Rich in Ohio Posted October 19, 2004 Author Posted October 19, 2004 Since 9/11, how many Americans were killed by Saddam and his regime up until when we invaded? I don't know when those 11 were killed in relation to 9/11 nor what others may have been killed enforcing the no-fly zone or in connection with some other activity. 76335[/snapback] 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.
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Maybe if you didn't spend so much time excusing the present administration as well as all past republican administrations we would take it more seriously. Besides, I don't think we can go back in time and un-elect Clinton. On top of that, Bush's own counter terrorism expert wrote a book that documented pretty well that Clinton had a better record than Bush on terrorism although both failed any objective measure of anti-terrorism efforts. 76327[/snapback] Actually, he was Clinton's expert, grandfathered into a Bush administration that had little intent to keep him on staff, so it's hardly surprising he'd defend the Clinton administration at the expense of Bush. And from what I've heard, the Clinton administration didn't think too highly of his expertise anyway. Had the Cole bombing occurred mid- rather than late-term, Clarke's ass probably would have been booted.
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 You want to point out where I am excusing the present administration or all past republican administrations. 76331[/snapback] Omission by silence
Evil Bastard Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Omission by silence 76381[/snapback] You have got to be kidding. I expect weak responses like this from blzrul, but I thought you were better than this. I was wrong. You have become nothing more than a political hack, just like Rich in Ohio. So, when I say that "Stevestojan that is happening now is rooted in policies and decisions made before this administration even took office," that is excusing all previous republican administrations? You guys are unbelievable. How about I put things in words you will understand, "Bush Bad." Feel better now? Your credibility has taken a shot, with stupidity like this.
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Omission by silence 76381[/snapback] Just so my silence isn't misinterpreted as excusing this stupid statement...that was a stupid statement.
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Actually, he was Clinton's expert, grandfathered into a Bush administration that had little intent to keep him on staff, so it's hardly surprising he'd defend the Clinton administration at the expense of Bush. And from what I've heard, the Clinton administration didn't think too highly of his expertise anyway. Had the Cole bombing occurred mid- rather than late-term, Clarke's ass probably would have been booted. 76367[/snapback] Rather than dismiss his point of view based on who hired him, wouldn't it be more effective to demonstrate which of his statements are demonstrably false with evidence? I have not seen anyone disprove his material allegations. In fact, a number were not even denied. Why is he "Clinton's expert" when before Clinton he was the second ranking intelligence officer at the State Department under Reagan and remained with the State Department under Bush the First, not leaving until 1992?
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 You have got to be kidding. I expect weak responses like this from blzrul, but I thought you were better than this. I was wrong. You have become nothing more than a political hack, just like Rich in Ohio. So, when I say that "Stevestojan that is happening now is rooted in policies and decisions made before this administration even took office," that is excusing all previous republican administrations? You guys are unbelievable. How about I put things in words you will understand, "Bush Bad." Feel better now? Your credibility has taken a shot, with stupidity like this. 76387[/snapback] It certainly is excusing this one isn't it? Maybe you could point out to me all your posts being critical of Reagan's, HW's and Dubya's pre 9/11 antiterrorism efforts or lack thereof. I'd love to read them.
Rich in Ohio Posted October 19, 2004 Author Posted October 19, 2004 You have got to be kidding. I expect weak responses like this from blzrul, but I thought you were better than this. I was wrong. You have become nothing more than a political hack, just like Rich in Ohio. So, when I say that "Stevestojan that is happening now is rooted in policies and decisions made before this administration even took office," that is excusing all previous republican administrations? You guys are unbelievable. How about I put things in words you will understand, "Bush Bad." Feel better now? Your credibility has taken a shot, with stupidity like this. 76387[/snapback] Hey I take offense to you useing me as a comparison to mickey. A political hack...maybe mickey.......definately not!!!
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Just so my silence isn't misinterpreted as excusing this stupid statement...that was a stupid statement. 76389[/snapback] Please explain. Maybe I missed all his posts being critical of other administrations and misread his reference to "the previous administration" as opposed to administrations?
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Rather than dismiss his point of view based on who hired him, wouldn't it be more effective to demonstrate which of his statements are demonstrably false with evidence? I have not seen anyone disprove his material allegations. In fact, a number were not even denied. 76390[/snapback] Actually, I think I have demonstrated before the falsity of several of his statements...lost in the board upgrade, of course. If I can find the time, I'll recreate some of them. But my point wasn't to refute Clarke's statements as much as to refute these visions of his "expertise". For better or worse, his position under the Bush administration was less one of an "expert", and more one of "undesirable interloper" who's tenure was strictly intended as temporary from the start. And under Clinton, his status would have been "had his ass fired" if the precipitate event (the Cole bombing) hadn't happened in the final few months of the administration, making firing him a largely moot point. Why is he "Clinton's expert" when before Clinton he was the second ranking intelligence officer at the State Department under Reagan and remained with the State Department under Bush the First, not leaving until 1992? Give me a break. He's not "Clinton's expert" because he started under Reagan...but he is "Bush's expert"? What the hell kind of logic is that? He's Clinton's expert because he was appointed to "terrorism czar" by Clinton.
Mickey 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] It is a simple question Richio, how many Americans were killed by Saddam after 9/11 and before we invaded?
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Please explain. Maybe I missed all his posts being critical of other administrations and misread his reference to "the previous administration" as opposed to administrations? 76407[/snapback] Explain? I'm just going by your "omission by silence" standard. You established the precedent, not me...you explain it.
_BiB_ Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 It certainly is excusing this one isn't it? Maybe you could point out to me all your posts being critical of Reagan's, HW's and Dubya's pre 9/11 antiterrorism efforts or lack thereof. I'd love to read them. 76402[/snapback] Hey guys. The real crux of the issue here is that it really doesn't matter at this point how we got here. The issue is what do we do with what we've got. A big problem here, a very obvious one-is that very few people are comfortable talking about the solutions-the real ones, not the hypothetical. People are going to get sent places they don't want to be. Some of them will die. So will bad guys, and folks walking to the corner grocery store. Tradeoffs will be made and soldiers will be often hamstrung by politics and diplomacy. Allies will turn on you when it's in their self interest to do so. The public will abhor whatever decisions are made. Period. Someone will not like something every time. Successes will rarely be discussed. Failures, and there will be many will be played continuously. This is a dirty business. It's not a Tom Clancy novel, nor is it the West Wing.
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Hey guys. The real crux of the issue here is that it really doesn't matter at this point how we got here. 76418[/snapback] Hmmm...I would tend to disagree with that statement for a variety of reasons: - it matters to the election, which has a direct bearing on the solution. - it matters to understanding the immediate issues, which has a direct bearing on the solution, - it matters to understanding the mistakes we've made that got us here, which has a direct bearing on the solution. "How we got here" shouldn't necessarily be the focus of the issue, but "really doesnt matter" is certainly an exaggeration. (Plus...it's easier to discuss. History is concrete. The abstract issue of planning counter-terrorism is much more difficult to talk about than actual identifiable historical events.)
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Actually, I think I have demonstrated before the falsity of several of his statements...lost in the board upgrade, of course. If I can find the time, I'll recreate some of them. But my point wasn't to refute Clarke's statements as much as to refute these visions of his "expertise". For better or worse, his position under the Bush administration was less one of an "expert", and more one of "undesirable interloper" who's tenure was strictly intended as temporary from the start. And under Clinton, his status would have been "had his ass fired" if the precipitate event (the Cole bombing) hadn't happened in the final few months of the administration, making firing him a largely moot point. Give me a break. He's not "Clinton's expert" because he started under Reagan...but he is "Bush's expert"? What the hell kind of logic is that? He's Clinton's expert because he was appointed to "terrorism czar" by Clinton. 76408[/snapback] 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?"
Mickey Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Hmmm...I would tend to disagree with that statement for a variety of reasons: - it matters to the election, which has a direct bearing on the solution. - it matters to understanding the immediate issues, which has a direct bearing on the solution, - it matters to understanding the mistakes we've made that got us here, which has a direct bearing on the solution. "How we got here" shouldn't necessarily be the focus of the issue, but "really doesnt matter" is certainly an exaggeration. (Plus...it's easier to discuss. History is concrete. The abstract issue of planning counter-terrorism is much more difficult to talk about than actual identifiable historical events.) 76430[/snapback] Man, you are disagreeing with everyone today. Me? I can take it but when you start going after Bib, you are going too far. On a side note, I had wicked abdominal pain yesterday so bad I ended up in the hospital and now I have to have my gall bladder removed. The condition is called "bilious colic". I thought about petitioning for this board to be renamed the "Bilious colic" board, I think it just fits. Once this bile producing gland is removed, I will likely have to resign from the board. Without bile, I have nothing to add.
Evil Bastard Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 It certainly is excusing this one isn't it? 76402[/snapback] 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.
_BiB_ Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Hmmm...I would tend to disagree with that statement for a variety of reasons: - it matters to the election, which has a direct bearing on the solution. - it matters to understanding the immediate issues, which has a direct bearing on the solution, - it matters to understanding the mistakes we've made that got us here, which has a direct bearing on the solution. "How we got here" shouldn't necessarily be the focus of the issue, but "really doesnt matter" is certainly an exaggeration. (Plus...it's easier to discuss. History is concrete. The abstract issue of planning counter-terrorism is much more difficult to talk about than actual identifiable historical events.) 76430[/snapback] 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.
Evil Bastard Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Hey I take offense to you useing me as a comparison to mickey. 76403[/snapback] So?
erynthered Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Man, you are disagreeing with everyone today. Me? I can take it but when you start going after Bib, you are going too far. On a side note, I had wicked abdominal pain yesterday so bad I ended up in the hospital and now I have to have my gall bladder removed. The condition is called "bilious colic". I thought about petitioning for this board to be renamed the "Bilious colic" board, I think it just fits. Once this bile producing gland is removed, I will likely have to resign from the board. Without bile, I have nothing to add. 76441[/snapback] 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.
Recommended Posts