_BiB_ Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 So I can't hold him to be Bush's expert nor can I blame Bush for keeping an incompetent (your view apparently) on staff. Nice, that way, no matter what, Bush is excused. It really is all Clinton's fault. I guess I shouldn't even bother pointing out that Clarke was not being tossed by the administration but was moving to another anti-terrorist post within the administration, cyber terrorism if I recall correctly. What exactly was going on that left Bush no choice but to keep on this incompetent, undesirable interloper? If he was so incompetent and undesirable, why was he being appointed to another counter terrorism post? Isn't there a chance that they kept him on because they wanted him and had some respect for his abilities and talents? The alternative is that while AQ was becoming a more and more dangerous threat, while the awful 9/11 plan was springing into action, the Bush folks were content to have as their expert an incompetent, undesirable interloper. I guess the historians will have to sort all this out and I am sure that when it is all said and done, there will be enough failures of action, intelligence, imagination and dilligence to go around. 9/11 was a national failure. When I wathed those Towers fall, I didn't think, "How did Bush let this happen?" I thought, "How did we let this happen?" 76436[/snapback] The simple, no-stevestojan answer is that for 50 years we've had a defense establishment that looked "out". There wasn't much of a mechanism to look "in". We're learning how to do that now, and will probably make more mistakes as time goes by.
nobody Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Um mickey do you think that saddam was having his troops shoot at our palnes in the no fly zone with no intention of hitting them? The fact that he violated the resolutions, and fired upon our troops earned him the ass whipping that he and his boys got. 76350[/snapback] Too bad that was not the reason given for going to war.
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Too bad that was not the reason given for going to war. 76457[/snapback] Why even bother having resolutions if you're not going to enforce them then?
_BiB_ Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Too bad that was not the reason given for going to war. 76457[/snapback] Yeah, we got snookered. Political reality being political reality, after all of that you think ANY administration is going to come out and say "We was wrong, oops?" They'd be impeached. That's the reality. That wasn't the only reason to invade Iraq, and those reasons WERE mentioned, but that's the horse that got rode the hardest. Honest question for anyone reading the thread. If Colin Powell had gone to the UN with a speach along the lines of: "Saddam Hussein is and has been a long time supporter of several terrorist groups. He has agents in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas providing laundered funding for entities detrimental to the ideals of world peace. He has shown no scruples in the manufacture and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is a threat to us all. He has consistently defied every UN resolution aimed at forcing him to join the cooperative family of nations. Upwards of one million of his own people find no eternal peace handcuffed in mass graves. We face another pervasive, dangerous enemy. The enemy of an ideology that threatens the very existance of the values we hold dear. Theirs would be a government of hate, of blackness where the common man and especially the womanhood of society would be held in contempt for the benefit of a select few. They are allies in the desire for this blackness. Sadaam and the various terror mongering affiliates who would take the region farther to the dark days of centuries past without hope for the gleaming beacon of a prosperous future for all. Our argument is not, and never has been with the Iraqi people-nor with the peoples of any nation. We understand that you presently do not have the power, or the means, to determine your own destiny. A destiny of prosperity, of hope, of self determination. We ask this body, for perhaps the final time-to hold Sadaam Hussein accountable for his contributions to the madness of the region, and of the world. We understand that he and his regime are a stumbling block to once and for all ridding this world of despots and those who consider peace, human rights and the dignity of a citizen to be a far second to their quest for power. It is a new century. And a new millenia. We can cooperatively work with all nations for the betterment of the world as a whole, we can take justified actions against those who would thwart this ideal-or we can, as we have done-time and again, stand idly by. This nation. The United States of America, has been the champion of those aforementioned rights for 200 years. We have had known our sorrows, we have had our failures. We have learned from our mistakes. Yes, we have made them. I'm sure we will make more. But as it stands, many of you would not be sitting in this hall, in protest-if it were not for the dedication and resolution of the United Sates of America. You did not mind our methods when it was of benefit to you. No longer is it a time to stand idly by. We face a clear and present danger. The United States of America respectfully asks, but also in the spirit of what is right and just demands- A beginning to the end of the madness. Mr. Hussein? We give one week for you to show the spirit of compliance with all the resolutions passed by this body concerning your affairs, those that were agreed to following your unwaranted invasion of Kuwait. On behalf of the United States of America, we have every intention of holding you to your written promise. The choice is yours." Would you agreed to go to war? Not.
