they dropped it. Apparently, they have picked it back up again. I just wanted to make sure you knew that because I did not hear you say it - thus, your statement implied they dropped the Cole investigation and never did anything about since :shrug: :cool:

[dissention]

I know you are insulting in humor, etc. :xoxo:

I know they do a little. But, Rice also said and I quote:

Here is a copy of Rice's http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

I have that on my bookshelf, too, and she shoots herself in the foot too many times to count, my friend.

I have the interim report form the 9/11 panel after her testimony, too, but I feel like making you work today. Go fetch! :laugh: :xoxo: j/k

[dissention]

You said they dropped it. Apparently, they have picked it back up again. I just wanted to make sure you knew that because I did not hear you say it - thus, your statement implied they dropped the Cole investigation and never did anything about since :shrug: :cool:

They did drop it. :shrug:

If you go to PBS online, you can watch the whole Frontline episode concerning John O'Neill, the Cole bombing and it's subsequent investigations. ;)

[strandinthewind]

You're getting sidetracked.

Again, you do not address my response that the stories of Clinton being offered Osama were bunk. They were and among many tlaking points employed by O'Lielly, actually.

I said the 96 source was tainted. I'll say it again, the 96 source was tainted.

But, Clinton has referred to other and subsequent windows of opportunity that did not work for various reasons. Also, after OBL attacked the US many other times, why didn't Clinton try to extradite him. We do with other criminals :shrug:

[dissention]

Reading is one of my hobbies. :laugh:

:lol: I think so! :lol:

Read Worse Than Watergate yet? It's a great read.

[dissention]

I said the 96 source was tainted. I'll say it again, the 96 source was tainted.

But, Clinton has referred to other and subsequent windows of opportunity that did not work for various reasons. Also, after OBL attacked the US many other times, why didn't Clinton try to extradite him. We do with other criminals :shrug:

We couldn't get Ira Einhorn, good luck getting Osama. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Prove it. And what would we have charged him with in order to extradite him?

Murder would be a good one. Again, we knew or highly suspected OBL was the mastermind, that is enough for extradition. Extradition is not a trial, it is an effort to levy charges and bring someone into the jurisdiction for trial. He clearly could have been extradited had there been a Middle Eastern country with the sand to turn him over.

[gldstwmn]

I said the 96 source was tainted. I'll say it again, the 96 source was tainted.

But, Clinton has referred to other and subsequent windows of opportunity that did not work for various reasons. Also, after OBL attacked the US many other times, why didn't Clinton try to extradite him. We do with other criminals :shrug:

Well, I heard Chalabi might be coming over. :]

[strandinthewind]

When did he have an opportunity to get Bin Laden? The man tried. In one of your earlier posts, you say that Bin Laden would never have been handed over anyway because of his close relationship with the House of Saud and the ensuing uproar that would've followed. So what are you proposing that he could have done?

The effort would have been nice.

I think actually in some remote part of my memory, Clinton did try. But, I cannot remember. I will do some research.

Interestingly:

11/03/2001 - Updated 07:27 PM ET



Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said Saturday. Prince Turki al-Faisal, who left his post a few days before Sept. 11, also said he is convinced bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda network were behind the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

He said he discussed bin Laden's handover with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in a meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan, two months before the August 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.

"I briefed him on what (bin Laden) had done against the kingdom's interests and asked him to stop him and hand him over to us," the Saudi royal family member said in an interview with the Saudi-owned satellite TV channel MBC.

Bin Laden — named by the United States as the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks — was then wanted in his native Saudi Arabia for anti-government agitation and opposition to the presence of U.S. troops.

Prince Turki said Omar's response to the extradition request was favorable.

"First he agreed, but he said: 'Let us set up a joint (Saudi-Afghan) committee to probe the ways and means to do that,"' Prince Turki said.

Then the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up by truck bombs, killing 231 people, including 12 Americans. Blaming bin Laden, the United States fired cruise missiles at a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan thought to be linked to the Saudi exile.

Prince Turki said that when he returned to Afghanistan later that year, he found Mullah Omar had changed his mind. In a stormy meeting, Mullah Omar flatly rejected the request to extradite bin Laden, he said.

"I told him: 'You will regret it and the Afghan people will pay a high price for that,"' Prince Turki said.

In his first television interview since he left his post as intelligence chief in September, Prince Turki said Mullah Omar and bin Laden share the same ideology.

