 
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 07/23/04 - 17:08 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | Great progress? Well, I suppose that if you discount the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large (and that's quite a feat, considering that he's a very tall Muslim who needs kidney dialysis) and al Qaida still at work |
The Clinton admin. had multiple chances to apprehend OBL during his reign at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave, but choose not to. It appears that Mr. Sandy Berger said no on at least four different occasions. (Clinton-Berger had 8 years to deal with OBL. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 hit our country.)
| Quote: | Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/23/04 - 19:36 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
The Clinton admin. had multiple chances to apprehend OBL during his reign at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave, but choose not to. It appears that Mr. Sandy Berger said no on at least four different occasions. (Clinton-Berger had 8 years to deal with OBL. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 hit our country.) |
It's perfect in its childlike simplicity. But I'm unsure whether it's more childlike or more simple.
Good one. Point a finger at someone else...deflect blame by making accusations unrelated to the question at hand. By no means accept responsibility.
The original intent for sending troops into Afghanistan was to....? Hmmm? Destroy al-Qaida and its ability to create terror around the world? Capture (or better yet, kill) Osama bin Laden?
So instead of pointing fingers, tell me, is bin Laden dead or captured? No? Terrorism greatly reduced? No? But you insist that great progress in Afghanistan has been made because women are able to register to vote?
I didn't blame anyone for not accomplishing the stated goals. I just wanted to know how you qualified the results in Afghanistan as great progress. Instead, you point a finger at Clinton and Berger. That's cool. Blame it on anyone else. I'm blaming the butler 'cuz I'm certain he did it. But it still doesn't matter because you've gotten no closer to answering the question: how has Afghanistan progressed greatly?
Afghanistan - where every day is a holiday and every meal a feast.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/23/04 - 19:52 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | Good thing she's not registering in Florida. |
Nope, that's all the convicted felons getting their voter cards.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/23/04 - 20:14 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: |
The Clinton admin. had multiple chances to apprehend OBL during his reign at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave, but choose not to. It appears that Mr. Sandy Berger said no on at least four different occasions. (Clinton-Berger had 8 years to deal with OBL. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 hit our country.) |
It's perfect in its childlike simplicity. But I'm unsure whether it's more childlike or more simple.
Good one. Point a finger at someone else...deflect blame by making accusations unrelated to the question at hand. By no means accept responsibility.
The original intent for sending troops into Afghanistan was to....? Hmmm? Destroy al-Qaida and its ability to create terror around the world? Capture (or better yet, kill) Osama bin Laden?
So instead of pointing fingers, tell me, is bin Laden dead or captured? No? Terrorism greatly reduced? No? But you insist that great progress in Afghanistan has been made because women are able to register to vote?
I didn't blame anyone for not accomplishing the stated goals. I just wanted to know how you qualified the results in Afghanistan as great progress. Instead, you point a finger at Clinton and Berger. That's cool. Blame it on anyone else. I'm blaming the butler 'cuz I'm certain he did it. But it still doesn't matter because you've gotten no closer to answering the question: how has Afghanistan progressed greatly?
Afghanistan - where every day is a holiday and every meal a feast. |
Sorry, I don't have the means to catch OBL myself. So hopefully, you will cut me a little bit of slack if I point the finger at those folks that had the means and the motive to do so. In my opinion, thousands of innocent folks died on American soil unnecessarily. I'm constantly amazed at how forgetful Americans have become about 9/11.
Numerous members of the al-Qaida leadership are either dead or in custody. No, we don't have OBL. (Yet. His day is coming though). At the very minimum, we have severly weakened a world-wide terrorist group. How do you define progress? What color is your parachute?
I'm curious as to what you would have done differently in either country, both pre and post 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/23/04 - 20:16 Post subject:
If convicted felons are in fact getting voter cards in FL, you need to blame Katherine Harris and her paramour I mean governor Jeb Bush, no one else.
Regardless of what "progress" anyone thinks is being made in Afghanistan and Iraq, you can't get around the facts that a) we violated international law to do it and b)in so doing, we've made the world an even more unsafe place for Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/23/04 - 21:30 Post subject:
I guess the arab terrorists were well within international law too. They provoked, we responded. I think that is pretty clear.
