and yes our war theory had a lot to do in all of the wars(excluding WW1, although i'm sure at least one tactic used in WW1 was originated here) that i listed, especially WW2. we basically took over in europe, almost all of the good idea's came from our ppl, not british,russians and espacially not the french(considering they basically didn't have a standing army after germany was done w/ them) i think all the rest were basically us vs. them. oh and there were a lot more wars than WW1 although u might not have known that, there were only about a half dozen that we were not involved in directly.
oh, and if the U.S. wouldn't have taken charge and used our general's and armies to take france and italy we would all be speaking german or japanese right now, so i think U.S. battle tactics had a little somethin to do w/ it
w/out the weapons we supplied after pearl harbor, they would all have been overrun, the german would have nuked russia and w/ out us to take the eye off of the other countries, russia would have been no contest, i'll give u a gold star for the chinese, because they MIGHT have taken the ***'s, but w/out us the germans would still have been strong enough to take china easily (considering that the chinese were no where near the germans in fire power)
Edited, Thu Jun 3 17:00:06 2004 by javelinsjavelin
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush vs. Clinton
Bush vs. ClintonFollow
Umm... sure.
There's so many flaws in what you just said, I'm not even going to bother any longer.
Yeah. You're right. Go USA! And WWII didn't start until we entered it. Gotcha. Go and God bless.
There's so many flaws in what you just said, I'm not even going to bother any longer.
Yeah. You're right. Go USA! And WWII didn't start until we entered it. Gotcha. Go and God bless.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
we did'nt start having casualties in WW2 until after PH that's what i stated in the very beginning, and i think that is what GWB's quote was really about. but good argument, u do win though i will secceed on that point
in fact i'll even rate u UP for it
Bah. Couple issues here:
Of course it does. Because Bush was not capable of meeting even the scholastic requirements.
Um... No it doesn't. Logic 101 again (doesn't anyone take logic class anymore?)...
You are making the common mistake of twisting the order of precidence here. Just because A->B does not mean B->A.
If Clinton had a 3.7+ GPA, and Bush had a 2.0 GPA, we could perhaps say that Clinton was "smarter" then Bush (or at least a better academic). However, we are basing that on the GPA, not any other criteria.
Since a Rhodes Scholarship requires one to have at least a 3.7 GPA, we can say that Clinton qualified for one and Bush did not because of their GPAs.
Just looking at the fact that one person was a Rhodes Scholar and the other was not tells us nothing of their relative GPAs, or relative intelligence.
If we assume a correlary between GPA and "smarts", then we can say that that Clinton is "smarter" the Bush because he had a higher GPA. We can also say that Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship and Bush did not because he had a higher GPA. We cannot at any time say that because Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship that he is therefore smarter the Bush. That's a logical fallacy. Being a Rhodes Scholar is the result of being "smart" (A->B), not a cause of it (B->A).
If you didn't already know that Bush had a C- average in school, and all you knew was that Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship and Bush did not, you would have no idea who was actually "smarter". For all you know Bush got a 4.0 GPA but decided not to pursue that particular scholarship.
What you are really doing is deciding who is smarter based on their grades. That's fine. But then simply state that Clinton got better grades then Bush and be done with it. The presence or lack of a Rhodes Scholarship has nothing to do with it.
And flish. I simply don't know what to tell you. "Safe" and "not harmed" are not the same thing. One is a state, the other is a result. Safe implies a reduced chance of something going wrong, and/or increased protection if something should go wrong. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that we were any safer during Clinton's presidency, then during Bush's.
If you don't understand the difference between actualy being safe or "safer", and just not happening to have anything back happen to you, then I guess there's no point in arguing the point with you. I can only hope that other, clearer heads can see the distinction...
Deathwysh, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It just means that the mere fact that he is a Rhodes Scholar doesn't make him smarter
Of course it does. Because Bush was not capable of meeting even the scholastic requirements.
Um... No it doesn't. Logic 101 again (doesn't anyone take logic class anymore?)...
You are making the common mistake of twisting the order of precidence here. Just because A->B does not mean B->A.
If Clinton had a 3.7+ GPA, and Bush had a 2.0 GPA, we could perhaps say that Clinton was "smarter" then Bush (or at least a better academic). However, we are basing that on the GPA, not any other criteria.
Since a Rhodes Scholarship requires one to have at least a 3.7 GPA, we can say that Clinton qualified for one and Bush did not because of their GPAs.
Just looking at the fact that one person was a Rhodes Scholar and the other was not tells us nothing of their relative GPAs, or relative intelligence.
If we assume a correlary between GPA and "smarts", then we can say that that Clinton is "smarter" the Bush because he had a higher GPA. We can also say that Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship and Bush did not because he had a higher GPA. We cannot at any time say that because Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship that he is therefore smarter the Bush. That's a logical fallacy. Being a Rhodes Scholar is the result of being "smart" (A->B), not a cause of it (B->A).
If you didn't already know that Bush had a C- average in school, and all you knew was that Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship and Bush did not, you would have no idea who was actually "smarter". For all you know Bush got a 4.0 GPA but decided not to pursue that particular scholarship.
What you are really doing is deciding who is smarter based on their grades. That's fine. But then simply state that Clinton got better grades then Bush and be done with it. The presence or lack of a Rhodes Scholarship has nothing to do with it.
And flish. I simply don't know what to tell you. "Safe" and "not harmed" are not the same thing. One is a state, the other is a result. Safe implies a reduced chance of something going wrong, and/or increased protection if something should go wrong. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that we were any safer during Clinton's presidency, then during Bush's.