"At any rate, the evil in them is the same," said Prince Turki, the first prominent Saudi to say publicly that he is convinced bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

Saudi officials are balancing their alliance with Washington and their own fear of Islamic militancy with their citizens' anger at the United States and admiration for bin Laden.

A son of the late King Faisal, Prince Turki served as head of the kingdom's secret service for more than twenty years.

He was reportedly the official who supervised Saudi financial assistance to guerrillas fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan of 1979-89. He is also thought to have been a friend of bin Laden before bin Laden joined the guerrillas.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/03/extradite.htm

[gldstwmn]

:lol: I think so! :lol:

Read Worse Than Watergate yet? It's a great read.

No, still reading my four other books. :lol:

[dissention]

Well, I heard Chalabi might be coming over. :]

:lol: They're trying to use the Jordanian conviction against him now. The same conviction that the Bush administration called bull. And the warrant was issued by a man who murdered six men in cold blood. :lol:

[dissention]

No, still reading my four other books. :lol:

Like I said, I don't know how you do it. Even my superior intellect can't handle all that. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

I've read it numerous times, darling, and have that exact doc on my bookshelf. ;)

What I was asking for were the specifics on the policy. You simply posted the most general of assessments. ;) To be more specific, his policy was to promote regime change in Iraq by giving $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces to overthrow Saddam and promote democracy. The US was not going to do anything but give them military assistance and, in the end, US involvment with Iraq in the late-nineties was looked at with scorn by the US population and this policy was abandoned. By 2000, Iraq was a non-issue. :wavey:

Oh, and from '93 up until '98, the policy was simply to enforce sanctions. ;)

I know that and do not think I said anything contrary. Again, what I said was Clinton supports W's position on regime change now because the former regime change under his admin. had to change because of 9/11. Am I not being clear about that?

[gldstwmn]

Murder would be a good one. Again, we knew or highly suspected OBL was the mastermind, that is enough for extradition. Extradition is not a trial, it is an effort to levy charges and bring someone into the jurisdiction for trial. He clearly could have been extradited had there been a Middle Eastern country with the sand to turn him over.

I thought you said it was Clinton's fault. Now it's the Middle East's fault for not extraditing him?
Your point is moot and you know it.

[strandinthewind]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Tell the man what he's won. :thumbsup:

. . . an argument I was not making?

[gldstwmn]

You said they dropped it. Apparently, they have picked it back up again.

What timing! Just in time for the election!

[dissention]

. . . an argument I was not making?

We were talking about Clinton's policy and how it had been abandoned. I responded after you posted an oversimplified version of his policy. :shrug:

[dissention]

I know that and do not think I said anything contrary. Again, what I said was Clinton supports W's position on regime change now because the former regime change under his admin. had to change because of 9/11. Am I not being clear about that?

Yes, you were very unclear about that. I could care less what Clinton says now or what he supports, he's no longer president. The issue we were discussing was his policy when he was president, not when he was ex-president. :)

[strandinthewind]

I have that on my bookshelf, too, and she shoots herself in the foot too many times to count, my friend.

I have the interim report form the 9/11 panel after her testimony, too, but I feel like making you work today. Go fetch! :laugh: :xoxo: j/k

First refute what I posted. You cannot and you know it. But and again, blind hatred for anything W related is your mantra.

Again, please cite facts to refute what Dr. Rice said. Please also cite facts to refute that there were about 70 investigation ongoing as of 8/6/01 as indicated in the memo.

I am no fan of W or his administration, but you all make it soound like they did nothing at all ever. That is just not supported by the facts - period. Sadly, they were not successful in their efforts. But, if that is the lithmus test, then I suggest Clinton was as well because he stopped only one of many (and then with a little luck) and some of the 9/11 plan occurred in his admin. Yet, no one bashes Clinton - they solely bash W. I agree W could have and should have done more, but come on . . .

[dissention]

First refute what I posted. You cannot and you know it. But and again, blind hatred for anything W related is your mantra.

Again, please cite facts to refute what Dr. Rice said. Please also cite facts to refute that there were about 70 investigation ongoing as of 8/6/01 as indicated in the memo.

I am no fan of W or his administration, but you all make it soound like they did nothing at all ever. That is just not supported by the facts - period. Sadly, they were not successful in their efforts. But, if that is the lithmus test, then I suggest Clinton was as well because he stopped only one of many (and then with a little luck) and some of the 9/11 plan occurred in his admin. Yet, no one bashes Clinton - they solely bash W. I agree W could have and should have done more, but come on . . .