The US had UN resolutions it responded on.
The world is safer. Libya is turning over weapons, and we got the terrorists on the run.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/24/04 - 00:03 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | If convicted felons are in fact getting voter cards in FL, you need to blame Katherine Harris and her paramour I mean governor Jeb Bush, no one else. |
Katherine Harris isn't the one going to FLA prisons to register voters. But rest assured if she performs her job, I'm sure the left will be barking that she is performing her duties based on pure politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 11:47 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
The US had UN resolutions it responded on.
The world is safer. Libya is turning over weapons, and we got the terrorists on the run. |
The US, if you'll recall, wanted the UN to either roll over or get out of the way.
The world is not safer, and American citizens are much more in danger than they ever were, due to George Bush. We do not have "the terrorists" however you define that, on the run.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 12:02 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | The world is not safer, and American citizens are much more in danger than they ever were, due to George Bush. We do not have "the terrorists" however you define that, on the run. |
Stop it. You are making me laugh.
A person who used chemical weapons on his own people to kill millions and millions is in custody and the world is not safer? What color is the sky in your world? 
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 12:25 Post subject:
Sheesh folks....
I decided to take a peek at this thread and thought I had hit a link to "Clubhouse"... 
Ya got two camps of thinking, and bashing each other is not going to solve anything but to make ya mad at each other.....
What's next? Who has the better religion?
I'm outa here....
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 12:35 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: |
The US had UN resolutions it responded on.
The world is safer. Libya is turning over weapons, and we got the terrorists on the run. |
The US, if you'll recall, wanted the UN to either roll over or get out of the way.
The world is not safer, and American citizens are much more in danger than they ever were, due to George Bush. We do not have "the terrorists" however you define that, on the run. |
G3 that is pure bullsh!t. Exactly how are we in "much more danger" now than we were prior to 9/11? If we had done nothing but wring our hands those idiots would've been even more emboldened and then we would really be in much more danger. Do you not believe that the despot nations of this world are now thinking twice or thrice before they consider pulling something stupid?
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 13:13 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Sorry, I don't have the means to catch OBL myself.
So hopefully, you will cut me a little bit of slack if I point the finger at those folks that had the means and the motive to do so. |
Don't feel so helpless. After all, consider the number of our troops in Afghanistan this very moment. They've been a presence there for a long time and they still don't have OBL. But pointing a finger? What does that accomplish? I didn't blame the Bush administration and I didn't blame the Clinton administration. You contend that great progress has been made in Afghanistan. I've just wanted proof, examples of this great progress. Your political affiliation got in the way. In one breath you want to give credit to the current administration for the great progress in that country and in the very next, you point a finger at the last administration and blame them for the horrible conditions. Stay away from the hyperbole and just inform us all about what's really going on there.
| Quote: | | In my opinion, thousands of innocent folks died on American soil unnecessarily. I'm constantly amazed at how forgetful Americans have become about 9/11. |
Well, I'd say that if those killed were innocent, yes, they died unnecessarily. Seems a bit redundant but who's would be so silly as to feel any differently? And forgetful? Don't be amazed. Just because Old Glory isn't flying at every household here in the States, I seriously doubt many have forgotten. I know I won't. I was on the street when we got the call to return to our firehouse...made it in time to see the buildings collapse. Nope, not likely many people will ever forget it.
| Quote: | | Numerous members of the al-Qaida leadership are either dead or in custody. No, we don't have OBL. (Yet. His day is coming though). |
I look forward to it.
| Quote: | | At the very minimum, we have severly weakened a world-wide terrorist group. How do you define progress? |
Are you still clinging to the report on terrorism which the Secretary of State has admitted was wrong? Is that what causes you - or anyone else - to believe that there's been progress? Hey, Colin Powell doesn't think so, why should you?
| Quote: | | What color is your parachute? |
When I had one, it was white...standard Navy issue. But for the life of me, I have no idea why you'd ask.
| Quote: | | I'm curious as to what you would have done differently in either country, both pre and post 9/11. |
Either country? Do you mean the U.S. and Afghanistan? The U.S. and Iraq? The U.S. and Iran? Iraq and Afghanistan?