If you don't understand the difference between actualy being safe or "safer", and just not happening to have anything back happen to you, then I guess there's no point in arguing the point with you. I can only hope that other, clearer heads can see the distinction...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Maybe I am not the one who doesnt understand what "safe" means I sincerely think its you.
My two favorite quotes, when asked about Clinton's anti terrorist record. Robert Oakley, who served as the ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Dept. " Overall, I give them high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obession with Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post) Paul Bremer who took over when Oakley left said in response to the Oakley, "I too give him high marks and I think that the Clinton administration correctly focused on Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post)
I would say that despite your poorly attempted jab at defining Websters to get a result that you want you are still overlooking one thing. WE WERE "SAFER" UNDER CLINTON BECAUSE HE MADE GODDAMN SURE HE PUNISHED THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND VERY FEW IF ANY OF US WERE "HARMED" AS A RESULT.
Hope that clears that up for ya
My two favorite quotes, when asked about Clinton's anti terrorist record. Robert Oakley, who served as the ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Dept. " Overall, I give them high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obession with Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post) Paul Bremer who took over when Oakley left said in response to the Oakley, "I too give him high marks and I think that the Clinton administration correctly focused on Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post)
I would say that despite your poorly attempted jab at defining Websters to get a result that you want you are still overlooking one thing. WE WERE "SAFER" UNDER CLINTON BECAUSE HE MADE GODDAMN SURE HE PUNISHED THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND VERY FEW IF ANY OF US WERE "HARMED" AS A RESULT.
Hope that clears that up for ya
Adding:
Clinton was in Australia when 9/11 happened, and the first thing he said was "It must have been Bin Laden."
Whether you want to interpret that as intelligence, foresight, or lack of action during his term since he DID know about Osama, that's up to you.
flishtaco wrote:
I would say that despite your poorly attempted jab at defining Websters to get a result that you want you are still overlooking one thing. WE WERE "SAFER" UNDER CLINTON BECAUSE HE MADE GODDAMN SURE HE PUNISHED THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND VERY FEW IF ANY OF US WERE "HARMED" AS A RESULT.
Hope that clears that up for ya
Hope that clears that up for ya
Ok. That's a good statement to make. I was responding to Smash's earlier statement that we were safer because fewer people were harmed by terrorists during Clinton's administration. I was simply pointing out that that logic is flawed.
Saying we were safer because Clinton took actions to prevent terrorist acts against us is a valid one. However, I'm really not convinced that any actual actions he took made us safer. Sure, he was "obsessed" with Bin Laden, but what did he do about it? He didn't put any HumInt in place. He certainly didn't have any method of tracing his organization and what they were doing, or he would have found the people he planted in the US who were taking flying lessons while Clinton was in office.
It seems more like Clinton used Bin Laden as a checkpoint to show people that he was tough on terrorism without actually doing anything. Sure. He launched a bunch of tomahawks at a few buildings in Afghanistan that Bin Laden may have been in sometime in the past. Big deal. What else did he do other then talk and act like he was doing something?
For a guy who was Obsessed with Bin Laden, it's odd that out of some 10s of thousands of pages of security report handed from his administration to Bushs, and upon which Bush's people would take their security cues from, there is not a single mention of Al-Queda. You'd think if he was that concerned about the guy, he might have at least mentioned the terrorist organization he led, and maybe suggested that it was a threat?
Strange, huh?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Lol all of the staff who left including Richard Clarke and George Tenet that Clinton had obsessed and worked on terrorism and Bin laden and that when he handed office over to Bush, the incoming administration wanted nothing to do with anything Clinton had as a priority and quickly back burnered those subjects, the only one in the administration who took any heed was Colin Powell making embassies stronger and more defensible. The counter terrorism staff was screaming for attention but first they had to brief underlings to get approval to talk to principals and then after 8 months of meetings with underlings and 1 with the principals on whether any of the information Clinton had left them on terrorism was worth doing anything about finally Cheney and Rice agreed the President should be briefed leading to the now infamous daily briefing titled Osama bin Laden will attack in the US dated like 8/14.
Now thats what I would call intresting.
Now thats what I would call intresting.
Lol chimbaca or whatever not really worth a response with all the evidence already posted you still spew this garbage <shrug>
But I will give it a shot.
What did Bush the elder due in retaliation for Pan Am flight 103 where we lost 298 americans over scotland?
What did Reagan due in retaliation for the bombing of the marine barracks in Beruit like 300 dead marines?
What did Clinton due as a lame duck President to the Cole Bombing, he instructed his Terror Czar Richard Clarke to make a plan to eliminate Al-queda and present it to the new administration, and despite jumping up and down and demanding attention Cheney and Rice wouldnt let the documents be presented to Bush until 08/14.
What Bush JR has done is worse then lying about a BJ btw he was so determined to go to Iraq that he has chosen to divert money that should be used for things like actually fight the people who caused 9/11 and actually defending us from future attacks.
Edit--bah for some reason only showed chimbaca report and not any replys when I hit refresh but bah ok now you know
Edited, Fri Jun 4 17:35:03 2004 by flishtaco
But I will give it a shot.
What did Bush the elder due in retaliation for Pan Am flight 103 where we lost 298 americans over scotland?
What did Reagan due in retaliation for the bombing of the marine barracks in Beruit like 300 dead marines?
What did Clinton due as a lame duck President to the Cole Bombing, he instructed his Terror Czar Richard Clarke to make a plan to eliminate Al-queda and present it to the new administration, and despite jumping up and down and demanding attention Cheney and Rice wouldnt let the documents be presented to Bush until 08/14.
What Bush JR has done is worse then lying about a BJ btw he was so determined to go to Iraq that he has chosen to divert money that should be used for things like actually fight the people who caused 9/11 and actually defending us from future attacks.