The interim report refutes all of that and then some. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Well, I heard Chalabi might be coming over. :]

I know - I saw that today. It could not happen to nicer guy! AND - maybe the pics' of the suspected felon and traitor sitting next to Laura Bush at the State of Union will reappear :cool: This does not bode well for W or anyone in his administration, esp. Rumsfeld.

[gldstwmn]

:lol: They're trying to use the Jordanian conviction against him now. The same conviction that the Bush administration called bull. And the warrant was issued by a man who murdered six men in cold blood. :lol:

And to think, just eight months ago he was sitting next to Laura Bush at the State Of the Union Address. My, how quickly one can fall out of favor with the BFEE.

[strandinthewind]

I thought you said it was Clinton's fault. Now it's the Middle East's fault for not extraditing him?
Your point is moot and you know it.

Well, it was partially his fault. He did not go after OBL with vigor or if he did, he was unsuccessful. So, my point is not moot. It is very real, esp. if the same logic is to be allied without reservation to W. Clinton failed to stop something like five attacks. Granted he caught the perpetrators of the 93 WTC bombing, but that was it I think. But, if that ofer of extradition in that USA today article is true . . . .

[strandinthewind]

They did drop it. :shrug:

If you go to PBS online, you can watch the whole Frontline episode concerning John O'Neill, the Cole bombing and it's subsequent investigations. ;)

I am not saying they did not. All I am sayinbg is someone picked it back up again :shrug: The arrests are dispositive of that.

[gldstwmn]

The effort would have been nice.

I think actually in some remote part of my memory, Clinton did try.
:laugh: Don't wear yourself out. It's Sunday, after all. :wavey:

Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said Saturday. Prince Turki al-Faisal, who left his post a few days before Sept. 11, also said he is convinced bin Laden and his al-Qa'eda network were behind the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

He said he discussed bin Laden's handover with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in a meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan, two months before the August 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.



Not to discount Faisal but we do know for a fact that some of Bin Laden's money comes from the Saudi royal family. As far as the allegiance with Afghanistan, fox in the henhouse anyone?

[strandinthewind]

And if you read more of that document you will see that it supports regime change from within. Clever editing there.

Bush I supported this policy when he told the people of Iraq to "rise up" after we left them hanging after the Gulf War. Of course, since they had little means of resistance, they were crushed by Saddam's army. Hence the mass graves and ensuing hatred that propelled the terrorist acts agianst the US since.

I am not and I have never said Clinton wanted to go to war with Iraq as a tool to imnplement regime change. If I did, I was wrong. I said he bombed them in an effort to make them comply with the UN Resolutions, which is different. All, I am saying is NOW Clinton says after 9/11 and the potential threat of SH, the internal regime change policy was outdated.

[gldstwmn]

. . . an argument I was not making?

You said that Clinton and W's policies were the same. They're not.

[strandinthewind]

We were talking about Clinton's policy and how it had been abandoned. I responded after you posted an oversimplified version of his policy. :shrug:

I know that you thought you did. But, my point was I was not saying that. I clarified by providing the Act creating the policy :shrug: If you think I was saying Clinton wanted to go to war to promote regime change, I was not - period.

BTW - I am still waiting for you to somment on Clinton's revised Iraqi policy, which as I mentioned many times fully supports W's reasons for going to war (after 9/11 SH must be held accountable for the WMD because the US cannot afford the risk SH represented), just not his rush to it.

[dissention]

Some quotes from the 9/11 commission, Jason. Please read them all because when I originally posted them, you did not have a response. :)

"In April and May 2001 the drumbeat of reporting increased. Articles presented to top officials contained headlines such as: "bin Laden planning multiple operations." "bin Laden public profile may presage attack." "Bin Laden networks plans advancing." By late May there were reports of a hostage plot against Americans to force the release of prisoners, including Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 plot to blow up sites in New York City. The reporting noted that the operatives may opt to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. The reporting also mentioned that Abu Zubaydah was planning an attack and expected to carry out more if things went well."

"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in morning meetings with DCI Tenet, usually attended by Vice President (Dick) Cheney and National Security Adviser Rice as well. None of these reports mentioned that the attacks might occur in the United States. At the end of May, Counterterrorist Center (CTC) Chief Cofer Black told Rice that the current threat level was a "7" on a scale of 10, as compared to an "8" during the Millennium."

