Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Tamsen:

As has been often said, its very easy to use hindsight to correct what should have been done in a prior incident. Its very difficult to look forward and decide what should be done.

Lets look at a situation that happened in the 90’s that you brought up: The first WTC bombing.
First of all, lets make no doubt about the fact that it succeeded. The bomb went off, killing several people. The plan worked. The only failure in the plan was the magnitude of the disaster—it failed to bring down the WTC. But the point I make is that the US got lucky, and was unable to prevent it.

You use an interesting turn of the phrase when you say that all the “known key players” were captured, which suggests that we did not capture other key players because we did not know about them. Why didnt we? Had we captured them, would 911 have been avoided? What signs did we miss that prevented us from stopping this attack, which except for our luck, could have been just as bad as the 911 attack?

You see, its easy to look back and track all the potential signals. Yet neither the Bush admin nor the Clinton admin was able to use this first attack as a means to stopping the second. The plan was hatched and set in place during Clinton admin, and enacted during Bush admin. Both are to blame, if anyone is to blame at all.

The real question is how will we use both these attacks to prevent future attacks. We obviously need more robust intelligence and more communication within and between intel agencies. Yet even though the Patriot Act provides for this, it is demeaned as a grab of our civil liberties. And it just might be that. But i challenge you to come up with and implement ideas that will provide better intel without giving up some liberties. I dont think it can be done. Full freedom allows wonderful things, but also allows others to take advantage of us. We all have a line to draw——the question is where.

The blame game needs to stop. Both sides, along with prior administration policies, have faults. Without blame, we need to move forward in knowledge and together do the best possible job of preventing future horrors.

Pickard, the acting head of the F.B.I., ironically enough, did a better job of defending the president on those bits of intelligence concerning the Pheonix memo, pointing out Moussouai’s arrest and the memo came not too long before the the event itself. Instead of giving the standard “no actionable intelligence” line, he simply told them, that by the time we got these, it would have been quite a challenge to run these down. He did admit that it would have been far easier to wring information out of the system had their been tree-shaking in the agencies.

To clarify, the dates he gave were in mid and late august, bare days before the 9/11 attack.

Agree, that is my point exactly- blame Does exist with both Presidencies. However, the current one seems averse to be able to choke out any part they played- from Pres. Bush, to Rice, and certainly Ashcroft. Much easier to try and assasinate the characters of those that have come forward and accepted responsibility (Clarke is your big winner here, but also O’Neil, Kay, Plame).

Time to learn what mistakes were made, skip the finger-pointing, in favor of learning how to prevent the same in the future.

joebagodonuts, it is important to remember that this is not all hindsight. There were plenty of people, in government and in academia and the state department who questioned the wisdom of planning for invading Iraq, I know, I was one of them - and I had less information than folks insided.

But, as you say, let us look forward. George Tenet is saying we will not have the ability at the intel and counter-terrorism infiltration levels to prevent another 9/11 for 5 years. Now, catch this - this is foresight, 5 years is the end of Bush’s second term. Ring any bells? In addition, the beauracracy of the CIA is so fouled up that it and it alone is the only reason the CIA can’t respond in a year in additon to the 2.5 years the CIA has already had.

The CIA has analysts out in the field as field chiefs. This is absurd. It is like sending a historian to lead the troops in a conventional war. In addition, George Tenet, like GW Bush, just can’t seem to think of anything the CIA has done wrong or any mistakes it has made. ONE CAN NOT IMPROVE IF ONE DOES NOT RECOGNIZES ONE’S MISTAKES AND WEAKNESSES !!!

This is foresight. We are going to be vulnerable to another 9/11 for at least 5 years so we can give the President cover if another attack occurs on his watch, AND because the CIA is afraid to admit that is turnover rate due to management problems within the CIA is incredibly high and results in inexperienced personnel handling sensitive and vitally important roles for which they are ill equipped. The personnel problem is why we won’t have a competent CIA for 5 years and that is a management problem pure and simple. If management would treat their employees with the appearance of fairness and equity with regard to promotions and pay raises and assignments that permit success and reward, we would have an Intel agency of protecting the U.S. mant times better than is possible now or in the near future.

Management, we need new management at the Presidency, at the CIA, and yes, I will now say it, at the State Department. I have had a great deal of respect for Collin Powell, but, of late, he has succumbed to the will of the administration rather than serving the American people with honest and forthright thinking of his own.

Blame Florida!

One interesting thing going on is the willingness of many Democrats to go along with blaming Clinton. It gives them the seeming credibilty to also blame Bush. We hear many remarks to the effect that Clinton and Bush were both asleep at the wheel. Taking a little luster off Bill,who ain’t running for office, is a small price to pay for taking luster of Bush, who is.

I’ll admit that this is a clever tactic politically, but it’s also pretty pointless. I don’t see a mood in America (except for the already totally commited partisans on both sides) to lay blame for 9-11 so much as try to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

One interesting thing going on is the willingness of many Democrats to go along with blaming Clinton. It gives them the seeming credibilty to also blame Bush.

Martin, you are so right. Democrats don’t need to blame Clinton at all in order to blame Bush.

The fact is: Clinton took legislative and direct action against terrorism, Bush did nothing. Period.

Aside: If Freeh had actually spent the hundreds of millions in funding for FBI counterterrorism operations that Clinton pryed out of Congress on counterterrorism, rather than on bogus Republican-backed presidential scandal investigations, his department might not be in the sad shape that it is today.

David:

You seem to blame Bush for the mismanagement at the CIA. I was unaware that Bush ran the CIA. I AM aware that Tenet has been CIA director under two different administrations, and therefore would seemingly have been a failure under both. How interesting that you focus only on one administration as being at fault—-and that you dont mention the administration that selected Tenet for the post.

Now, is Tenet the guy to creat the change you say is needed?? Im not convinced that he is. But to use the CIA as evidence that the Presidency needs changing is not correct. You know as well as I do that if Bush were to replace Tenet, he would be lambasted for that move. And so you also find the ability to lambaste him for leaving Tenet in place.

That, my friend, seems to be the policy of Democrats right now, and it is a horrifically flawed and dangerous policy. Democrats are specifically looking to replace Bush—by any means necessary. The strategy is to bracket Bush on either side of any issue….by having some Democrats on either side, Democrats then have the luxury of waiting to see what Bush does before deciding which group to follow. And of course, they always take the side that ends up opposing Bush.

Note how some Dems want America to heed the June 30 transition, while others want us to stay longer. Note how some say we need more money, more troops, more of a draft, while others oppose these issues. What should be a good open honest debate on such issues has been transformed into a cynical power grab. Its shameful, it hurts our boys in action, and it will clearly be seen for what it is.

Note how some Dems want America to heed the June 30 transition, while others want us to stay longer. Note how some say we need more money, more troops, more of a draft, while others oppose these issues. What should be a good open honest debate on such issues has been transformed into a cynical power grab.

I’m very confused by this. You’re saying that Democrats debating the issues of Iraq proves that we’re doing a power grab instead of debating the issues of Iraq. What?

If Clinton took “direct action” against terrorists, then they kicked his butt because otherwise 9-11 would never have happened.

Clinton did nothing but gut our intelligence services, look good on television, have a couple impotent lackeys like Richard Clarke shuffle memos back and forth and call that “action” while Al Qaida infiltrated our borders. The main 9-11 players were in the country, their flight-training was over, and the plot was in its final logistical stages while George Bush was still governor of Texas. Apparently directly “fighting terrorism” meant fooling around with Monica Lewinsky while Richard Clarke wrote yet another memo in the White House basement.

If we have to play the blame game, then we’re going to blame those who deserve it. You can spin and distort the obvious, but there’s no denying who was president while 9-11 was planned and arranged under our noses.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, Bush the first armed al Qaida, Clinton let the hijackers in, and Bush the second didn’t care til it was too late. The point of the article is taking responsibility.

While the FBI was trying to fight terrorism, Ashcroft was busy making the world safe from nude statues. Ashcroft can deny his actions before 9/11, so instead he tries to distract everyone by pointing fingers.

The accusation that Bush the elder armed Al Qaida is completely baseless—it’s just the kind of unsubstantiated propaganda Michael Moore types feed those with an apparently bottomless appetite for anti-Bush lies. Reagan armed factions of the Afghan mujahadeen which fought both the Soviet AND the factions of mujadeen associated with bin Laden (though it’s since been shown that bin Laden greatly exaggerated his actual relationship with mujahadeen for propaganda purposes after the war, and whose fighting experiences probably involved squeezing off a few rounds in a single small battle).

Not once has it been found that Al Qaida and associated groups used American made munitions in a terrorist attack—while it has been shown repeatedly that they’ve used French, German, Russian and Chinese weapons.

Lawnboy:

I knew that someone would try to take my statement and reach the conclusion that you did. Thats why I put in the statement saying that what COULD be a good debate is really a power grab.

Its a grab when the Democrats bracket the President so that whichever way he turns, he gets blamed by them. As I mentioned, Democrats will blame Bush if he gets out of Iraq too soon, or if he stays on. They will blame him if he balances the budget but cuts any programs to do so. They blame him if he proposes cutting any timber down in the west, but also blame him if there are any forest fires. They will blame him if there is another terrorist attack, yet also blame him if he takes steps to get better intelligence.

They are currently blaming him for 9-11 because he wasnt hawkish enough, while they also blame him for being too much of a hawk.

That does not count as honest open debate. Rather, it is a cynical political scheme. And it doesnt work to the benefit of our country—it merely hamstrings the Presidency from doing anything at all.