Edit--bah for some reason only showed chimbaca report and not any replys when I hit refresh but bah ok now you know
Edited, Fri Jun 4 17:35:03 2004 by flishtaco
Yes. I agree that that is interesting. However, that can mean one of two things:
1. Clinton's security people were on the ball with Bin Laden and Al-queda, and made sure that thwarting their activities was a top priority, but then the Bush folks came in and decided that none of that was really important and ignored it all.
2. Clinton's security plan obsessed on Bin Laden the man, but never placed it at an "official" high priority, and never focused on doing anything needed to stop Al-queda as a group from performing terrorist acts, then Bush's folks came in and it took them 8 months to figure out the gaping hole in Clinton's security plan, and unfortunately were just getting to addressing the danger Al-queda represented when the 9/11 attacks occured.
Which is the truth? That's hard to say with absolute certainty, but there are some clues.
The fact that the danger presented by Al-queda to the US itself had to start at a low level and work it's way up to high priority suggests that it was not a high priority in the minds of the "top" people in Bush's administration at the start of Bush's term. Given that those high priority issues are determined based on the security report they are given by the previous administration, I'm more inclined to conclude that the lack of focus on the real danqer of Al-queda to the US in that report is why the danger was given a low priority initially.
If it was some conspiracy to ignore the danger of a terrorist attack, then why build up from a low level in Jan 01, to a high in Aug 01? If they were told there was a danger and chose not to do anything about it, why would they reverse that decision in just 8 months? It's not like there was new information during that time period. I'm not aware of any terrorist incident directed at the US at all during those first 8 months. The only logical reason for that escalation in priority is a reassessment of the data they were given once they had a chance to go over the details themselves.
It makes much more sense to assume that they entered the situation being told it was a low priority and it took them 8 months to figure out on their own that the danger was much higher they they'd been told. To me, this scenario begs the quesiton: "If they'd been adequately informed of the danger Al-queda represented, what could they have done in that 8 months to prevent 9/11 that was instead spent figuring out that Al-queda was in fact a credible threat?".
Sure. That's pure speculation. Perhaps it would have made no difference. However, despite the obsession on Bin Laden by Clinton himself, the fact is that the security report the Bush administration recieved did not contain any information about Al-queda, or any analysis of potential terrorist risk to the US from that organization. They didn't "ignore" Al-queda. They weren't told about it. They had to figure it out on their own, after the fact.
1. Clinton's security people were on the ball with Bin Laden and Al-queda, and made sure that thwarting their activities was a top priority, but then the Bush folks came in and decided that none of that was really important and ignored it all.
2. Clinton's security plan obsessed on Bin Laden the man, but never placed it at an "official" high priority, and never focused on doing anything needed to stop Al-queda as a group from performing terrorist acts, then Bush's folks came in and it took them 8 months to figure out the gaping hole in Clinton's security plan, and unfortunately were just getting to addressing the danger Al-queda represented when the 9/11 attacks occured.
Which is the truth? That's hard to say with absolute certainty, but there are some clues.
The fact that the danger presented by Al-queda to the US itself had to start at a low level and work it's way up to high priority suggests that it was not a high priority in the minds of the "top" people in Bush's administration at the start of Bush's term. Given that those high priority issues are determined based on the security report they are given by the previous administration, I'm more inclined to conclude that the lack of focus on the real danqer of Al-queda to the US in that report is why the danger was given a low priority initially.
If it was some conspiracy to ignore the danger of a terrorist attack, then why build up from a low level in Jan 01, to a high in Aug 01? If they were told there was a danger and chose not to do anything about it, why would they reverse that decision in just 8 months? It's not like there was new information during that time period. I'm not aware of any terrorist incident directed at the US at all during those first 8 months. The only logical reason for that escalation in priority is a reassessment of the data they were given once they had a chance to go over the details themselves.
It makes much more sense to assume that they entered the situation being told it was a low priority and it took them 8 months to figure out on their own that the danger was much higher they they'd been told. To me, this scenario begs the quesiton: "If they'd been adequately informed of the danger Al-queda represented, what could they have done in that 8 months to prevent 9/11 that was instead spent figuring out that Al-queda was in fact a credible threat?".
Sure. That's pure speculation. Perhaps it would have made no difference. However, despite the obsession on Bin Laden by Clinton himself, the fact is that the security report the Bush administration recieved did not contain any information about Al-queda, or any analysis of potential terrorist risk to the US from that organization. They didn't "ignore" Al-queda. They weren't told about it. They had to figure it out on their own, after the fact.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Since this thread already deteriorated into a Godwin’s I thought I would open the door and let in the grammar ****.
Hi javelinsjavelin,
My name is Punctuation and over here is Capitalization (Hi!). I thought I should introduce us seeing as how you appear to have never met us before.
****** USE US IF YOU WANT US TO ****** READ YOUR POSTS YOU TWIT!
You have a good day now you hear?
Hi javelinsjavelin,
My name is Punctuation and over here is Capitalization (Hi!). I thought I should introduce us seeing as how you appear to have never met us before.
****** USE US IF YOU WANT US TO ****** READ YOUR POSTS YOU TWIT!
You have a good day now you hear?
1. Clinton's security people were on the ball with Bin Laden and Al-queda, and made sure that thwarting their activities was a top priority, but then the Bush folks came in and decided that none of that was really important and ignored it all.
This is the one I believe the other one doesnt wash as all the evidence shows this one is more likely. But please feel free to link me something about this security briefing so I can change my oppinion if I am wrong.