Well, let's see...maybe I'd have taken more seriously the advice of the man in charge of counterterrorism. That'd be a start. That'd be before 9/11/2001. And after? I don't know. Faulty intel can lead you down the wrong path. But if I had my mind made up before 9/11/2001, I doubt it would make much difference. Hussein being out of the picture is a good thing, especially for the Iraqis. But his capture hasn't stopped the terrorist bombing of his own people BY his own people.
Of course, I've had to sit here and think about what I'd do. Seems our president had that done for him.
Yep, nothing like a good hypothetical for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 13:55 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: |
The US had UN resolutions it responded on.
The world is safer. Libya is turning over weapons, and we got the terrorists on the run. |
The US, if you'll recall, wanted the UN to either roll over or get out of the way.
The world is not safer, and American citizens are much more in danger than they ever were, due to George Bush. We do not have "the terrorists" however you define that, on the run. |
G3 that is pure bullsh!t. Exactly how are we in "much more danger" now than we were prior to 9/11? If we had done nothing but wring our hands those idiots would've been even more emboldened and then we would really be in much more danger. Do you not believe that the despot nations of this world are now thinking twice or thrice before they consider pulling something stupid? |
Well, rob, I'm sorry you feel that way. But if you declare my view to be "bullsh!t," then I don't feel the need to explain it to you. Respect cuts both ways. Keep in mind that you see an utterly sanitized version of what's happening there, and others don't. No, I don't think any despot is thinking twice now before pulling something stupid. If that were the case, Sudan and Zimbabwe would be perfectly fine places to visit.
But I'm guessing what you meant by your question was whether despots are now unwilling to do something to America. If that's what you meant, your question in itself depicts the very arrogance that non-American people hate about us. No, I think America-hating despots are getting readier by the minute.
But you know what's really sad about the whole thing? When I'm proven right, when we do have another attack here, those that take your current view will find some reason why it couldn't possibly have had anything to do with all America has done. Know how I know that? Because that's what you all said about 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/26/04 - 14:38 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | robp wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: |
The US had UN resolutions it responded on.
The world is safer. Libya is turning over weapons, and we got the terrorists on the run. |
The US, if you'll recall, wanted the UN to either roll over or get out of the way.
The world is not safer, and American citizens are much more in danger than they ever were, due to George Bush. We do not have "the terrorists" however you define that, on the run. |
G3 that is pure bullsh!t. Exactly how are we in "much more danger" now than we were prior to 9/11? If we had done nothing but wring our hands those idiots would've been even more emboldened and then we would really be in much more danger. Do you not believe that the despot nations of this world are now thinking twice or thrice before they consider pulling something stupid? |
Well, rob, I'm sorry you feel that way. But if you declare my view to be "bullsh!t," then I don't feel the need to explain it to you. Respect cuts both ways. Keep in mind that you see an utterly sanitized version of what's happening there, and others don't. No, I don't think any despot is thinking twice now before pulling something stupid. If that were the case, Sudan and Zimbabwe would be perfectly fine places to visit.
But I'm guessing what you meant by your question was whether despots are now unwilling to do something to America. If that's what you meant, your question in itself depicts the very arrogance that non-American people hate about us. No, I think America-hating despots are getting readier by the minute.
But you know what's really sad about the whole thing? When I'm proven right, when we do have another attack here, those that take your current view will find some reason why it couldn't possibly have had anything to do with all America has done. Know how I know that? Because that's what you all said about 9/11. |
Personally, I don't recall saying that.
That very arrogance that you complain about and that non-Americans supposedly hate is one of the defining characteristics of this country. We don't take any crap from other countries because we don't have to - we have the wealth, the firepower and the balls to be arrogant if we need be. We are also very free with our money when it comes to helping other nations out. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours - don't stab me in the back though because paybacks are a beotch.
My utterly sanitized view from over there is the same view presented to the rest of this nation by a media that tends to sensationalize the "newsworthy" gore and basically ignore the positive steps that have been taken. My view is further enhanced by the reports my son receives from fellow Marines who have been there.
And, btw, I would second the motion that the terrorists are on the run.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