"The threat reports surged again in June and July, reaching an even higher peak of urgency. A Terrorist Threat Advisory in late June indicated that there was a high probability of near-term "spectacular" terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties. Headlines from intelligence reports were stark: "Bin Laden threats are real." "Bin Laden planning high profile attacks." The intelligence reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple but not necessarily simultaneous attacks. A late June report stated that Bin Laden operatives expect near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportion."

"At Rice's request, on July 5 the CIA briefed Attorney General John Ashcroft on the al-Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent, and a strike could occur at any time. That same day, officials from domestic agencies, including the FAA, met with Clarke to discuss the current threat. Rice worked directly with Tenet on security issues for the G-8 summit. In addition to the individual reports, on July 11 top officials received a summary recapitulating the mass of al-Qaeda-related threat reporting on several continents. Tenet told us that in his world "the system was blinking red," and by late July it could not have been any worse. Tenet told us he felt that President Bush and other officials grasped the urgency of what they were being told."

"On July 27 Clarke informed Rice and Hadley that the spike in signals intelligence about a near-term attack had stopped. He urged keeping readiness high during the August vacation period, warning that another report suggested an attack had just been postponed for a few months. On August 3 the Intelligence Community issued a Threat Advisory warning that the threat of impending al-Qaeda attacks would likely continue indefinitely. The advisory cited threats in the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, Israel, and Europe, and suggested that al-Qaeda was lying in wait and searching for gaps in security before moving forward with the planned attacks."

"Rice and Hadley told us that, before 9/11, they did not feel they had the job of handling domestic security. They felt that Clarke and the CSG were the NSCs bridge between foreign and domestic threats."

"The FBI had tasked its 56 U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of suspected terrorists and to reach out to informants who might have information about terrorist plots. An NSC document at the time describes such a tasking having occurred in late June, although it does not indicate whether the tasking was generated by the NSC or the FBI."

"We found in our field office visits last fall, however, that a number of FBI personnel, with the exception of those in the New York field office, did not recall a heightened sense of threat from al-Qaeda within the United States in summer 2001. For example, an international terrorism squad supervisor in the Washington Field Office told us he was neither aware in summer 2001 of an increased threat, nor did his squad take any special steps or actions. The Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office told us he did not learn of the high level of threat until after September 11."

"Pickard said in late June and through July he met with Attorney General Ashcroft once a week. He told us that although he initially briefed the Attorney General regarding these threats, after two such briefings the Attorney General told him he did not want to hear this information anymore. The Justice Department has informed us that Attorney General Ashcroft, his former deputy, and his chief of staff deny that the Attorney General made any such statement to Pickard."

"Prior to 9/11 neither Ashcroft nor his predecessors received a copy of the Presidents Daily Brief. After 9/11 Ashcroft began to receive portions of the brief that relate to counterterrorism."

[strandinthewind]

Yes, you were very unclear about that. I could care less what Clinton says now or what he supports, he's no longer president. The issue we were discussing was his policy when he was president, not when he was ex-president. :)

That might the issue you want to discuss because it does not lend creedance to W. But, I am saying and the topic of this thread was what would happen after Clinton left office. Thus, Clinton's comments after he left office are relevant and they certainly do not support your argument :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

He did not go after OBL with vigor

That is an untruth. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

The interim report refutes all of that and then some. :xoxo:

No it does not and you know it - yet you continue to say it as it were true :rolleyes: You know that will never work with me :cool:

[dissention]

BTW - I am still waiting for you to somment on Clinton's revised Iraqi policy, which as I mentioned many times fully supports W's reasons for going to war (after 9/11 SH must be held accountable for the WMD because the US cannot afford the risk SH represented), just not his rush to it.

His revised Iraq policy was to fund Iraqi opposition forces. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You said that Clinton and W's policies were the same. They're not.

They are now. I was talikng about NOW. Clinton has repeatedly said he agreed with W's reasons for going to war but objected to the the way in which W did it and the timing, which is a different argument.

[dissention]

No it does not and you know it - yet you continue to say it as it were true :rolleyes: You know that will never work with me :cool:

:rolleyes:

It does not support her claim that there were 70 field investigations. Their findings refute that.

You're blind, that's all I can say. Oh well, time to move on. :)

[strandinthewind]

Some quotes from the 9/11 commission, Jason. Please read them all because when I originally posted them, you did not have a response. :)

"In April and May 2001 the drumbeat of reporting increased. Articles presented to top officials contained headlines such as: "bin Laden planning multiple operations." "bin Laden public profile may presage attack." "Bin Laden networks plans advancing." By late May there were reports of a hostage plot against Americans to force the release of prisoners, including Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 plot to blow up sites in New York City. The reporting noted that the operatives may opt to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. The reporting also mentioned that Abu Zubaydah was planning an attack and expected to carry out more if things went well."