Yes, joebagodonuts, you’ve obtained the liberal mindset. Their main goal is not to necessarily arise with a solution for the problems, but simply lay the critical commentary on the ground and sway with liberal and what they hope will please the independents and moderate voters. Besides, whatever Bush does, he won’t avoid comments for. Also, Bush is a man of his word, despite what may be some very bad decisions on the parts of him and his companians in office. He will not bcak down on an issue due to the political spin of the democrats.

Excuse my foolishness for mispelled words and/or improper grammer on the previous post.

He will not bcak down on an issue due to the political spin of the democrats.

He won’t back down in the face of reality and facts either. Hurray for Bush’s steadfast resolve! Damn the consquences, he’s a “man of his word.”

Clinton did nothing but gut our intelligence services, look good on television, have a couple impotent lackeys like Richard Clarke shuffle memos back and forth and call that “action” while Al Qaida infiltrated our borders.

Buzz! I’m sorry Martin, that statement is both grammatically and factually incorrect.

Clinton drastically increased counterterrorism funding (too bad Republican sock-puppet Freeh squandered it on investigating Al Gore campaign contributions by Shaolin ninjas, or whatever), and Clinton repeatedly introduced anti-terrorist legislation that was blocked then finally gutted by the Republican Congress.

Not to mention the 70 missiles that would have ended the bin-Laden threat if our Pakistani “allies” hadn’t warned him in time, and the arrests of al-Qaeda terrorists, and the many foiled terrorist bombing attempts.

Perhaps Bush did all that too, but it was lost in the media clutter of surplus-busting tax-cuts-for-the-rich, pulling out of international treaties, pissing off allied leaders, and gutting regulations that ensure our food and water are not poisoned because it costs a few extra bucks to keep them mercury- and arsenic-free.

Hmm… Nope. Clinton did something despite a hostile Republican Congress, Bush did nothing despite having Republican control of all three branches of government.

You raise a fantastic point, Lee, one that has me reconsidering some ‘would-haves/should-haves’ after all.

Considering the constant stone-walling he went through, the fact that there wasn’t a huge security breakdown like 9/11 is a considerable credit to what he was able to accomplish.

A legacy that was systemically disabled as soon as the new Chief took residence (something actually backed by facts instead of vague character-bashing of patriots that served our country faithfully under 4 administrations- and most of those hawkish ones, making the bashing attempts that much more humorous).

That a year and a half later allowed the worst attack on American soil to take place.

And yet we Democrats try and play the good guy, ‘Hey, we all could have maybe done more, learned more’- even though that may not play out factually- just to move on through the process to get to an actual, viable solution with tangible results (key, there- do YOU feel safer today?? ). And, like you mention, that Republicans can’t even get to, with 3 branches in their pocket, because they’re so afraid of ever having been wrong they can’t get to something Right.

Sorry- the ‘worst attack on American soil’ since Pearl Harbour.

Tamsen:

You seem to take so many things at simple face value, when they fit your argument.

How bout this fact: Clinton did not stop the FIRST WTC bombing in which Americans died. The only reason that was not a horrific disaster worse than 9-11 is that the bomb that went off was not large enough. Our govt did nothing to prevent that attack—we simply got lucky that the attack was not as damaging. But the point is that they succeeded in blowing up the bomb—certainly you cant give our govt credit for the terrorist’s decision to use an inadequate bomb.

So your point is that Clinton actually got things accomplished…..mine is that he faced the same type of problems Bush did and does. And Clinton failed to prevent a bombing just as Bush did—but you give Clinton a pass on that. I can just imagine you now saying …”well, it was early in his presidency so it was Bush 41’s fault”.

The truth is that Bush continued on with the Clinton policies, as Clarke said. And even Clarke said that full implementation of all his policies still would not have prevented 911. But you cant accept that portion of Clarkes testimony.

When Bush has implemented policy to help deal with terrorism, such as the Patriot Act, you support those who fight against it. Then you have the temerity to complain that not enough is being done. You simply cannot have it both ways….the American people are too smart for that—-and I suspect you will find that out in November.

Hey Joe (mmm… donuts),

How bout this fact: Clinton did not stop the FIRST WTC bombing in which Americans died.

You mean the attack that took place 30 days after President Clinton took office? The attack that was planned by terrorists who had slipped into the US during GHW Bush’s presidency? Of course that’s what you mean.

But Clinton never blamed Bush Sr. Clinton sucked it up like a man and caught, convicted, and incarcerated the guys who did it. And maybe you didn’t notice, but there was never another car-bombing like that perpetrated by foreign nationals in the US.

When Bush has implemented policy to help deal with terrorism, such as the Patriot Act, you support those who fight against it.

The Patriot Act has good and bad legislation in it. Democrats want to either amend it, or failing that, kill it and replace it with good legislation that will strike a better balance between helping law enforcement and preserving your civil liberties.

So yes, we want it both ways. You should, too. I hope you’ll write your representatives and ask them to repeal the portions that step on your privacy and freedom.

last test :)

Hello world