This is the one I believe the other one doesnt wash as all the evidence shows this one is more likely. But please feel free to link me something about this security briefing so I can change my oppinion if I am wrong.
flishtaco wrote:
1. Clinton's security people were on the ball with Bin Laden and Al-queda, and made sure that thwarting their activities was a top priority, but then the Bush folks came in and decided that none of that was really important and ignored it all.
This is the one I believe the other one doesnt wash as all the evidence shows this one is more likely. But please feel free to link me something about this security briefing so I can change my oppinion if I am wrong.
This is the one I believe the other one doesnt wash as all the evidence shows this one is more likely. But please feel free to link me something about this security briefing so I can change my oppinion if I am wrong.
What evidence are you going off of? I'm just curious, since you've presented none.
But since it would be unfair of me to insist that you provide your support without first supporting my argument, how about this:
They didn't tell him about Al-queda!
Now. I eagerly await your evidence that supports the assumption that Clinton's people adequately informed Bush's folks about Bin Laden and Al-queda. After all, your entire argument hingest upon the assumption that they had all that information handed to them with a big sticky on top saying: "Super duper important!" on it...
Got anything? It really took me 10 seconds to find that article btw. It's not hard to be informed if you are willing to look for the facts instead of just repeating what you've heard...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sorry decided to take a unique approach and actually READ the document the reguragtate something I had heard on some rightwing website or on Fox news. AT LEAST one third of this document deals with what Clinton has done to prevent TERRORISM and how he is CONCERNED for it in the future. While he doesnt mention AL-QUEDA by name he mentions USAMA BIN LADEN several times as the head of the most worrysome TERRORIST organization. I have selected a few parts for you from that document. And a link if you prefer to actually read what crap you are spreading before you quote from one of the most RIGHT WING newpapers in America.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-0012.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-0012.htm
Quote:
We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.
Quote:
The United States has mounted an aggressive response to terrorism. Our strategy pressures terrorists, deters attacks, and responds forcefully to terrorist acts. It combines enhanced law enforcement and intelligence efforts; vigorous diplomacy and economic sanctions; and, when necessary, military force. Domestically, we seek to stop terrorists before they act, and eliminate their support networks and financing. Overseas, we seek to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries; counter state and non-governmental support for terrorism; help other governments improve their physical and political counterterrorism, antiterrorism, and consequence management efforts; tighten embassy and military facility security; and protect U.S. citizens living and traveling abroad. Whether at home or abroad, we will respond to terrorism through defensive readiness of our facilities and personnel, and the ability of our terrorism consequence management efforts to mitigate injury and damage.
Our strategy requires us to both prevent and, if necessary, respond to terrorism. Prevention -- which includes intelligence collection, breaking up cells, and limiting the movement, planning, and organization of terrorists -- entails more unknowns and its effectiveness will never be fully proven or appreciated, but it is certainly the preferable path. For example, as a result of the quiet cooperation with some of our allies and among federal authorities, agencies, and local law enforcement, planned terrorist attacks within the United States and against U.S. interests abroad during the millennium celebration were thwarted. A major aspect of our prevention efforts is bolstering the political will and security capabilities of those states that are on the front lines to terrorist threats and that are disproportionately impacted by the expanding threat. This coalition of nations is imperative to the international effort to contain and fight the terrorism that threatens American interests.
Avenues of international trade provide a highway for the tools and weapons of international terrorists. The same sophisticated transportation network that can efficiently, safely, and reliably move people and goods is also equally attractive to those whose motives may be hostile, dangerous, or criminal. Systems that promote efficiency, volume and speed, fueling economic prosperity, create new challenges in the balance between policing and facilitating the transnational movements of people and goods. Globalization and electronic commerce transcend conventional borders, fast rendering traditional border security measures at air, land, and sea ports of entry ineffective or obsolete. Despite the challenges, we are developing tools to close off this avenue for terrorists. In this new environment, prudent, reasonable, and affordable security measures will require an approach transcending any particular transportation node or sector. The International Trade Data System (ITDS), already in initial implementation pilot testing, was created to foster an integrated system to electronically collect, use, and disseminate international trade and transportation data. By transcending transportation nodes and sectors, efforts like the ITDS project will foreclose opportunities terrorists may believe are emerging with globalization.
Our strategy requires us to both prevent and, if necessary, respond to terrorism. Prevention -- which includes intelligence collection, breaking up cells, and limiting the movement, planning, and organization of terrorists -- entails more unknowns and its effectiveness will never be fully proven or appreciated, but it is certainly the preferable path. For example, as a result of the quiet cooperation with some of our allies and among federal authorities, agencies, and local law enforcement, planned terrorist attacks within the United States and against U.S. interests abroad during the millennium celebration were thwarted. A major aspect of our prevention efforts is bolstering the political will and security capabilities of those states that are on the front lines to terrorist threats and that are disproportionately impacted by the expanding threat. This coalition of nations is imperative to the international effort to contain and fight the terrorism that threatens American interests.
Avenues of international trade provide a highway for the tools and weapons of international terrorists. The same sophisticated transportation network that can efficiently, safely, and reliably move people and goods is also equally attractive to those whose motives may be hostile, dangerous, or criminal. Systems that promote efficiency, volume and speed, fueling economic prosperity, create new challenges in the balance between policing and facilitating the transnational movements of people and goods. Globalization and electronic commerce transcend conventional borders, fast rendering traditional border security measures at air, land, and sea ports of entry ineffective or obsolete. Despite the challenges, we are developing tools to close off this avenue for terrorists. In this new environment, prudent, reasonable, and affordable security measures will require an approach transcending any particular transportation node or sector. The International Trade Data System (ITDS), already in initial implementation pilot testing, was created to foster an integrated system to electronically collect, use, and disseminate international trade and transportation data. By transcending transportation nodes and sectors, efforts like the ITDS project will foreclose opportunities terrorists may believe are emerging with globalization.
Quote:
When terrorism occurs, despite our best efforts, we can neither forget the crime nor ever give up on bringing its perpetrators to justice. We make no concessions to terrorists. Since 1993, a dozen terrorist fugitives have been apprehended overseas and rendered, formally or informally, to the United States to answer for their crimes. These include the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack outside CIA headquarters, and an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago. In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by [b][/b], whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans. We will likewise pursue the criminals responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Quote:
Whenever possible, we use law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools to wage the fight against terrorism. But there have been, and will be, times when those tools are not enough. As long as terrorists continue to target American citizens, we reserve the right to act in self-defense by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist, or actively support them, as we have done over the years in different countries.
Fighting terrorism requires a substantial commitment of financial, human, and political resources. Since 1993, both the FBI's counterterrorism budget and the number of FBI agents assigned to counterterrorism have more than doubled. The President has also created and filled the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection...
Fighting terrorism requires a substantial commitment of financial, human, and political resources. Since 1993, both the FBI's counterterrorism budget and the number of FBI agents assigned to counterterrorism have more than doubled. The President has also created and filled the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection...
and ya it took me more then 10 seconds to actually read the document =)
Quote:
Now. I eagerly await your evidence that supports the assumption that Clinton's people adequately informed Bush's folks about Bin Laden and Al-queda. After all, your entire argument hingest upon the assumption that they had all that information handed to them with a big sticky on top saying: "Super duper important!" on it...
Same people, idiot. Same CIA director. Same CT cheif. Unless they all got together and decided to hit each other on the heads with frying pans to induce an "I Love Lucy" bout of Amnesia it would have been fairly difficult to loose their allready existing kowledge about Bin Laden.
Bush and Rice chose to focus on missle defense instead of counter terror. It's documented ad nauseam.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I'm a little bit confused how you can say this:
The word terrorism appears in about 30 paragraphs in the entire document. Out of about 450 paragraphs. That's closer to 6.5% of the content. Um... And many of the paragraphs containing references to terrorism were in sections of the document specifically mentioning areas of the world. I don't think the mentions of terrorism in sections about N. Korea, Japan, Bosnia, and Africa count towards supporting the assertin that Bush's administration was adequately informed of the threat posed by Bin Laden and Al-queda.
Interestingly enough, in the section where the document addresses security issues by region, the section about the Middle East, only mentions Isreal and Palestine, and contains not one mention of terrorism. Africa has a lone mention of Libya and terrorism there. SouthWest Asia is where Iraq and Iran are mentioned (with some terrorism mentioned in relation to those nations). South Asia mentions Afghanistan and the Taliban (and terrrorists!), but only 2 out of the 6 paragraphs are about that nation. The rest deal with India and Pakistan and the dangers present with and between those nations.
So I guess they are mentioned in one third of one region which composes just one small part of the document.
Sure. "Several times" is correct. His name appears 5 times in the document. Three of them in one of the two paragraphs about Afghanistan. Um... So three paragraphs in the entire document mention the guy. Only one of the paragraphs mentions his "terrorist organization", and does so in the past tense.
I want to requote this section because it's very telling. The language is important.
Note the mention of "...Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans"
No "are presumably planning more attacks against Americans". Nope. They "planned" attacks. Nothing forward looking here. In fact, the mention is as part of a sentance about strikes by us *against* Bin Ladin, and follows the mention of a string of arrests and such of a bunch of other terrorists responsible for other events. Reading this, it sounds as though the document is claiming that Bin Ladin was somehow neutralized by those attacks. There's certainly a spin to it that implies a lack of immediate threat from him and his organization.
It really looks more like they wanted to make it look like they'd done alot about terrorism, while actively hiding their failures. If they'd included the fact that many of these acts were commited by one group (al-queda), led by Bin Ladin (who was still at large), it would make the arrests of a half dozen little guys seem less important wouldn't it? Had they been focused more on reporting the actual danger this organization presented instead of making it look like they'd done alot to combat terrorism, maybe the Bush administration would have taken Al-queda more seriously?
Heck. Just mentioning the damn organization's name would have been a huge start.
Honestly, if you were reading this report, and you didn't know then what you do today, you'd put Bin Ladin pretty far down the list of important security issues. Way behind issues like nuclear weapons deals with Russia, problems with N. Korea, issues with India and Pakistan, and probably 30 other issues that get more page space then Bin Ladin did. Even out of the terrorism issues, he's just one of many listed in the document.
Quote:
AT LEAST one third of this document deals with what Clinton has done to prevent TERRORISM and how he is CONCERNED for it in the future
The word terrorism appears in about 30 paragraphs in the entire document. Out of about 450 paragraphs. That's closer to 6.5% of the content. Um... And many of the paragraphs containing references to terrorism were in sections of the document specifically mentioning areas of the world. I don't think the mentions of terrorism in sections about N. Korea, Japan, Bosnia, and Africa count towards supporting the assertin that Bush's administration was adequately informed of the threat posed by Bin Laden and Al-queda.
Interestingly enough, in the section where the document addresses security issues by region, the section about the Middle East, only mentions Isreal and Palestine, and contains not one mention of terrorism. Africa has a lone mention of Libya and terrorism there. SouthWest Asia is where Iraq and Iran are mentioned (with some terrorism mentioned in relation to those nations). South Asia mentions Afghanistan and the Taliban (and terrrorists!), but only 2 out of the 6 paragraphs are about that nation. The rest deal with India and Pakistan and the dangers present with and between those nations.
So I guess they are mentioned in one third of one region which composes just one small part of the document.