"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in morning meetings with DCI Tenet, usually attended by Vice President (Dick) Cheney and National Security Adviser Rice as well. None of these reports mentioned that the attacks might occur in the United States. At the end of May, Counterterrorist Center (CTC) Chief Cofer Black told Rice that the current threat level was a "7" on a scale of 10, as compared to an "8" during the Millennium."

"The threat reports surged again in June and July, reaching an even higher peak of urgency. A Terrorist Threat Advisory in late June indicated that there was a high probability of near-term "spectacular" terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties. Headlines from intelligence reports were stark: "Bin Laden threats are real." "Bin Laden planning high profile attacks." The intelligence reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil, consisting of possible multiple but not necessarily simultaneous attacks. A late June report stated that Bin Laden operatives expect near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportion."

"At Rice's request, on July 5 the CIA briefed Attorney General John Ashcroft on the al-Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent, and a strike could occur at any time. That same day, officials from domestic agencies, including the FAA, met with Clarke to discuss the current threat. Rice worked directly with Tenet on security issues for the G-8 summit. In addition to the individual reports, on July 11 top officials received a summary recapitulating the mass of al-Qaeda-related threat reporting on several continents. Tenet told us that in his world "the system was blinking red," and by late July it could not have been any worse. Tenet told us he felt that President Bush and other officials grasped the urgency of what they were being told."

"On July 27 Clarke informed Rice and Hadley that the spike in signals intelligence about a near-term attack had stopped. He urged keeping readiness high during the August vacation period, warning that another report suggested an attack had just been postponed for a few months. On August 3 the Intelligence Community issued a Threat Advisory warning that the threat of impending al-Qaeda attacks would likely continue indefinitely. The advisory cited threats in the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, Israel, and Europe, and suggested that al-Qaeda was lying in wait and searching for gaps in security before moving forward with the planned attacks."

"Rice and Hadley told us that, before 9/11, they did not feel they had the job of handling domestic security. They felt that Clarke and the CSG were the NSCs bridge between foreign and domestic threats."

"The FBI had tasked its 56 U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of suspected terrorists and to reach out to informants who might have information about terrorist plots. An NSC document at the time describes such a tasking having occurred in late June, although it does not indicate whether the tasking was generated by the NSC or the FBI."

"We found in our field office visits last fall, however, that a number of FBI personnel, with the exception of those in the New York field office, did not recall a heightened sense of threat from al-Qaeda within the United States in summer 2001. For example, an international terrorism squad supervisor in the Washington Field Office told us he was neither aware in summer 2001 of an increased threat, nor did his squad take any special steps or actions. The Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office told us he did not learn of the high level of threat until after September 11."

"Pickard said in late June and through July he met with Attorney General Ashcroft once a week. He told us that although he initially briefed the Attorney General regarding these threats, after two such briefings the Attorney General told him he did not want to hear this information anymore. The Justice Department has informed us that Attorney General Ashcroft, his former deputy, and his chief of staff deny that the Attorney General made any such statement to Pickard."

"Prior to 9/11 neither Ashcroft nor his predecessors received a copy of the Presidents Daily Brief. After 9/11 Ashcroft began to receive portions of the brief that relate to counterterrorism."


Please provide a site for these.

[dissention]

They are now. I was talikng about NOW. Clinton has repeatedly said he agreed with W's reasons for going to war but objected to the the way in which W did it and the timing, which is a different argument.

He is not president NOW.

[gldstwmn]

They are now. I was talikng about NOW. Clinton has repeatedly said he agreed with W's reasons for going to war but objected to the the way in which W did it and the timing, which is a different argument.

It doesn't matter what Clinton's policy is now. He's no longer president. I will give kudos to him for the disingeuous way he slaps W for the "timing". Still one of the best politicians-ever.

[dissention]

Please provide a site for these.

Try the search option on this very board.

[strandinthewind]

That is an untruth. :distress:

Well, he has said that he had windows of opportunity but essentially chose not to exercise them because of political reasons. That sounds like an non-vigourous approach to catch some one who attacked our contry here and elsewhere fove or so times at the cost of many lives :shrug:

[dissention]

That might the issue you want to discuss because it does not lend creedance to W. But, I am saying and the topic of this thread was what would happen after Clinton left office. Thus, Clinton's comments after he left office are relevant and they certainly do not support your argument :shrug:

They have no bearing because he doesn't make policy when he leaves office.

[gldstwmn]

Well, he has said that he had windows of opportunity but essentially chose not to exercise them because of political reasons.

Specifics please? :)

[strandinthewind]

His revised Iraq policy was to fund Iraqi opposition forces. :shrug:

I know that. But, he is now saying essentially that was not enough after 9/11 - hence the topic of this thread - what would have happend if Gore was in office. I submit a fairly accurate version of that speculation would be to look at what BC would have done. BC has said he would have done what W did and for the same reasons. He just would not have rushed to war, he would have let the inspectors finish their inspection. But, he clearly bleived SH was too bif os threat to leave unchecked after 9/11 - a point you have yet to respond to BTW

Also, what do any of the quotes you gave above have to do with supporting your point. YOu are gonna have to connect the dots because I am not seeing it. Nothing in that demonstrates the Bush Admin. was ignoring the Al-Q threats :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

They have no bearing because he doesn't make policy when he leaves office.

I know that. But, it is relevant to the topis of this thread. I think you do not want to admit that because it directly refutes your argument and it lends creedance to W, which you can never do :shrug:

[dissention]

I know that. But, he is now saying essentially that was not enough after 9/11 - hence the topic of this thread - what would have happend if Gore was in office. I submit a fairly accurate version of that speculation would be to look at what BC would have done. BC has said he would have done what W did and for the same reasons. He just would not have rushed to war, he would have let the inspectors finish their inspection. But, he clearly bleived SH was too bif os threat to leave unchecked after 9/11 - a point you have yet to respond to BTW

Also, what do any of the quotes you gave above have to do with supporting your point. YOu are gonna have to connect the dots because I am not seeing it. Nothing in that demonstrates the Bush Admin. was ignoring the Al-Q threats :shrug:

Jason, you lost me many moons ago when you claimed Iraq had attacked us, so forgive me if I don't chomp at the bit to have another go around. If you can't see it, I give up. :wavey:

[dissention]

I know that. But, it is relevant to the topis of this thread. I think you do not want to admit that because it directly refutes your argument and it lends creedance to W, which you can never do :shrug:

We are off topic. Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation. Sorry.

[strandinthewind]

Specifics please? :)



Here is the link to the recent interview with Larry King, during which he said:

KING: Do you ever say, I should have taken out bin Laden? I could have, should have, should -- shoulda, woulda, coulda?

CLINTON: No. What I say is I tried like the devil to take him out. I knew how bad he was. Even in my first term we were watching him. And we worked hard on terrorism. We had to.

Keep in mind, we had the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. We had the Oklahoma City bombing in '95. We finally passed the big anti-terrorism legislation I'd been pushing for a year and a half in '96. We averted all the terrorist attacks planned for the millennium, plus earlier attempts to blow up the Holland Tunnel and the Lincoln Tunnel and the U.N. building in New York, the L.A. airport. Planes flying from the Philippines to the L.A. airport.

KING: There were plans to blow up the L.A...

CLINTON: Absolutely. All those things.

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.

So we were deeply immersed in this. So what I say all the time is -- and what I told President Bush when we had our little meeting after the Supreme Court decision -- I regret deeply that I didn't get him. I tried everything I knew to get him.

I wish -- the only real regret I have in terms of our efforts is nearly everybody in the world knew that he did the USS Cole in October of 2000. I knew what our options were, I knew what our military options were, I knew what our covert options were. And I felt I couldn't take strong military action against Afghanistan because the FBI and the CIA didn't officially agree that bin Laden had done it until after I left office.

If they had done so when I was in office, I would have taken stronger action -- even as a lame duck president.

KING: Do you know why they didn't?

CLINTON: I think they just had a process they wanted to go through. And keep in mind, you know, when Oklahoma City happened, which before 9/11 was the worst domestic terrorist incident, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Muslim militant terrorist. And I remember standing in the Rose Garden of the White House pleading with the American people not to jump to any conclusions.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it.

So, he did alot to get OBL - I agree and have said so. But, he missed opportunites for political reasons - I also said that :shrug:

He also said, which fully supports my argument in this thread:

KING: But you have supported the president's statements. I've read -- pretty much say that you might have waited a little longer, but you support him now. Why?

CLINTON: Well, because I think the whole world now has an interest. I don't approve of the timing. I didn't agree with the timing. I think we should have let Mr. Blix finish the inspections. We could have invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein at any time. His military was less than half the strength it was at the Gulf War, and we were in better shape militarily.

And I knew this was going to be quite a project. So, I preferred to let the weapons inspection play out and put more military personnel and more effort into Afghanistan to stabilize Mr. Karzai and to try to get bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri and the other top aides.

But we are where we are. You can't undo history. We've lost over 600 young Americans there since the military victory was declared. So, now that everybody in the world has an interest in seeing a pluralistic, secure, safe Iraq. It may take four or five years, but if they can succeed at self-governance and observing basic human rights and treat the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds fairly, if they can do this, it might be a positive thing to promote reform throughout the Arab world.

KING: So, if you were in that seat today, you'd be hanging tough as he is and saying we're not leaving?

CLINTON: If I were in the seat today, I would be -- there might be some differences around the edges, but if I took office as president tomorrow, I'd say pretty much what John Kerry said, that we've lost all these lives, the Iraqis are decent people, they deserve a chance at the future. Whether we did right or wrong before, we are where we are.

So, I think we should turn over sovereignty to a representative government as quickly as we can, consistent with our commitment. I liked it when President Bush went back to the U.N. and got the U.N. to adopt a resolution on the future of Iraq. And then, I would try to internationalize this whole effort as quickly as possible so America couldn't be the source of continuing resentment and violence.

On the other hand, I wouldn't just pull up and leave there if I thought it was going to cause the whole thing to disintegrate.

KING: Would it?

CLINTON: Probably, unless there were a multinational force willing to go in and take our place.

KING: But they're not willing, are they?

CLINTON: Not right now, and a lot of them think that we didn't handle it right. Maybe we did and maybe we didn't, but I always find, you know, in life and in politics, you have to take the facts as you find them. We are where we are. And it would be better if Iraq succeeded, and it might, over the long run, actually help promote reform in other Arab states.

But we got to be sensitive to how they feel. I think this idea of saying we'll stay but we want to lower our profile, we want the U.N. to have a mandate on how this thing runs going forward, and we want increasingly the Iraqis to manage their own affairs, I think it's the -- generally the right approach.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/31/lkl.00.html

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you lost me many moons ago when you claimed Iraq had attacked us, so forgive me if I don't chomp at the bit to have another go around. If you can't see it, I give up. :wavey:

When did I say Iraq EVER attacked us? That is flat out BS and you know it. I said Iraq attacked our ally Kuwaitt. But, I never said they attacked us. If I did, show it to me.

[strandinthewind]

We are off topic. Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation. Sorry.

Well, the whole topic of this thread is the speculation of what would Gore have done differently is he had won (don't go there :laugh: ) and had been in office instead of W.

Moreover, your statement "Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation" is not true. Clinton has saifd this. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/31/lkl.00.htmlTherefore, it is not speculation and you know it. But, if it makes you feel better to think that - by all means do - who am I to keep you down :cool:

[dissention]

When did I say Iraq EVER attacked us? That is flat out BS and you know it. I said Iraq attacked our ally Kuwaitt. But, I never said they attacked us. If I did, show it to me.

No, it's not BS. You said Iraq attacked us awhile back, then you cleared it up by saying that it was Kuwait. I don't feel like slogging through all the threads, but you can if you want because it's there, plain as day and clear as crystal.

In any case, I'm done with the Clinton speculation, I'll stick with his actual policies, thankyouverymuch. :D

[gldstwmn]

Here is the link to the recent interview with Larry King, during which he said:


I saw the interview. What you posted reinforces my position. As I said, he gives W a disingenuous slap for the "timing". Clinton is still one of the best damn pols ever. He stays above the fray, very statesman-like, yet lets people know that Bushco f*d up. It's quite beautiful.

[dissention]

Well, the whole topic of this thread is the speculation of what would Gore have done differently is he had won (don't go there :laugh: ) and had been in office instead of W.

Moreover, your statement "Your speculation about how Clinton would have changed his policies doesn't lend credence to Bush or hinder my arguments, it's simply your speculation" is not true. Clinton has saifd this. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/31/lkl.00.htmlTherefore, it is not speculation and you know it. But, if it makes you feel better to think that - by all means do - who am I to keep you down :cool:

Again, Bill Clinton is no longer president and I feel that anything he says about his policies and how he would change them is said in hindsight and he himself is speculating about he would have done.

[strandinthewind]

Again, Bill Clinton is no longer president and I feel that anything he says about his policies and how he would change them is said in hindsight and he himself is speculating about he would have done.

Well, it comes from him and he knows the facts at hand. Thus, if it is speculation, it is pretty accurate :shrug: Certainly, one of the greatest leaders America has ever known who lead us into batle numerous times and once against the same enemy via the 98 bombings to force Iraq to comply with the UN is qualified to state his opinion of what he would have done in a continuation of the same conflict - but if you want to question the horse's mouth - go right on ahead :cool:

[dissention]

Well, it comes from him and he knows the facts at hand. Thus, if it is speculation, it is pretty accurate :shrug: Certainly, one of the greatest leaders America has ever known who lead us into batle numerous times and once against the same enemy via the 98 bombings to force Iraq to comply with the UN is qualified to state his opinion of what he would have done in a continuation of the same conflict - but if you want to question the horse's mouth - go right on ahead :cool:

Of course he can state his opinion, but that doesn't mean he would necessarily have done it.

[strandinthewind]

No, it's not BS. You said Iraq attacked us awhile back, then you cleared it up by saying that it was Kuwait. I don't feel like slogging through all the threads, but you can if you want because it's there, plain as day and clear as crystal.

In any case, I'm done with the Clinton speculation, I'll stick with his actual policies, thankyouverymuch. :D

That is such rank spin even for you :laugh: In case you did not know, which you may not, when an ally of the US is attacked, it is considered the same thing as attacking the US. Plus, you did not indicate my clarification when you made your blanket statement. So, what you said is just flat out wrong and you know it and IMO you were twsiting my words by saying half truths.

[strandinthewind]

Of course he can state his opinion, but that doesn't mean he would necessarily have done it.


With all due respect, if he does not know what he would have done who would. Sorry, I am buying what he is saying. AND - if he had said something that supported you, you would too - but he did not, so you do not :wavey:

[dissention]

With all due respect, if he does not know what he would have done who would. Sorry, I am buying what he is saying. AND - if he had said something that supported you, you would too - but he did not, so you do not :wavey:

Wrong. He said it in hindsight and that doesn't gell for me. He's no longer president and he could say whatever he feels like saying, regardless of whether or not he would have done it. Buy it all you want, I don't give a flying turkey. But I don't buy what anyone says that they would have done in hindsight because it's very easy to be out of that situation and say those things, so...

[strandinthewind]

Wrong. He said it in hindsight and that doesn't gell for me. He's no longer president and he could say whatever he feels like saying, regardless of whether or not he would have done it. Buy it all you want, I don't give a flying turkey. But I don't buy what anyone says that they would have done in hindsight because it's very easy to be out of that situation and say those things, so...

But I guess I am confused regarding why he would say it and agree with W, when he could have blasted W from here to hell about it AND it does not correlate with the D's plan, etc. So, it is sort of a statement against interest. Thus, I believe him.

[dissention]

But I guess I am confused regarding why he would say it and agree with W, when he could have blasted W from here to hell about it AND it does not correlate with the D's plan, etc. So, it is sort of a statement against interest. Thus, I believe him.

I don't think his public blasting of Bush would be conducive to his wife's new career or her vote authorizing force and subsequent support for Bush's actions.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think his public blasting of Bush would be conducive to his wife's new career or her vote authorizing force and subsequent support for Bush's actions.

True - but I think he was saying that prior to the vote to authorize force :shrug:

[dissention]

True - but I think he was saying that prior to the vote to authorize force :shrug:

Yes, and Hillary was voicing her support for Bush's actions long after the invasion and said she didn't regret the vote. I don't think it would have been smart for Clinton to do a 180 on his wife or else he'd be sleeping on the couch...again. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and Hillary was voicing her support for Bush's actions long after the invasion and said she didn't regret the vote. I don't think it would have been smart for Clinton to do a 180 on his wife or else he'd be sleeping on the couch...again. :laugh:

or with his alter ego other self whatever al la Anne Celestia Celestia I am no longer a lesbo Heche almost Buckingham Degeneres Laffoon :wavey: :laugh: :woohoo:

[dissention]

or with his alter ego other self whatever al la Anne Celestia Celestia I am no longer a lesbo Heche almost Buckingham Degeneres Laffoon :wavey: :laugh: :woohoo:

:lol: :lol: :lol: