Yeah, scuttle away..

Such spin, such lies.

First, Clinton met DAILY on Al Qaeda after Cole, it drafted the plan that Bush FINALLY adopted AFTER 9/11.

Second, Rumsfeld, the idiot, described Clinton as "unecessarily pre-occupied with this fellow, Bin Laden" in February 2001.

Third, Bush never met ONCE on Terrorism, prior to 9/11.

Yep.. scuttle away..

What does that make the Bush action prior to 9/11 equal, considering the Cole attack had happened only a few months prior to thier taking office? How about negligent, criminal, irresponsible?

I'll take Scuttle.

PB

P.S. Oh, and after 9/11, let's see, we attack Afghanistan - good but obvious - and then Iraq, that - and I certainly don't mean to sound clairvoyant - but it was obvious to even me that the aftermath in Iraq WAS the issue, and we've now found out, the CIA thought so too and told Bush, but he covered it up and ignored it.

Hmmm.... scuttle scuttle little liar bug, into a hornets nest of trouble.

"First, Clinton met DAILY on Al Qaeda after Cole, it drafted the plan that Bush FINALLY adopted AFTER 9/11."

Ah, the liberal response! Let's hold meetings! That'll show those bad guys! Actually, if you look at what Clinton DID rather than what they talked about you'll see that he was much more interested in defusing tensions in the Mideast: "If their intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. I know you like to promote Clinton's response, but contrast his actual response to the Cole with his response to the Khobar Towers attacks two years before: both were pitiful.

Let's see, we had Clinton having the first WTC attack 38 days after he came into office (I bet his first terrorism meeting came in less than 100 days!). The fiasco that followed emeshed the FBI and Justice departments in an investigation, but because it was treated as a purely criminal investigation they froze out the CIA and company, leading to a rather botched result according to those involved that left many clues unfollowed because of turf wars between the FBI and CIA. And who "improved" the rules to prevent sharing between those two agencies?

Three years later we had Khobar Towers. They made the same mistakes again, and had a response that would be called laughable at best.

How about 1998 with the African embassies? How would you characterize Clinton's response to that?

It would seem to me that we have a pattern developing with respect to Clinton's ACTIONS when compared to his WORDS. And yet you happily point to a PLAN that Clinton could never have IMPLEMENTED, having been formulated extremely late in his cabinet to say how well he did on terrorism!

I know I'm shooting fish in a barrel here, but if I look at the actions of liberals rather than their words I tend to see some serious shortcomings, especially on national security. Bush reflected the prevailing Republican mood towards isolationism at the time. But unlike Clinton, Bush was a quick study and responded to the threat decisively. While Clinton was called many things in office, "decisive" was heard a heck of a lot less often than "weather vane."

So, before 9/11 who took terrorism seriously? Remember the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

The traditional pattern, thanks to the Palestinian issue, was to see terrorism as either (a) preventing peace deals in the mid-east, "bargaining chips" by Arafat and company to try and force more concessions, or (b) instruments of state policy.

No one who had the power to make decisions was taking it seriously. Some were on the learning curve but didn't want to do anything, and others were sizing up the Chinese for a new line of Kruschev inspired footware.

Who among those present here (besides Mitch and myself) knew about Wahabism, or Q'Bit (spelling?) pre 9/11? About the precarious deal the Saudi royal family made with its radical religious allies? Who cared about Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? I know I didn't, and I've had an interest in the region since the hostage crisis.

So, stop carping about one side or the other dropping the ball. The ball was in the back closet under a pile of dirty sneakers, old rags, National Geographic magazines, a box full of nick-nacks from that last job you had and that generic Christmas/Birthday/Anniversary present you bought and wrapped five years ago for just that time you happen to forget.

Well, if I am allowed to credit myself, I distinctly remember thinking at the time of the Beirut bombing, and the Somalia firefight, that the failure to place the right skulls atop pikes was going to reap some terrible harvests. I also remember saying that the Afhgan missile attack was going to engender contempt for us among our enemies, and that such contempt would bear bitter fruit.

Well, if I am allowed to credit myself, I distinctly remember thinking at the time of the Beirut bombing, and the Somalia firefight, that the failure to place the right skulls atop pikes was going to reap some terrible harvests. I also remember saying that the Afhgan missile attack was going to engender contempt for us among our enemies, and that such contempt would bear bitter fruit.

Meetings!

Wow. The next option would have been LUNCH meetings.

But among those meetings were some confabs with focus group managers, who said that a thin majority of CLinton's base had no idea who Al Quaeda was. Ergo - no action.

You willfully ignore the documented fact that Clinton let Bin Laden slide several times, and that his response to EVERY SINGLE terrorist attack during his administration was to make a big, pouty-faced appearance, try to look presidential, and then let it slide.

By the way - the "Clinton drafted the plan" story is a total canard. Clinton's "plan" was talk. Words. Nothing. Worthless.

White House meetings = UN posturing = no action (cruise missiles at empty tents don't count as action and cutting and running is actually negative action) = Emboldened Terrorists

Do the math

There is a theme here that the Clinton Administration was feckless and inept and it isn't true. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Their strategy was to disengage and seek accommodation, to resume Carter's political surrender in the Middle East in the wake of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, Nixon's failure in office, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Note that Clinton didn't interdict Islamic terrorism any more than Carter intervened in the Tehran hostage crisis. It wasn't the failure of national security policy, it WAS the policy.

Under Democratic leadership, the national security policy of the United States has consistently been to accommodate Islamic ascendancy in return for economic stability. (Think OPEC). Carter's meager response to the Iranians crashed and burned in the desert, while the only military action Clinton ever took, having boldly backed Arafat against the Israelis, was to blow up an empty Iraqi police station, shred a few tents in Afghanistan, and level an aspirin factory in Sudan. Both used the proliferation of nuclear technology to obtain Islamic concessions that never materialized, but instead proved US weakness that ultimately resulted in the 9/11 terrorist attack and the nuclearization of Iran, not to mention North Korea.

If you review the speeches abroad by Strobe Talbot and Madeleine Albright (and recall Warren Christopher sitting on his hands day after day in Assad's anteroom) what you will find there is the focus on "fairness" and "equality," the argument being that if "rogue" states obtained the technological means to better defend themselves, they would cease using international terrorism as an instrument of policy. Note too that the MSM rarely reported the Leftist policies of the Clinton Administration articulated in Europe and the Middle East, but focused instead on the adorable dauphin besieged by the maniacal Ken Starr and the "vast right-wing conspiracy" at home. Meanwhile, in exchange for low oil prices, the Clinton Administration accommodated the rise of Wahhabism by lowering the barrier to entry for Saudi nationals and looking askance at Al-Qaeda.

Clearly, the Clinton Administration sought accommodation, not confrontation, with state-sponsored Islamic terrorism, which explains why they "criminalized" terrorist acts against the United States rather than identify them for the acts of war that they were. That in 8 years Clinton didn't meet once with his own CIA was no oversight, but was instead consistent with the Democratic Party's geo-political strategy, dating back to the 70's, to accommodate America's enemies in the interest of "world peace" and the lower energy costs that would sustain the economic expansion that brought them to power.

It's how "four dead in Ohio" got us 3,000 dead in New York, why John Kerry ran on his Vietnam War record, and why, today, the Democratic Party and the MSM is trying desperately to "criminalize" the Bush Administration -- to accommodate our enemies. That's been their policy ever since Stalin seized the Baltics and still they have not learned that it always leads to war.

In the alternative, perhaps that is precisely what they have learned and they are not for us, but against us, as now seems very much the case.

Eracus: What do you do for a living? Criminy, you're good with politics!

BTW, has Teena gotten back to anybody with her "better" plan to deal with evil? Not yet? Hmmmm....well, time will tell....

Mitch, the point was that Clinton in fact did act. Second the, let Bin Laden slide, what like in Somalia, where the Right-wing propoganda says there was an order to hit him, or an offer of him, and both accounts have subsequently been refuted as bogus crap? Or should we believe that highly respected right-wing intelligence network?

Also, Clinton DID in fact present Bush with a counter-terrorism plan. Bush doesn't deny it, why do you? Richard Clarke and Rumsfeld commented on it shortly after 9/11. Among the things it stated, wiretaps for people versus numbers, were written into the "Patriot Act". The point is that Clintod DID act, Bush ignored. You can piss and moan about "meetings" as a distraction mechanism rather than speak to how Bush failed to act, but in all candor, Bush is the one at issue, his Iraq action has made the situation worse, not better.

Now Will made some decent points that the missile attacks were inadequate, I completely agree. Conversely, what did Reagan do after Beruit? Nothing, and Colleen, your hero is the one who failed to do something. Carter attempted a VERY daring rescue, not Reagan. It failed, but it was not Carter's responsibility to know the limits of CH-53's, it was his Generals'. So the concept that he was "accomodating", sure, just like he did in reaction to the Embassy siezure, by taking $4Billion in assets from Iran, by siezing 4 DG's destined for Iran, and commissioning them into our navy (the Kidd Class), by invading their country.. sure..

OTOH, reinforcing corporations (like Bechtel, like KBR) rather than worrying about the human impact in fact DOES create hatred, does fuel terrorism. Before imbeciles put words in my mouth, I did not say JUSTIFY terrorism, but fuel it. Carter was pretty prescient about what would happen regarding such an approach, go back and read him. Suggesting he actively sought to udnermine the country is extremist crap. I don't think Bush is a traitor, comments the other direction are pure hate, and purely irrational.

The point in the end though is not whether Clinton (or Reagan whom Bin Laden cited as an example of US ineptitude and willingness to shy from the difficult fight), or Carter, should have done better, I don't dispute that for a moment. As Will said, prior to 9/11, no one gave terrorism as much attention. Richard Clarke said Clinton took it seriously, trippling his budget, having a cabinet level advisor, getting daily briefs, etc.. but even Clinton didn't or wouldn't have prevented 9/11. But for Mitch, or ANYONE to blame Clinton, or the Dems, for 9/11, is pure BS. There was PLENTY of blame to go around, and if you want to go down that route, then Bush Jr. gets the lion's share, because in fact he WAS warned, and did LESS than his predecssesors, even if his predecessors actions were inadequate they were way more than he did.

The issue is not what happened before, and looking to hate Clinton, and blame him, is to lose sight of the real problem. How, now that it is clearly highly risky to ignore it, how do we react?

Bush would have us attack an involved nation, where we had inadequate understanding of the lay of the land, and due to our "arrogance" beleived we could simply bend them to our will. Bin Laden got the war he wanted, a war where he can humiliate the US, that is unless you want to kill 4Million Sunni Iraqis. The far better approach would have been to pursue support from those Arab nations which would do so, to stay out of Iraq in the first place as they were hardly important. To go after, clandestinely, the terrorist leadership, funding, and support networks.

The point is that the Bush administration screwed the pooch, they deserve blame for what happened before, so does Clinton, and GHWB, and Reagan, and Carter, Ford and Nixon for that matter. But rather than blame one party for inaction to a different world, I'd like to consider how to improve the world of today. If it makes you all sleep better to blame folks, to hate folks, rather than rationally work together, okay, but then, when we, on your desires, kill kids in an involved nation, who are the extremists? Who are the terrorists? What is it you choose to never forget.

PB

sorry, meant to say uninvolved..damn freudian fingers.

PB would have us think that a regime which gave safe refuge to one of the first WTC bombers is somehow "uninvolved". Curious, that. Personally, I would have preferred simply declaring such behavior an act of war, had Congress declare war on Iraq in response, and started the conflict in the mid-90s. There would have been damned few regimes which would gave harbored terrorists who had killed Americans after such action.

PB, the incoherence of your posting reflects the imprecision of your thinking, which suggests you have no idea what you are talking about. Again.

If your point is that Clinton did in fact "act," you are correct: He acted in support of totalitarian regimes in the vain hope it would result in their cooperation in reducing Islamic terrorist attacks against the US. That's why for 8 years he consistently deferred to the UN, why he mobbed up the blood on Tiananmen Square, provided nuclear reactors to North Korea, and had Arafat over for dinner some 30 times. He was looking for a deal with all carrots and no stick. Whatever counter-terrorism "plan" might have existed, it was never implemented, and the essence of it probably disappeared down Sandy Berger's pants some time ago lest it ever see the light of day. Some plan.

The rest of your post relies on revisionist history usually reserved for Greenpeace and A.N.S.W.E.R. fundraising dinners on the rubber chicken circuit. The best tall tale is Carter's "VERY daring rescue" attempt -- he sent in 8 choppers. Wow! But why not 80? It's not like we didn't have them. The reason it was only 8 was because there was never any intention to actually succeed in the rescue --they had neither the fuel nor the cargo capacity. They could get in, but they couldn't get out. The mission, notwithstanding the usual MSM derring-do fabrication, was to threaten reprisals should the Iranians murder the hostages. It blew up because they had to tank in their own auxiliary fuel because, as Les Aspin later did in Somalia, Carter refused to commit the resources necessary to complete the mission. If he really wanted the hostages rescued, the template was Entebbe.

And as for Carter's "prescience" on the "human impact" of private enterprise, that's just the same old commie line in the Democrats'long hard slog to accommodate our enemies again should they ever recapture the White House, heaven forbid. You've apparently swallowed it whole without thinking, because what Carter actually just DID was endorse Hugo Chavez and the latest communist dictatorship to seize power in South America, nevermind the human impact of yet another thugocracy.

Pretty accommodating, wouldn't you say?

OK, I'm incoherent, but you say things like Clinton provided Nuclear Reactors to North Korea... yeah ok...

Further, you need to do some research on the Iran rescue effort. There were dozens of US operatives on the ground (actually I believe it was hundreds but cannot recall enough detail to say that with certainty, so I'll limit it to dozens). The reality is that he took MUCH more action than others.

I'm incoherent, but talking about abuses of corporate excess, like having child labor crawl over medical "sharps" in India, is communism... yeah ok.. why not red-bait some more Mr. McCarthy, and sound like an idiot in doing so.

The point, which you missed, is that blame exists to go around. Painting folks as absolute failures, or absolute excesses, is foolish and inaccurate. Painting me as a commie is both specious and useless. I'll talk with folks who want to talk in a way that is productive. But I have no interest in talking to those who don't have anything better to say than insults.

PB

OK, I'm incoherent, but you say things like Clinton provided Nuclear Reactors to North Korea... yeah ok...
-----------------------------
The 1994 "Agreed Framework" negotiated by the Clinton Administration promised North Korea two light-water nuclear reactors in return for freezing its plutonium production. That accommodation was suspended by the Bush Administration in October 2002, which stopped construction of the facilities after it was revealed Pyongyang was pursuing a clandestine program to enrich uranium for the development of nuclear weapons. North Korea denied this, of course, but responded by throwing out the IAEA inspectors, quitting the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and test-firing missiles over the Sea of Japan. Try to keep up.
----------------------------
Further, you need to do some research on the Iran rescue effort. There were dozens of US operatives on the ground (actually I believe it was hundreds but cannot recall enough detail to say that with certainty, so I'll limit it to dozens). The reality is that he took MUCH more action than others.
----------------------------
The scholarship on the Iranian hostage crisis is well-established and yet has apparently still managed to escape your notice, PB. It was precisely those assets on the ground that precluded, in Carter's judgment, military interdiction in the hostage crisis, as they would have been exposed and would naturally expect to be rescued themselves. Instead, he abandoned them.

If your contention is Carter "took MUCH more action than others," then please identify those "others," as he was the President of the United States and the crisis was his responsibility alone. He refused the assistance offered by Great Britain and the Israelis, and vowed instead, in a pitiful ploy for the sympathy vote, to forgo the campaign trail and remain in the Rose Garden. He was thereafter defeated in the greatest landslide election in the history of the United States, 489 - 49 in the electoral college, carrying only 6 states and the District of Columbia. That may not be the reality you believe in, PB, but that is the historical record.

As for the rest of your comment, it is characteristic of the Left to slander opponents from their repose in the self-serving luxury of contrived victimhood should the facts in a debate contradict their politically "correct" if unsustainable argument. You don't know your facts; neither the origins of your own arguments. And yet you make assertions and offer opinions based on fabrications and canards some of us have recognized for some 40 years for exactly what they are. It ain't new just because you only recently discovered it, PB, and if you don't take the time to thoroughly research the origin and course of your argument, you ought not to present it and then whine and complain when someone tears it to pieces.

Hello! Very interesting and professional site. betting business degree tegretol prednisone fha loan

autodialer magically Johanna?charted waiver ...

alienation biplane trademarks warming.fickle senates?Norse avarice

disciplined Xerxes Lothario tensing pounder pretender Wheatstone

disciplined Xerxes Lothario tensing pounder pretender Wheatstone

apostles trinket somberly equipoise citizens - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!