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 There's about a thousand years of history that result in this. Even looking at the modern perspective, you have to go back to 1914. Why does it matter to the election? 90% of voters are going to vote based on what their candidate said last. Neither is telling the truth, so what's to gain? I understand the immediate issues, as I chose to. It's not my problem if someone else doesn't. How many times have I tried to explain some of them? What good does understanding the mistakes of 1947 do? The dynamics have radically changed, and what happened over the last 5 or 10 years are only a part. In a broader sense, yeah-a lot of people have spent and are spending a lot of time figuring these things out. But as far as fighting a war goes, it's immaterial to it. We are now at the point of "put steel on target", whether it be miliatry, economic, political or diplomatic. In order to come anywhere near defeating our adversary we will very well probably make some of the same mistakes again-even intentionally, because they fit the overall solutions. And, BTW-I pretty well know what the definition of winning the war on terrorism is. I also pretty well know that if we do, it won't be for many, many years. Probably generations. Winning hearts and minds is on the list-but it isn't in the short term that important. Defeating the present capabilities of the adversary is what's important. Once you've gotten a handle on that-you can start the nicey-nice. 76446[/snapback] When you refer to "present capabilities", it sounds like you are referring to organized, focused weapons, systems and adversaries. I see us as eventually being able to defeat those kinds of capabilities. What scares the bejeezus out of me is that the enemy (loosely defined as those who want to kill us) can cause large scale death to civilians without much in the form of capabilities. How hard would it be to do the same type of suicide bombing, using cars or backpacks, here in the US that they are doing daily in Iraq? You don't need much of an imagination to see that they don't need anything fancy or sophisticated to kill a lot of people.
_BiB_ Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 When you refer to "present capabilities", it sounds like you are referring to organized, focused weapons, systems and adversaries. I see us as eventually being able to defeat those kinds of capabilities. What scares the bejeezus out of me is that the enemy (loosely defined as those who want to kill us) can cause large scale death to civilians without much in the form of capabilities. How hard would it be to do the same type of suicide bombing, using cars or backpacks, here in the US that they are doing daily in Iraq? You don't need much of an imagination to see that they don't need anything fancy or sophisticated to kill a lot of people. 76576[/snapback] I never meant to imply anything of the kind. I use the term capabilities as an overall. If one can interdict the support system, one interdicts their capabilities. It's not all guns and bombs. As a matter of fact, most of it is not guns and bombs. Guns and bombs have focus in Iraq, but that's not really what "The War on Terror" is about. Yes, we hunt and kill where required, but this is more smart guys and criminal investigation-which isn't very glamorous for CNN and FOX.
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 You are obviously not a prosecutor. I can just see you walking into a rape trial and saying to the judge, "Well, your honor. The only evidence I have that the defendant is guilty, is that he has not said that he is not a rapist. I rest my case." Keep trying. 76443[/snapback] Actually, silence when a reasonable person would speak is competent evidence in court in many circumstances. It is not dispositive but almost no single piece of evidence is. Besides, do I have to have DNA evidence sufficient to put a person away for life just to disagree with you? From what I have seen of your posts you seldomly if ever have much to say that is negative when it comes to the right and on the other hand, waste no time in attacking democrats. The comment I responded to very specifically placed blame on "the previous administration". Rather than complaining about standards of proof, why not point out that in fact you do have complaints about other, Republican, administrations and then make those complaints? Would you like to discuss issues or just continue to attack me personally?
Mickey Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I never meant to imply anything of the kind. I use the term capabilities as an overall. If one can interdict the support system, one interdicts their capabilities. It's not all guns and bombs. As a matter of fact, most of it is not guns and bombs. Guns and bombs have focus in Iraq, but that's not really what "The War on Terror" is about. Yes, we hunt and kill where required, but this is more smart guys and criminal investigation-which isn't very glamorous for CNN and FOX. 76583[/snapback] Don't you think that a lot of people see it that way, that we are safer if we defeat bad guys who are kind enough to wear uniforms so that we know they are bad guys? The danger that worries me the most are the bad guys that you never see coming. 9/11 was like that. We didn't see it coming.
Mickey Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 First off, you're being to kind to Tom. Secondly, I'm sorry to here the news Mick, I hope things work out for you. Its been a hell of a year for you and your family. Good luck. 76449[/snapback] Thanks, it will take more than "bilious colic" to shut me up. Besides, I can now quite literally claim to have the most "stones" of any lawyer in town. My step-d still can't open her eye but is getting some useful vision. She is still with Mr. Soprano but is going to school and in counseling which seems to be building her confidence up so that she may have the wherewithal to walk.
_BiB_ Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Don't you think that a lot of people see it that way, that we are safer if we defeat bad guys who are kind enough to wear uniforms so that we know they are bad guys? The danger that worries me the most are the bad guys that you never see coming. 9/11 was like that. We didn't see it coming. 76602[/snapback] (Hitting self in head with a hammer) We weren't good at it. We have a ways to go, but we are much better at it than we were. I was doing war plans stuff in the 70's and 80's. I, and my peers, fondly remember those days. Almost, well, yes with lots of nostalgia. I've even discussed it with my former counterparts. We have tons of cooperation with the Russians. We have tons of disagreements. Much easier then. This is really, really hard stuff. Real hard. I really hate seeing all this crap about everyone hates us, and we have no allies. Anyone here besides me drank Vodka with the guys who were going to overrun us in the Fulda Gap? It's a new world.
erynthered Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Thanks, it will take more than "bilious colic" to shut me up. Besides, I can now quite literally claim to have the most "stones" of any lawyer in town. My step-d still can't open her eye but is getting some useful vision. She is still with Mr. Soprano but is going to school and in counseling which seems to be building her confidence up so that she may have the wherewithal to walk. 76612[/snapback] Tough times and tough love. I think of what happened once and a while, because of my two little ones. Anyway, Please dont take your BILE off the board, you're one of the few lefties I enjoy reading. Tonight for example, good stuff between you and BiB. Carry on..........
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 So I can't hold him to be Bush's expert nor can I blame Bush for keeping an incompetent (your view apparently) on staff. Nice, that way, no matter what, Bush is excused. It really is all Clinton's fault. I guess I shouldn't even bother pointing out that Clarke was not being tossed by the administration but was moving to another anti-terrorist post within the administration, cyber terrorism if I recall correctly. What exactly was going on that left Bush no choice but to keep on this incompetent, undesirable interloper? If he was so incompetent and undesirable, why was he being appointed to another counter terrorism post? Isn't there a chance that they kept him on because they wanted him and had some respect for his abilities and talents? The alternative is that while AQ was becoming a more and more dangerous threat, while the awful 9/11 plan was springing into action, the Bush folks were content to have as their expert an incompetent, undesirable interloper. I guess the historians will have to sort all this out and I am sure that when it is all said and done, there will be enough failures of action, intelligence, imagination and dilligence to go around. 9/11 was a national failure. When I wathed those Towers fall, I didn't think, "How did Bush let this happen?" I thought, "How did we let this happen?" 76436[/snapback] Why stop there? It's Carter's fault, for letting the Shah fall and kick-starting the whole Islamic fundamentalist movement to begin with. Or whoever was the British PM in 1949, for following through on that BS Palestine pullout plan that resulted in 60 years of Middle Eastern warfare. stevestojan, let's just blame it on Charles Martel for winning Poitiers and kicking off thirteen centuries of Western-Islamic conflict. The fact is, as you say, that "we" let this happen. The failure was systemic, not individual. In most cases such as that (Pearl Harbor, for example), it's a systemic failure. The only benefit to playing the presidential blame game is that it's easier to discuss than the real issues. But even so...I'll never accept anyone passing off Clarke as an "expert". He was Clinton's boy...until Clinton got sick of putting up with him. He was maintained by Bush as part of the transition team...but has an axe to grind against them because they wouldn't kiss his "expert" ass and wanted to shuffle him around to junior positions instead (i.e. "constructive dismissal"). And if his book convinced me of anything, it's that he's not nearly as smart or knowledgable as he thinks he is...there were passages in there that had me wondering if he was drunk or high when he wrote them, they were so nonsensical.
Evil Bastard Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Actually, silence when a reasonable person would speak is competent evidence in court in many circumstances. It is not dispositive but almost no single piece of evidence is. Besides, do I have to have DNA evidence sufficient to put a person away for life just to disagree with you? 76595[/snapback] Nope, you just need to put your partisan rhetoric aside long enough to know that I am not a Bush supporter. Just because I am conservative in nature, does not mean I support the Bush administration. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble. You mention that silence is competent evidence in court. Can you convict, when silence is your ONLY evidence? If not, then your argument does not carry weight. You reponded to my post. My post was a reponse to someone else, who placed sole balme of 9/11 on Bush just because he was in office at the time. My response was that this stuff was well underway before Bush ever took office. That is not an excuse for the Bush administraion. I know that you desperately want it to be an excuse, but it was not. All I was saying, and all I have been saying, is that you cannot place the blame solely on an administration in office for 9 months, when stuff like this takes years to plan and execute. It takes even longer for the root causes of these plans to happen. This means that this stuff has been festering for more than 8 years and nine months to culminate in 9/11 (hey, that puts things before the Clinton Administration). I can't believe I need to spell this out. I would assume that you had the capabilities to understand these concepts, but I guess I was wrong. Partisanship can have that effect on people. From what I have seen of your posts you seldomly if ever have much to say that is negative when it comes to the right and on the other hand, waste no time in attacking democrats. Yup, that obviously means that I am an apologist for the administration. [/sarcasm] Did you ever think that maybe I disagree more with the Democratic views than Republican, but yet still do not support the Bush Administration. Oh, right. That cannot possible happen. Bush Bad. Better? The comment I responded to very specifically placed blame on "the previous administration". No it did not. Since you seem to be having a little trouble with reading comprehension, I will try again. This is the THIRD time I am posting this statement (mind you, an EXACT quote). Please try to read slower this time: "Stevestojan that is happening now is rooted in policies and decisions made before this administration even took office." Do I need to break it down word by word for you? How do you get that this statement only applies to the eight years before Bush took office? Of course, it can't possibly apply to administrations prior to Clinton. That would throw your whole Republican conspiracy theory down the drain. [/sarcasm] Would you like to discuss issues or just continue to attack me personally? I would love to discuss issues with you, but you are showing that your partisanship is getting in the way of objective discussion. When you can prove to me that you are capable and willing to have objective discussions, then we can continue. If not, don't bother responding. Your response, or lack of response, will tell a lot.
VABills Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Why stop there? It's Carter's fault, for letting the Shah fall and kick-starting the whole Islamic fundamentalist movement to begin with. Or whoever was the British PM in 1949, for following through on that BS Palestine pullout plan that resulted in 60 years of Middle Eastern warfare. stevestojan, let's just blame it on Charles Martel for winning Poitiers and kicking off thirteen centuries of Western-Islamic conflict. The fact is, as you say, that "we" let this happen. The failure was systemic, not individual. In most cases such as that (Pearl Harbor, for example), it's a systemic failure. The only benefit to playing the presidential blame game is that it's easier to discuss than the real issues. But even so...I'll never accept anyone passing off Clarke as an "expert". He was Clinton's boy...until Clinton got sick of putting up with him. He was maintained by Bush as part of the transition team...but has an axe to grind against them because they wouldn't kiss his "expert" ass and wanted to shuffle him around to junior positions instead (i.e. "constructive dismissal"). And if his book convinced me of anything, it's that he's not nearly as smart or knowledgable as he thinks he is...there were passages in there that had me wondering if he was drunk or high when he wrote them, they were so nonsensical. 76673[/snapback] It's God's fault for talking to Mohammad.
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 It's God's fault for talking to Mohammad. 76679[/snapback] Actually, the Archangel Gabriel talked to Mohammad. Allah doesn't lower himself to talking to humans, I think. Let's just blame Abraham. One son too many...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Too bad that was not the reason given for going to war. 76457[/snapback] As I've said...this administration's marketing sucks. I believe their reasoning for going to war, under the established anti-terrorism policy, were sound. (I don't entirely agree with the policy, mind you...but if you accept the policy, the invasion of Iraq makes perfect sense.) The problem is that they never could present it to the American people in any sort of coherent form. Still can't, I think. Had the administration, after Bush's "you risk irrelevency" speech to the UN (which I think was the finest moment of his presidency), stuck with the "what good are resolutions without teeth, is the international community going to continue to let a rogue nation thumb its nose at them?" theme rather than jumping all over the map searching for a marketable justification, they'd have been much better off.
VABills Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Actually, the Archangel Gabriel talked to Mohammad. Allah doesn't lower himself to talking to humans, I think. Let's just blame Abraham. One son too many... 76689[/snapback] It was Gabriel in a cave but you're close. I'll give you half credit for trying.
erynthered Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 It was Gabriel in a cave but you're close. I'll give you half credit for trying. 76716[/snapback] Just delete his post VA. Wait you cant, sh*t
VABills Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Just delete his post VA. Wait you cant, sh*t 76726[/snapback] Yeah but knowing the bastard he'll change his to say Gabriel and then reply with that's what I said, WTF you talking about.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Oh, you mean those Palestinians families who were paid after a family member died attacking Israel? How many of them were paid to attack the U.S.? I can list many more connections to the Saudis than you have regarding Iraq, does that mean we and Spain should invade and occupy Saudi Arabia? Sometimes you can be such a dull tool. 76207[/snapback] Pasta... put down the kool aid for a second and listen to yourself.... Homocide bombers kill inocent people.... they are terrorists.... this is a war against terror!! The difference is the Saudi Government does actually from time to time crack down on terrorist... They somehow hardly ever make it to trial,,, as they usually are killed trying to escape.... Iraq never did...
Recommended Posts