Quote:
While he doesnt mention AL-QUEDA by name he mentions USAMA BIN LADEN several times as the head of the most worrysome TERRORIST organization.
Sure. "Several times" is correct. His name appears 5 times in the document. Three of them in one of the two paragraphs about Afghanistan. Um... So three paragraphs in the entire document mention the guy. Only one of the paragraphs mentions his "terrorist organization", and does so in the past tense.
I want to requote this section because it's very telling. The language is important.
Quote:
When terrorism occurs, despite our best efforts, we can neither forget the crime nor ever give up on bringing its perpetrators to justice. We make no concessions to terrorists. Since 1993, a dozen terrorist fugitives have been apprehended overseas and rendered, formally or informally, to the United States to answer for their crimes. These include the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack outside CIA headquarters, and an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago. In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans. We will likewise pursue the criminals responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Note the mention of "...Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans"
No "are presumably planning more attacks against Americans". Nope. They "planned" attacks. Nothing forward looking here. In fact, the mention is as part of a sentance about strikes by us *against* Bin Ladin, and follows the mention of a string of arrests and such of a bunch of other terrorists responsible for other events. Reading this, it sounds as though the document is claiming that Bin Ladin was somehow neutralized by those attacks. There's certainly a spin to it that implies a lack of immediate threat from him and his organization.
It really looks more like they wanted to make it look like they'd done alot about terrorism, while actively hiding their failures. If they'd included the fact that many of these acts were commited by one group (al-queda), led by Bin Ladin (who was still at large), it would make the arrests of a half dozen little guys seem less important wouldn't it? Had they been focused more on reporting the actual danger this organization presented instead of making it look like they'd done alot to combat terrorism, maybe the Bush administration would have taken Al-queda more seriously?
Heck. Just mentioning the damn organization's name would have been a huge start.
Honestly, if you were reading this report, and you didn't know then what you do today, you'd put Bin Ladin pretty far down the list of important security issues. Way behind issues like nuclear weapons deals with Russia, problems with N. Korea, issues with India and Pakistan, and probably 30 other issues that get more page space then Bin Ladin did. Even out of the terrorism issues, he's just one of many listed in the document.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well, damn if Hoover had only WARNED FDR that Peal Harbor was going to happen, maybe we could have prevented it.
If only every prior administration was psychic and they could warn the incoming administration about SPECEFIC FUC[b][/b]KING FUTURE EVENTS we'd be much better off.
I mean, why didn't Regan use his magic mind ray and tell Clinton about Bin Laden with ESP?
If only every prior administration was psychic and they could warn the incoming administration about SPECEFIC FUC[b][/b]KING FUTURE EVENTS we'd be much better off.
I mean, why didn't Regan use his magic mind ray and tell Clinton about Bin Laden with ESP?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:
Now. I eagerly await your evidence that supports the assumption that Clinton's people adequately informed Bush's folks about Bin Laden and Al-queda. After all, your entire argument hingest upon the assumption that they had all that information handed to them with a big sticky on top saying: "Super duper important!" on it...
Same people, idiot. Same CIA director. Same CT cheif. Unless they all got together and decided to hit each other on the heads with frying pans to induce an "I Love Lucy" bout of Amnesia it would have been fairly difficult to loose their allready existing kowledge about Bin Laden.
Bush and Rice chose to focus on missle defense instead of counter terror. It's documented ad nauseam.
Um... Sure. So if those same people were there during Clinton's administration, what did they do then?
Look. You can't blame Bush for simply continuing the policies that were already in place. You are blaming Bush for not changing current policy to reflect the danger presented by Bin Ladin.
Let's compare cases here:
Clark yells and screams at Clinton about the danger of Al-queda and Bin Ladin, and for 2 years, Clinton does nothing about it. When he leaves office his security report doesn't even include a mention of Al-queda, and only vagely mentions Bin Ladin.
Clark yells and screams at Bush about the danger of Al-queda and Bin Ladin. Bush (ok, Rice actually) forms a committee to look into it, and 8 months later bumps him up to a high risk. Unfortunatey, it was too late to prevent 9/11.
How can it not be abundantly obvious that had Clinton not ignored the threat for the last 2 years, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened? He could have come to the same conclusions Bush's people did 2 years earlier. They could have started putting assets in place 2 years earlier. They could have started tracking the movements of members of Al-queda 2 years earlier. They very likely would have discovered the people taking flying lessons in the US, and likely there would be 3000 more US citizens alive today as a result.
That's whats amazing me about all this. You are correct. Both Clinton and Bush had the exact same intel available to them. Why then did Clinton's administration make *no* official policy about Al-queda? They had years more time to do it...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Um... Sure. So if those same people were there during Clinton's administration, what did they do then?
Look. You can't blame Bush for simply continuing the policies that were already in place. You are blaming Bush for not changing current policy to reflect the danger presented by Bin Ladin.
Let's compare cases here:
Clark yells and screams at Clinton about the danger of Al-queda and Bin Ladin, and for 2 years, Clinton does nothing about it. When he leaves office his security report doesn't even include a mention of Al-queda, and only vagely mentions Bin Ladin.
Clarke (I assume you mean Richard, not Wes) was put into the position he held speciically because Clinton was doing something about it. Bush, more accurately Condi Rice, undermined his position to meaninglessness. That's not carrying on the same policy, it's actively changing policy to intentionaly diminish the importance of the top CT post in the country.
In favor of missle defense. That was the policy change. Spend less on CT, spend a metric asston on MD because that was percieved to be the larger threat (with the happy corrilary that no large CT firms had contributed to Bush in the way large aerospace ones did).
Quote:
Clark yells and screams at Bush about the danger of Al-queda and Bin Ladin. Bush (ok, Rice actually) forms a committee to look into it, and 8 months later bumps him up to a high risk. Unfortunatey, it was too late to prevent 9/11.
How can it not be abundantly obvious that had Clinton not ignored the threat for the last 2 years, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened? He could have come to the same conclusions Bush's people did 2 years earlier. They could have started putting assets in place 2 years earlier. They could have started tracking the movements of members of Al-queda 2 years earlier. They very likely would have discovered the people taking flying lessons in the US, and likely there would be 3000 more US citizens alive today as a result.
It's impossible to know what might have happened in the past.
If Regan had never trained Bin Laden in gorrilla warfare because he wanted to fuc[/b]k with the Russians over Afganistan maybe he'd be throwing rocks in Mecca now. It's as likely as your idiotic attempt to assign blame to Clnton.
So, have it your way. Either Regan is responsible or Bush is responsible. Clinton was in the middle of the genesis of this threat and the most spectacular demonstration of it. It's impossible for him to be responsible for it on either end, just as Nixon didn't cause the Cold War.
Quote:
That's whats amazing me about all this. You are correct. Both Clinton and Bush had the exact same intel available to them. Why then did Clinton's administration make *no* official policy about Al-queda? They had years more time to do it...
And Regan had years more still and [b]ACTUALLY GAVE THE MAN FUNDING AND WEAPONS.
We can play this game all night long and 2+2 still isnt' going to equal 27. Clinton still won't be responsible for a plane crashing into a building when Bush was in office under the orders of a terrorist trained in such tactics on the orders of Ronald Regan.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, damn if Hoover had only WARNED FDR that Peal Harbor was going to happen, maybe we could have prevented it.
If only every prior administration was psychic and they could warn the incoming administration about SPECEFIC FUC[b][/b]KING FUTURE EVENTS we'd be much better off.
I mean, why didn't Regan use his magic mind ray and tell Clinton about Bin Laden with ESP?
If only every prior administration was psychic and they could warn the incoming administration about SPECEFIC FUC[b][/b]KING FUTURE EVENTS we'd be much better off.
I mean, why didn't Regan use his magic mind ray and tell Clinton about Bin Laden with ESP?
I agree with you 100% here Smash.
But Clark *is* blaming the Bush administration. He's saying that he warned them and they "ignored" him. Um... Didn't the Clinton administration ignore him too?
You know damn well that an incoming administration makes it's initial security policy based on the contents of that document. It's how the incomming NSA knows what was important to the outgoing one. Documennts like this allow us to have smooth transitions of power. They only way Rice could have done anything about 9/11 was if she'd just ignored the report and listened to Clark. While that may be an attractive suggestion in hindsight, the reality is that a new administration is probably deluged with experts who are sure that their pet project or opinion is the most important issue in the world. They have to use those reports to give them a baseline to start with. Then, when they've had some time, they can start addressing new (new to them anyway) isssues.
You absolutely cannot blame Bush's people for continuing the policies of the previous administration during the first months of the new one. There's no other sane way to do a transition of power like that. Had Clinton's administration made dealing with Al-queda a higher priority, Bush's administration would have started off on that footing. They didn't, and so the new one didn't either. Thus we spent valuable months in 2001 getting the new folks to realize the threat that Al-queda really represented, when they should/could have spent it actually doing something.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Simple question Smash. If Clark's whole pupose with the Clinton administration was to "deal with Al-queda", why wasn't that given more weight in the security document?
Here's an easier one. What policy changes did Clinton enact as a result of Clark's expertise on the subject of Al-queda?
Here's another one: Which of the above policies did Bush change in any way between Jan 01, and Sep 01?
You're right. We can play this game all day long. However, you are applying selective blame here. You are blaming Bush for doing nothing different then what Clinton did. In fact, by all accounts I've read, if Clinton had served another 4 years (work with me here), he still wouldn't have done anything about the threat the Clark saw in Al-queda. There is *zero* indication that he took Clark seriously, or that he implemented any changes in policy as a result.
In contrast, Bush (Rice actually) *did* listen to Clark. She did create a commitee to look in to Al-queda. She did bump up the threat assessment on the group. Which is vastly more then Clinton ever did. And what's even funnier is that the Dems use that as an arguing point against the administration. The fact that one month prior to 09/11, Rice formed a group specifically to look at and deal with threats against the US from Al-queda, many are suggesting that they knew that 9/11 was coming, but didn't do anything about it.
The truth is that Al-queda and the threat it represented was not in the security report Rice read. Rice knew nothing of Al-queda until Clark told her. She then worked to change the existing policy to reflect the threat. Unfortunately, they were a few months too late.
I'll say it again. If Clinton's security document had put Al-queda at the top of threats to the US instead of one line mentioned only as "bin Ladin's terrorrist organization", and then only in the past tense, maybe it wouldn't have teken Rice 8 months to get a plan of action going? Dunno. That seems like a very reasonable statement to make.
Here's an easier one. What policy changes did Clinton enact as a result of Clark's expertise on the subject of Al-queda?
Here's another one: Which of the above policies did Bush change in any way between Jan 01, and Sep 01?
You're right. We can play this game all day long. However, you are applying selective blame here. You are blaming Bush for doing nothing different then what Clinton did. In fact, by all accounts I've read, if Clinton had served another 4 years (work with me here), he still wouldn't have done anything about the threat the Clark saw in Al-queda. There is *zero* indication that he took Clark seriously, or that he implemented any changes in policy as a result.
In contrast, Bush (Rice actually) *did* listen to Clark. She did create a commitee to look in to Al-queda. She did bump up the threat assessment on the group. Which is vastly more then Clinton ever did. And what's even funnier is that the Dems use that as an arguing point against the administration. The fact that one month prior to 09/11, Rice formed a group specifically to look at and deal with threats against the US from Al-queda, many are suggesting that they knew that 9/11 was coming, but didn't do anything about it.
The truth is that Al-queda and the threat it represented was not in the security report Rice read. Rice knew nothing of Al-queda until Clark told her. She then worked to change the existing policy to reflect the threat. Unfortunately, they were a few months too late.
I'll say it again. If Clinton's security document had put Al-queda at the top of threats to the US instead of one line mentioned only as "bin Ladin's terrorrist organization", and then only in the past tense, maybe it wouldn't have teken Rice 8 months to get a plan of action going? Dunno. That seems like a very reasonable statement to make.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I agree with you 100% here Smash.
But Clark *is* blaming the Bush administration. He's saying that he warned them and they "ignored" him. Um... Didn't the Clinton administration ignore him too?
No. If you had bothered to read his book or listen to his testimony you'd see that he's main complaint is that the Bush administration CHANGED policy in favor of more focus on MISSLE DEFENSE.
They didn't have any level of urgency around the Al Queda threat, whereas the Clinton people did. Specifically Sandy Berger and that group of people.
He also said that he's of the oppinion that barring a state of fasicism there's simply no way anyone could have seen 9-11 coming as far in advance as you pre-suppose they should because it HADN'T EVEN BEEN PLANNED IN DETAIL UNTILL EARLY '01. It was just a vague idea about using airplanes to deliver a suicide bomb.
Quote:
You know damn well that an incoming administration makes it's initial security policy based on the contents of that document. It's how the incomming NSA knows what was important to the outgoing one. Documennts like this allow us to have smooth transitions of power. They only way Rice could have done anything about 9/11 was if she'd just ignored the report and listened to Clark. While that may be an attractive suggestion in hindsight, the reality is that a new administration is probably deluged with experts who are sure that their pet project or opinion is the most important issue in the world. They have to use those reports to give them a baseline to start with. Then, when they've had some time, they can start addressing new (new to them anyway) isssues.
Yeah, that's not really how it works at all. The document you're talking about is as important as a "What I did on my summer vacation" essay. It's irrelevant. I'd be stunned to unconciousness if Rice ever even read it. It's a CYA, "Here's what I've done that's good for the US" document.
It's not even an internal intel document, it's a letter to CONGRESS.
Incoming NSA's are breifed by "the Deputies" who are for the most part the people who actualy present policy options to which the President says "yay or nay".
Those deputies all have agendas they want to press forward with and htat's how policy shifts occur. That's how missle defense became the priority. Some Deputy at one of the intel apparatuses made a good case that missle threat was more grave than terror threat and that was accepted.
If we had been attacked by a long range missle instead of an airplane that would have looked brilliant in retrospect.
Quote:
You absolutely cannot blame Bush's people for continuing the policies of the previous administration during the first months of the new one. There's no other sane way to do a transition of power like that. Had Clinton's administration made dealing with Al-queda a higher priority, Bush's administration would have started off on that footing. They didn't, and so the new one didn't either. Thus we spent valuable months in 2001 getting the new folks to realize the threat that Al-queda really represented, when they should/could have spent it actually doing something.
They LOWERED IT'S IMPORTANCE AS A THREAT. Regardless of how important the CLinton people thought it was, the Bush people thought it was LESS important.
It's impossible to argue that it's somehoe the Clinton administration's fault that they made that decision. Clarke made it abundantly clear how important the threat was.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Simple question Smash. If Clark's whole pupose with the Clinton administration was to "deal with Al-queda", why wasn't that given more weight in the security document?
Here's an easier one. What policy changes did Clinton enact as a result of Clark's expertise on the subject of Al-queda?
Here's another one: Which of the above policies did Bush change in any way between Jan 01, and Sep 01?
You're right. We can play this game all day long. However, you are applying selective blame here. You are blaming Bush for doing nothing different then what Clinton did. In fact, by all accounts I've read, if Clinton had served another 4 years (work with me here), he still wouldn't have done anything about the threat the Clark saw in Al-queda. There is *zero* indication that he took Clark seriously, or that he implemented any changes in policy as a result.
He CREATED A DEPUTY CABINET LEVEL POSITION FOR CLARKE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.
That's a pretty fuc[b][/b]king big deal. It doesn't happen every day. Had he not taken him seriously, that ouwld never have occured. To make the statement that Clinton didn't take Clarke seriously borders on painful ignorance.
Quote:
In contrast, Bush (Rice actually) *did* listen to Clark. She did create a commitee to look in to Al-queda. She did bump up the threat assessment on the group. Which is vastly more then Clinton ever did. And what's even funnier is that the Dems use that as an arguing point against the administration. The fact that one month prior to 09/11, Rice formed a group specifically to look at and deal with threats against the US from Al-queda, many are suggesting that they knew that 9/11 was coming, but didn't do anything about it.
The truth is that Al-queda and the threat it represented was not in the security report Rice read. Rice knew nothing of Al-queda until Clark told her. She then worked to change the existing policy to reflect the threat. Unfortunately, they were a few months too late.
I'll say it again. If Clinton's security document had put Al-queda at the top of threats to the US instead of one line mentioned only as "bin Ladin's terrorrist organization", and then only in the past tense, maybe it wouldn't have teken Rice 8 months to get a plan of action going? Dunno. That seems like a very reasonable statement to make.
For the 19th time, the document you're referring to has little to nothing to do with policy. It's a memo sent to congress. That's all. Stop latching on to it as being some sort of defining source document for policy decisions.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 319
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (319)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush vs. Clinton
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC