He Spoke, No One Listened!

Was former president Bill Clinton so pre-occupied with the Monica Lewinsky affair that he didn’t hear the true message of Osama Bin Laden?

In 1998, the Lewinsky broke nationally. However in 1996 and 1997, while Bill was fondly remembering those pleasant Oval Office interludes with Monica and no one except Paula Jones knew that he was a sexual predator, Osama Bin Laden was talking publicly…all over the place.

Read what he had to say before and during the affair. You can call them "talking points" if you want...I call then a clear and early warning that went unheard..until it was too late.

1996

While Bill remembered fondly his "meetings" with the White House intern, Osama said:

"As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Osama bin Laden
Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996

And also this:

"In our religion, there is a special place in the hereafter for those who participate in jihad."
Osama bin Laden
Time magazine May 6, 1996

1997

At the end of 1997 (December), Lewinsky's name finally became public. Here is what Osama said BEFORE it did:

"A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.
Osama bin Laden"
CNN interview 1997

And also this:

"I have benefited so greatly from the jihad in Afghanistan that it would have been impossible for me to gain such a benefit from any other chance and this cannot be measured by tens of years but rather more than that. Praise and gratitude be to God. We saw the brutality of the Russians bombing Mujaheddins' positions, by grace of God, we dug a good number of huge tunnels and built in them some storage places and in some others we built a hospital. So our experience in this jihad was great, by the grace of God, praise and glory be to Him, and the most of what we benefited from was that the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims. Slumber and fatigue vanished and so was the terror which the U.S. would use in its media by attributing itself superpower status or which the Soviet Union used by attributing itself as a superpower."
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997

Plus this:

"If the American government is serious about avoiding explosions inside the U.S., then let it stop provoking the feelings of 1,250 million Muslims."
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997

And also this:

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine)."
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997

1998:

When Bill was outed by the press and Monica's blue dress went out for DNA analysis, here is what Osama said :

"We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans."
Osama bin Laden
On ABC's Nightline, June 10, 1998

And This:

"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."
Osama bin Laden
Asked if he was trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons, Time Magazine, Dec 1998

And this:

"It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities."
Osama bin Laden
Answering questions posed by followers at his mountaintop camp in Afghanistan, May 1998

And This:
"To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
Osama bin Laden
In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

This week a docu-drama was shown on network television that contained fictionalized scenes on the events leading to the events of September 11,2001.

These quotes were not fictionalized.

They were spoken, yet remained unheard.


Posted by Sicilian Eagle at September 14, 2006 7:55 AM
Comments
Comment #181206
”[…] Not to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” - Osama bin Laden

A-bombs, Osama, not H-bombs.
Let’s hope his nuclear experts, if any, don’t know better.

This week a docu-drama was shown on network television that contained fictionalized scenes on the events leading to the events of September 11,2001.

If it contains fictionalized parts, it’s not anymore a docu-drama (AFAIK even ABC don’t qualify it that way anymore), it’s a fiction “inspired” by a true story.

Regarding your thread, what your point? That 9/11 is all Clinton and his dick fault?
Have you proof to show us that his “sexual” predation was what took his focus away from OBL, compared to reckless fake-puritanist republicans attempt to impeach Clinton for lying american about his sexual behavior political gain?

One also could say Iraq War mess is all Bush and his Dick (Cheney) fault.

What’s matter IMHO is in both case nobody listened to warnings of possible consequencies, whoever was saying it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #181207

Yes, if only someone would actually spend the time and effort making the capture of that man a high priority. But I guess excusing failure by pointing out the failures in others is the best we can hope for at this juncture.

Can someone please point out to me where in the Constitution it says that the duty of American’s is to drown ourselves in partisan warfare rather than actually pick capable leaders who put the nation and her people first?

Posted by: Liberal Demon at September 14, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #181209

Eagle,

If I’m not mistaken, the 9/11 Commission determined that Clinton’s affair with Lewisnky in no way hindered the “true message” about OBL. Geoerge W. Bush, on the other hand, has publicly stated that he really doesn’t care about OBL. So IMHO, your speculation is meaningless, considering that our current President’s “true message” about capturing OBL is one of inept indifference - the true hallmark of today’s GOP.

Posted by: Dr. Wu at September 14, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #181210
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria. […] … the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton’s watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17702-2001Oct6?language=printer

Let’s see… Clinton missed bin Laden’s position by a few hours. Bush has missed bin Laden’s position by invading the wrong country. Clinton attacks bin Laden and is accused of wagging the dog and personalizing terrorism around bin Laden. Bush vows to get bin Laden dead or alive, then a few years later says bin Laden’s whereabouts don’t really concern him. Clinton closes off Pennsylvania Ave after a domestic terror attack and republicans accuse him of hysteria. Tell me, how many roads in DC are closed off permanently now to all but official traffic? Clinton raises the anti-terrorism budget by literally BILLIONS to help deal with the threat, while the incoming Bush administration proposed to reduce that funding right up until 9/11, and you say Clinton didn’t hear the message?

There’s only one president who didn’t hear the message, and that message was clear: “Osama bin Laden determined to strike in US”.

Posted by: Jarin at September 14, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #181212

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends… that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.

- Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

Posted by: mem beth at September 14, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #181221

Eric,

Just how much longer do I have to wait before you blame Clinton for the failures in Iraq?

… Oh wait, this was SE.

Sorry, I couldn’t tell the difference.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 14, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #181223

Jarin, I remember several Republican aquaintances calling Clinton an S.O.B. for launching rockets at Afghanistan. Now they rave on about Iraq is the center of terrorism. You’d think Grover Norquist is based in Kabul and they don’t want to blow HIM up….

Posted by: gergle at September 14, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #181228

SE,

I’ll tell you brother, I agree (100%) with you about how Clinton dropped the ball in regards to Bin Laden.


However, I’m concerned at what happened (or didn’t happen) with the military not being able to bomb a military funeral, for the taliban, the other day, b/c it was “against rules of engagement”. That’s absolutely ridiculous and (incredibly) insane. I mean, we’ve already had a 9/11; there’s no reason (whatsoever) for the military brass to not give orders to engage. Jeez! We certainly owe our military that much.

Mem,
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends…that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
- Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.”


Ok, first off, the Dems today are nowhere near the Dems of yesterday; so, to use that quote is definitely not representing (today’s) reality. Not only do the dems (today) lie and throw temper tantrums over the Repubs, they can’t even be truthful about their own party.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #181229

SE
clinton heard OBL, he just chose to treat him as a petty criminal and PR tool.
I really hope your not trying to suggest clinton deserves all the blame for 9/11.

Jarin
General Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, called the tent bombings a “million to one shot” and intelligence officials at the time expressed reservations about targeting the asprin plant, clinton picked the target himself.

Those are a couple of the reasons Republicans at the time were screaming “wag the dog.”
To bad they didn’t keep those same critical thoughts with their guy in power huh.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #181231

Five years since 9/11 and Bin Laden still at large.

Three years since Iraq war started and the US Generals are worried it could explode into a civil war.

Now the Republicans are spending their time talking about Bin Laden in terms of Clinton and Lewinsky.

You guys are pathetic

Posted by: Bobo at September 14, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #181235

kctim:

General Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, called the tent bombings a “million to one shot”

Considering he missed bin Laden by mere hours, I’d say the shot wasn’t all that bad.

and intelligence officials at the time expressed reservations about targeting the asprin plant, clinton picked the target himself.

Actually, the CIA had a variety of intelligence on the subject, from weapons experts attending the plants opening to intercepted phone calls between the plant’s manager and scientists, to a soil sample showing the primary ingredient for VX gas. That sounds like pretty airtight evidence, despite what the Republicans would like the American public to believe about which party is strong on counterterrorism.

Posted by: Jarin at September 14, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #181237

rahdigly,

You want the military to bomb funerals? Why because they are terrorists and that is something they would do?

Thanks to that kind of ideology, the terrorists win. You have sunk to their level. They want us to give up are freedoms, ethics and morality in favor of theirs, and you hand it to them on a silver platter. You don’t fight terrorism by becoming a terrorist. One fundalmentist religious group fighting another, just like Iraqis bombing each other in the Iraqi Civil War.

BTW, I’m not a Dem, as I’ve said before, I think for myself and tend to lean a little conservative. But the band of traitors currently in power have little to do with the ideology which the U.S. was founded. They are not conservatives, they are Nationalists, and that is kind of ideology we are supposed to be “free” from in this country.

The Adlai E. Stevenson Jr quote is just as true today as it was then.

“Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism” - “Rocky” Anderson (Mayor of Salt Lake City)

Posted by: mem beth at September 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #181240

Ok so Clinton was more interested in Monica, and Republicans were more interested in impeachment. Cause and effect. Instead of working together, it was to take each other down. So in my opinion and not humble, BOTH PARTIES looked the other way.

Posted by: KT at September 14, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #181242

SE, I really don’t get your point. What are you trying to say? Did the Clinton Administration drop the ball on OBL? Okay, say they did, and it looks like they could have done more to pursue the guy certainly. So what?

Both administrations as Richard Clarke said “have failed us” in finding this guy and stopping his network of terrorists/gangsters. Bush has had 5 years to find and kill this guy. What has he done? Well for one thing, he hasn’t caught and killed the guy. As a matter of fact, he said that he thought OBL was not that important.

Both administrations have had massive failures regarding the fight against these extremists. Putting the light on the Clinton Administration in no way diminishes the magnitude of the debacle of the Bush Administration on this topic.

Posted by: Dennis at September 14, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #181245

Jarin
He was told it was a million to one shot but did it anyways. If only he would have listened to others huh?

And airtight? So airtight that we paid the Saudi owner million because our intel was wrong.

Bad intel leading to a Presidents actions? I thought that only started happening in 2000.

Personally, I thought clinton did the right thing then and still believe so today.
But clintons party affiliation, the surrounding circumstances, bad intel and ignoring others is why many on the right questioned his decisions. Sounds familiar doesn’t it.

As far as what party Americans believe is stronger , I don’t care. BOTH parties have failed.
Let’s just hope BOTH parties have learned.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #181247

Mem,
“You want the military to bomb funerals? Why because they are terrorists and that is something they would do? Thanks to that kind of ideology, the terrorists win. You have sunk to their level.”


Wrong! In WWII, we bombed the sh*t out of Japan and Germany; the PC cowards today would definitely have considered those tactics the same as the Nazis or as terrorists today. We fought “fire with fire” and we won; and, in no way did we become just like the Nazis, Facist Italy or Imperialist Japan.


“BTW, I’m not a Dem, as I’ve said before, I think for myself and tend to lean a little conservative.”

First off, I didn’t call you a democrat; I simply responded to the quote you used from an (old) democrat. That quoute definitely doesn’t hold true b/c the Repubs of today are like the democrats of old. The democrats of today are this European Socialist Movement; they don’t represent the US interest and bash the US every chance they get.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #181248

Dennis

Wait a minute. Bill Clinton was in office for YEARS while OBL was chirping. George W. Bush was in his 9th MONTH when 9/11 occurred.

That being said, I happen to agree with what Richard Clarke said. Prior to 9/11, the OBL “unit” of the CIA was filled with dead-enders waiting for retiremment according to Bob Woodward. Plus, we had absolutely no assets, except political exiles feeding us information.
Translators of Arabic were almost non-existent.In short,the situation was a disgrace.

Since 9/11, things are a bit different. Osama is in a cave somewhere in Pakastan,2/3 or his leadership is dead or in prision,and most importantly slowly….very slowly…the intel community is getting up to speed.

Rahd
I agree with you. If Hitler was around a grave praying for a dead Nazi, Ike would have given the order in a minute. That is why it’s called “war”.

By the way, most of the present Democratic leadership…..Kerry…Kennedy…Murtha….was around during the Clinton years…yet I do not think they heard much either.

Dennis
Debacle? What debacle? The intel community is LIGHT years better…absolutely no comparsion…none…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #181249

Oh…when I saw your headline I thought you were talking about Bush’s “speech” on Monday night…

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #181251

Osama bin Laden has U.S. jumping through hoops

And then, there’s the “decider” who lets OBL rule his every moment…making the entire government dysfunctional…I’d have to say that at this point, the terrorists are certainly winning…you can tell it every time you have to get on an commercial flight or take a look at the national and trade deficits.

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #181252

“Translators of Arabic were almost non-existent.In short,the situation was a disgrace”

Ah, I once wondered why Bush wasn’t being blamed for the lack of arabic translators.
Guess thats been a problem for awhile too.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #181254

rahdigly,

What country are we at war with? We are occupying some foreign lands, but we are not at war with any country.

Terrorism is an ideology and doesn’t have country of origin. You can’t win this war by occupying lands, becuase it will just move to the next base of opportunity. Kill 100 terrorists, and 200 are ready to step up and take their place. How can this be a war like WWII (where war was declared on us, not by us). Do you wish to kill all opposition just because they might harm you, or did harm you once. Justice is not the same as vengeance, one is just, the other is evil.

You can rationalize all day about the reason to kill your “enemies”, but it is still wrong.

Posted by: mem beth at September 14, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #181255

kctim:

For a supposed ‘million to one shot’ to get within a few hours of hitting the person being targetted seems like it was a pretty good idea for him to at least TRY. Do you never attempt something if someone tells you that it is unlikely you’ll manage it? He rolled the dice, and he got pretty close even if he didn’t hit his target. If he had hit the camp while bin Laden was in it, can you imagine the psychological effects on al Qaeda? Wasn’t that a chance worth taking?

As far as the payout to the Saudi owner, that was done because of concerns that classified intelligence data and methods used to gather it would have been compromised in a court proceeding. The Clinton administration made the decision that their continued intelligence capabilities were more valuable than the sum of money being requested in recompense. It was NOT an admission that the intelligence was bad.

Posted by: Jarin at September 14, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #181256
Ok, first off, the Dems today are nowhere near the Dems of yesterday

And the Repubicans are?? Please…Ike is spinning in his grave! You choose not to remember his warning of the ills that the military-industrial complex would visit upon our nation…and then the Republicans actually bring these to bear…what happened to small government and fiscally sound spending??

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #181257

Jarin, please read my entire post. I said I agreed with clintons actions on this matter and still do to this day. BOTH options were chances worth taking, to me.
As far as the asprin factory payoff not being an admission of bad intel, it didn’t have to be. No evidence to back up the bombing was an admission of bad intel.
But again, I totally supported the decision.

I was simply offering some of the reasons the Republicans of then, were acting like the Dems are today.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #181258

Mem,
“What country are we at war with? We are occupying some foreign lands, but we are not at war with any country. Terrorism is an ideology and doesn’t have country of origin. You can’t win this war by occupying lands, becuase it will just move to the next base of opportunity. Kill 100 terrorists, and 200 are ready to step up and take their place.”


I’m not talking about occupying land; I’m talking about killing terrorists by dropping a bomb on the taliban army and leaders at a funeral. That certainly would’ve been done in WWII. In WWII, we bombed schools, churches, hospitals, or anywhere the enemy was hiding and we didn’t “become like the Nazis”; we did what we had to to win a war. That’s how we should be fighting this war. And, yes, this war is not against a country so “rules of engagement” and “geneva conventions” (specifically to people that don’t subscribe to it in the first place) should not be an obstacle; does anyone remember 9/11!!


Lynne,
“And the Repubicans are?? Please…Ike is spinning in his grave!”


Now, now, Lynne, take a look at my quote from a few comments ago:


“That quoute definitely doesn’t hold true b/c the Repubs of today are like the democrats of old. The democrats of today are this European Socialist Movement; they don’t represent the US interest and bash the US every chance they get.”

Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 11:55 AM

Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #181259

rad…you failed to dispute my charges regarding the Republicans…

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #181260

Nobody was listening well enough to him, besides a few dedicated folks in the FBI and the Intelligence Community. Clinton, though, took this much more seriously than the Republicans.

I’m going to call your bluff here: show me the the Republicans cared about Bin Laden before not caring became a political liability. Show me your people supporting this president in his responses to Bin Laden. Then we can talk about the superiority of the right’s recognition of this problem.

As it is, I still think that Bush supporters are rather naive on the subject. You’d have to be to consider Iraq the second target in the War on Terror when nearly the entire intelligence community could tell you there were worse offenders out there.

Instead of seeking to understand the terrorist threat, the leaders of your party have chosen to concoct World War III, along with a nice cast of villains whose membership in this Axis of Evil has more to do with the kind of rogue states you guys wer obsessing over before 9/11 than any real analysis of al-Qaeda’s actual intentions.

In short, the Republicans are still trying to fight the wars of the 20th century, rather than deal with our present situation.

So please, lay off this B.S. about Democrats not understanding the threats. We’re the ones who’ve actually been paying attention since that fateful day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #181261

Pardon me: Show me your people supporting Clinton in his responses to Bin Laden.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #181263
Dennis Wait a minute. Bill Clinton was in office for YEARS while OBL was chirping. George W. Bush was in his 9th MONTH when 9/11 occurred.Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 11:57 AM
How long was Clinton in office in ‘93 when the WTC was 1st hit? Where are the people responsible for that attack now?

In case you run away from the quesitons: (a) a few months (b) in jail

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 14, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #181264

Lynne, if you read my quote, I (obviously) concur that “Ike would be spinning in his grave”, b/c (once again), as I’ve said in the previous comment, “the repubs of today are like the democrats of old.”

You, however, didn’t dispute my charges regarding dems.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #181266

Dennis
Debacle? What debacle? The intel community is LIGHT years better…absolutely no comparsion…none…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 11:57 AM
——————-

Why hasn’t OBL been caught and brought to justice as GWB so valiantly claimed he would do? That’s the debacle I’m talking about SE. There’s no difference in the failure of both of these administrations. Oh wait, there is one difference. One didn’t spend $300B to blow up and then rebuild Iraq. That’s working out real well huh? Especially in Anbar province now.

Come one, I’m no fan of Clinton but the one-sidedness of this article is ridiculous. Bush’s administration has botched this from the onset. That’s why you’ve got those uber liberals like Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham indicating this war is going wrong.

Posted by: Dennis at September 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #181272

Rahdigly-
The Republicans today are not much different than the Republicans of yesterday: better at seeking enemies at home than pursuing them abroad. We equalled and largely surpassed our enemies under Democratic administration- the entire Cold War took place while Democrats dominated the legislature. We fought the Cold War at it’s beginning its middle and its end. Despite the only intermittent Republican leadership, we managed to pull it off.

Even then, though, this is a new war. Why do we have to take the same ideas as our forebearers? Our 20th Century brethren broke with the pre WWII era and adjusted to the foreign policy reality of the Cold War. Now, Democrats of this age adjust to the new threat, instead of trying to fight WWIII, or Son of the Cold War. History writes better sequels than the Republican propagandists.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #181274

rahdigly,

I certainly do remember 9/11. The world stood with us in support of these criminals that shot innocent people in the back, without a chance to defend themselves. And now you want to do the same thing.

The world no longer stands with us because our irrational response, the enemies support is increasing, and the whole world is becoming more dangerous of how we are handling it.

But I do thank Darwin that we live in a country where we can openly debate issues like this, at least for now. Now if we can just learn some real “Christian” values and not this Christian fundalmentalism that is no better than the small minority if Islam that support the terrorists like al-quaida. I’m getting off topic now, but somewhere, somehow, this country as got way of track from the founding principles and ideology.

(I’m just baiting y’all for more rebuttal)

Posted by: mem beth at September 14, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #181275

Essentially, you are claiming the Republican fishing expedition against the president distracted him from important matters. If true, I don’t suppose Republicans will take any responsibility for that.

Posted by: Trent at September 14, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #181281

Hold on there was a republican congress who was, just a little, WAY into the Monica affair. Who was spending all there time trying to impeach a president over Nothing. Come on. Stop the “blaim Clinton” game. It gets us nowhere.

Posted by: Matt at September 14, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #181283

Stephen,
“Now, Democrats of this age adjust to the new threat, instead of trying to fight WWIII, or Son of the Cold War.”


What (in the sam hell) did the dems “adjust” to?! They have no plan to deal with this enemy; except, of course, to attack the repubs and the christians. “Adjust”!! Pleeeaaaaaasssee!!!!

“The Republicans today are not much different than the Republicans of yesterday: better at seeking enemies at home than pursuing them abroad.”


Yes they are, they didn’t spend nearly as much as they are doing today. They are more like the dems of old and the dems of today are this Socialist party of appeasers.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 14, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #181297

Osama is a fosil. When was the last time you saw him. I dont mean heard him I mean saw him. If he is alive dont you think he would want his people know. Now let me talk of that great comander and chief Clinton. Let me see Samalia we loose 18 men and they are dragged through the streets of Samalia and how does Clinton respond. Wihdraw. I dont understand how the dems were soconcerned about Bush going to the U N when Clinton went into Bosnia without consulting the U N. Ofcourse the main stream media, the media of rather. What else would you expect from the drive by media. The mainstream media is nothing more than a 527. Move.on.org. The public needs to hear both sides like Paul Harvey the rest of the story. I hope the media doesnt actualy believe that the people out hear are as dumb as the media thinks we are, as far as your Polls I dont believe those either.

Posted by: Thomas at September 14, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #181308

SE
You can try to blame Clinton all you want, but the Presidential Daily Briefing from Aug 6, 2001 clearly shows that OBL wanted to attack the US because of what Clinton did. Not what he failed to do.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

Here is a list of steps Clinton took to stop the terror threat.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml

And lets not forget that Clinton was trying to track and stop terrorist funding but was stop by Phil Gramm and his friends in the banking industry.

http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22


Posted by: 037 at September 14, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #181312

Rad:

Plus ça change, plus ce même chose…

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #181313

Rad:

I pasted your quote right into my post…wanna quibble about it??? That was all to which I was referring…

Posted by: Lynne at September 14, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #181315

“They are more like the dems of old and the dems of today are this Socialist party of appeasers.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaxRddT-LzA

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 14, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #181326

sorry late. 1952 Presidential Election.
D. David Eisenhower R. 55.3% of total vote. and 442 Electoral votes.
Adlai E stevenson the 2nd. D. 44.2% of total vote. and 89 Electoral votes.
1956 presidential Election.
D. David Eisenhower R. 57.4% of total vote. and 457 Electoral votes.
Adlai E stevenson the 2nd D. 42% of total vote and 73 Electoral votes.
stevenson the 2nd Really hammered Ole IKE EH? A top ten president and he should be higher.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 14, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #181327

Your post is revealing for the fact that the Republicans were the ones who blew up the Lewinsky affair, trying to impeach Clinton while Osama (and even Saddam) took those opportunities to make trouble. SO yes you could blame Clinton for messing around, but who put him through the hell that was to come afterward? Impeach a president because of what he did in his personal life? Clinton was so smeared by Republicans he had little time to think. Sorry, but I fault the Republicans here . .

Quote from “A Threatening Storm” - the “Invade Iraq Bible”

“On August 7, Usama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda organization detonated car bombs outside the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. By coincidence, this was also the day after Monica Lewinsky testified before a grand jury.” - p.90

If I remember correctly JFK didn’t have to deal with this crapp.

Posted by: Steve at September 14, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #181329

My Name Is Roger:

Sicilian [ GOOD JOB ]… { VERY GOOD JOB }

Stephen… I like to read your coments, but I have a sniking suspicion that you may be a Democrat.

And if you are, I understand why you say some of the things you say. I also wonder if you would say the same things… if you were not, or look at them in the same way.

Even so… I still like to read your coments!

Believe it or not, there are times I support Democrats.

You know… when they are Conservative, and there are some, and when I find one… AND THERE IS NO RUPUBLICAN, I vote for them.

Roger A Conservative Christian Republican

Posted by: ROGER at September 14, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #181334

You know what the real problem is? It’s not just that Clinton’s administration appears to have been pretty darn focused on AQ et al., which makes the Bushies look bad and makes it hard to twist things around to make it seem like they don’t. Really, it’s those darn liberals who keep accusing this administration of b*llsh*t!

Really, SE, you’re sounding more and more frantic as this administration and the supporting Republican politicians self-destruct.

Posted by: mental wimp at September 14, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #181336

Thomas,

Osama is a fosil. When was the last time you saw him. I dont mean heard him I mean saw him.

And when was the last time YOU did saw him being a fosil, Thomas?
AFAIK, The last time he was officially heard was in an audio tape recorded in last december or january 2006. He’s a talking fosil, maybe?

What sounds a real fosil these days his Bush promise to get dead or alive OBL, though.

If he is alive dont you think he would want his people know.

*His* people don’t need OBL that much as they often have ther own local leader, like Hezbollah one who became since Lebanon war their new champion, latest great achievement of western war against terror…

Now let me talk of that great comander and chief Clinton.

Clinton is NOT in charge ANYMORE of the US since 6 years now. Could you get over it and move on, please? And tell us who’s in charge of the current mess US is *now* in public debt, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Middle East diplomacy and in its foreign policy more generally?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #181338

Roger-
Your suspicion shouldn’t have sneak around so much. I’m the second most prolific contributor on the Blue Column.

Rahdigly-
We do have a plan to deal with the enemy. It’s called the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It’s called listening to what the experts are telling us to do, rather than blowing them off because they didn’t believe that Iraq B.S.

I read the stuff on this site and it’s about throwing around terms and plans that seem to be intent on drawing us into a region-wide war, under claims that this is already WWIII, and that we have a clear enemy in the “Islamofascists.”

It’s a category in search of a reality, just as yours is a policy in search of an excuse to escalate and expand the war. Meanwhile, followers of Bin Laden around the world easily manage to bomb and blast and kill, unimpeded by much of Bush’s policies, emboldened by Bush’s failure to establish law and order in Iraq.

Iraq has become the central battle in the War on Terror because Bush screwed up. Unless you face up to that fact, you’re only going to dig us in deeper.

Thomas-
Clinton managed to get us out of Bosnia for the most part. Our remaining committment is fairly small, and the objective, bringing peace to the region, remains mostly fulfilled.

Somalia was never meant to be a sustained presence. We were supposed to sit there until the UN could get forces together to take our place. The Battle of Mogadishu only hastened what in fact should have already taken place by that point. As for losing 18 men? What could his response have been? Turn a humanitarian mission into a manhunt, turn Mogadishu into an even bigger bloodbath? Balls shouldn’t take the place of brains in military planning.

As for how dumb the media thinks you are? The question is how smart you think you are. It neither pays to be servile and submissive nor to be arrogant and overconfident. It helps to keep your ears open. Good facts are not defined by party lines or channels.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #181342

Quick couple points of fact here.

In 1998 the CSG performed an analysis on how a “snatch” job could be done with the target being Osama Bin Laden. Given the defenses of his compound (which included two tanks), and the lack of cooperation from the Sudanese government (contrary to popular belief they never offered OBL to the US) it was deemed an impossible target, most likely to fail. This decision was made by Richard Clarke, and (I believe) George Tenet, not Clinton.

Second point of fact. Clinton approved every “snatch” job that was presented to him in attempts to capture terrorists.

Add this as food for thought in addition to the mountains already presented.

Just because Clinton had an affair doesn’t mean he took his job less seriously. Many could benefit from reading Against All Enemies.

-Tom B.

Posted by: Tom B at September 14, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #181354

Tom B

I think the view then was that the first WTC bombing was a criminal act. If Clinton wanted OBL dead, he’d be pushing daisies up now I think.

We can still get him now, but the Paks won’t move in.

Politically, if the president shifts say 8,000 troops from Iraq to the Pak border, he’d pick up 5 points in the polls.

By the way, according to Gallup, the president IS picking up steam.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #181359

Why are we still trying to change HISTORY?

Whatever Clinton\Democrats did or didn’t do, whatever the Republicans did or didn’t do prior 9\11, has been re-hashed to the point of stupidity. We can’t change ANYTHING about the past.

We need to stop slinging mud at each other. Instead we should be trying to find some kind of bi-partisan compromise so we can actually try to work together.

Anyone have any positve suggestions on… say: Iraq; Iran: our economy; transportation; taxes; Health Care; and on and on…

I certainly hope so. ‘Cause if we can’t do the job together, we’ll never it it done.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 14, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #181363

SE-
It is a criminal act. It’s kind of pointless to think otherwise. Before 9/11, though, Clinton believed something that Bush did not: That this represented a National Security threat.

Bush is resorting to what I might call the tried and untrue methods of dealing with terrorism. What he and you don’t realize is that al-Qaeda grew up in a tough neighborhood, where human rights and human life did not have such value. They are expecting to be tortured, to be treated without mercy. I mean, when you complain about the governments of the region, do you consider that this is their home environment?

What they are not used to is our system, and it can be remarkably effective if we just optimize it. These are human beings who grow up in a culture. Now you take anybody and put them through the right experiences, and they can become a killer. We do that with soldiers. You take the fanaticism far enough, you get people like the 19 who attacked us on 9/11.

But people are varied, and everybody has their weakness. For some, it may be pride. They’ll tell you if you pump their ego up enough. For some it may be porno, forbidden fruit for them, but available at the corner store racks beside the apples here! For some, there’s a shred of humanity left that we can appeal to. For others there is piety, and others the love of a family member.

And sometimes, it’s just good old fashion politics. One guy informed on them with us because he disliked the direction they took with 9/11.

Point is, these people are like us, and because of that, we have weapons against them that only require us to be a more refined version of what we already are. In some cases we can and should turn to darkside measures, but we should keep that back until other measures have been given a fair chance, because the more we betray ourselves by using them, the more we create both a false sense of security, and a false sense of superiority.

Once we’ve gone to the dark side enough, people won’t be able to tell the difference, and since we are a civilized country and not a band of terrorists, our society, the power it’s enabled us to acheived, and our reputation as a nation, will all suffer much more than theirs. After all, they’re only thugs. We’re expected to be better than that, and rightly so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #181366

Stephen,

It’s a shame that some people just can’t wrap their head around the fact that there are evil people in the world. The 19 misguided boys that slit flight attendants throats and flew planes into buildings did live among us and still did it.

Posted by: Keith at September 14, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #181398

Keith

“The 19 misguided boys “…you’re kidding, right?

I suppose they belonged at Father Flannigan’s Boy’s Town, right?

These guys were TRAINED killers..psychopaths…and they are burning in the fires of hell right now, where they belong.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 15, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #181418


It amazes me that, an ex 82nd airborne paratrooper who believes there’s a better way to control the actions in Iraq, is referred to as aiding the enemy when he disagrees with this administration. An administration headed up by a president who has had three months military training in the United States with a vice president who got 5 military deferrals while going to collage. I, who, believe the Iraq war was a huge mistake from the very beginning, have been accused of being a cut and runner, coward, traitor., etc. just because I believe there’s a much better to manage this mess in Iraq.
And the liberal media goes along with the Bush/Cheney doctrine to smear your opponents.

Posted by: John at September 15, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #181435

Keith, SE-
We build them up into monsters, cut them down into beasts, and arraying our defenses against them with such ideas we forget they have the thought capacity and moral complexity of any human being out there.

It doesn’t mean some of these people aren’t evil. I doesn’t mean that these people haven’t given themselves over to the dark side for what they see as good reasons, and now must be stopped. If you ask me whether we should just try and be understanding, I would ask you where we’re being asked to understand them.

In the field, where we’re confronting their actions, I’d say you just stop them, regardless of whether you consider them demons in the flesh or misguided boys from Father Flanagans. In that, my views are fairly simple, and need no moral qualification.

That said, there are two things we must consider: Our enemies are human beings. That makes them imperfect. Their memories are what we are after, their knowledge of what’s going on. Torture sometimes gets you what you need to know, but unfortunately, in situations where you’re relying on their word for the most part, you’re taking gamble, with the resources of the country, with the reputation, and finally with the very information you’re looking to get.

Torture is known to distort or sometimes induce complete confabulation of information. People who are tortured are highly suggestible, and worse, they can end up believing what you tortured them into admitting, at the cost of of what you really need to find out.

The other thing we need to consider, is that we are imperfect. The very thing that makes the inaccuracy and confabulation of torture-wrought information such a dangers is the fact that we do not always know everything. Often, we know barely anything, so false leads become a dangerous waste of time.

From a moral standpoint, this can lead us to become callous and hateful to pain and suffering in a Democracy where the value of human life and liberty is of paramount importance. Worse still, it undermines a key principle in our understanding of the law, and of human nature.

We can be mistaken in our selection of suspects. The innocent can be made to confess to things they didn’t do through torture, and because of its nature, the taint of that confession can never be undone. You’ll always have some jerk using that torture-derived confession to claim the person is a terrorist. The psychological damage of the torture, inflicted on an innocent person, is a crime in and of itself.

Torture just isn’t worth it. Good old-fashioned detective work and intelligent interrogation techniques will do better for us. Moreover, they will not leave nagging questions of actual guilt, nor will they endanger American lives by causing suspects to feed us information that wastes our time, our resources, and leads us to inflict the same injustice on other innocents.

In the end, what this is about is fear of the unknown. The Republicans here, at the end of the day, are scared witless about the prospect of letting yet another band of terrorists attack, and they believe that if they get tough enough, ignore enough of the rules, and destroy the right threats, that they they can rest easy again, fully in control.

We’re only human. We can’t and won’t know everything. One day, we will get attacked again, even if we do our absolute best. There’s no perfect defense, there’s no perfect offense. The rule breaking that Bush’s supporters constantly rationalize won’t even likely protect us any better than the use of conventional methods. Worse yet, we will become use to using such methods, believers in the superiority of them, as we toss out years of experience as to exactly why we stopped using such methods.

It won’t make us omniscient, it won’t make us omnipotent. It will only debase us, and leave terrorists with the victory of us having lowered our nation to fight in the filth with them on their terms.

This panick-driven disregard for life, liberty, and humanity only serves to vindicate the efforts and the opinions of our attackers. It doesn’t protect us. It fulfills the slanders of our enemies, and in fact is likely one of the things they mean to drive us to. They want us to become amoral, because then they can drum up support among those who will excuse their amoral behavior on account of ours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #181462

Stephen,
“We do have a plan to deal with the enemy. It’s called the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It’s called listening to what the experts are telling us to do, rather than blowing them off because they didn’t believe that Iraq B.S.”


Really?! Yet, when a movie comes out (Path to 9/11), based on findings from the 9/11 Commission Report, you dismiss it to the utmost; mainly b/c it exposed Clinton more than Bush.


“I read the stuff on this site and it’s about throwing around terms and plans that seem to be intent on drawing us into a region-wide war, under claims that this is already WWIII, and that we have a clear enemy in the “Islamofascists.”“


That’s correct. They are Islamofascists and we are heading into a WWIII if the “Anti-Bush” crowd continues to fight the US rather than the “real” enemy!


“It’s a category in search of a reality, just as yours is a policy in search of an excuse to escalate and expand the war.”


Wrong! I want to end this war by combating and “defeating” the enemy; and that enemy is Islamofascism!!

“Meanwhile, followers of Bin Laden around the world easily manage to bomb and blast and kill, unimpeded by much of Bush’s policies, emboldened by Bush’s failure to establish law and order in Iraq.”


They certainly haven’t bombed and killed “easily”, here in the US, in the past 5 years; thanks to Bush’s policies.


“Iraq has become the central battle in the War on Terror because Bush screwed up. Unless you face up to that fact, you’re only going to dig us in deeper.”


The correct fact is that Iraq has become the central battle in the War of Terror. Bush didn’t screw up with Iraq; he finally dealt w/ Saddam and let the world know that we wouldn’t bow down to the corrupt UN.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 15, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #181466

Stephen

I don’t consider playiing the Red Hot Chili Peppers music loud or sleep depravation as torture…which is what Human Right Watch considers torture.

To me, torture is ripping out fingernails, using thumb screws or beheadings.

Thus we get slammed world wide for putting panties on a suspect’s head, while Americans get their heads chopped off.

This torture thing is a red herring, oure and simple.

Consider the following: Blowtorching Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima during WWII, the firebombing of Dreisden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…if happened today would instantly make the leader who ordered such a war criminal and the state who did that a rogue state.

Two nights ago, US forces had the opportunity to blow awy 100 Taliban at a cemetart but rules of engagement prevented that. Thus, for the two months or so that it will take the rules to be changed, if I were a Taliban, I’d have every meeting at a cemetary as I know I would be safe there.

Meanwhile, car bombs explode killing women and children, and beheadings continue.

A war is just that…war. If 75 Marines are killed in Ramadi, then the city should be leveled. The next city that revolts would think twice.

We tie the hands of the best military in the history of the world and then tell them to fight the enemy…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #181469

Dave1-20-09,

How cool that your handle commemorates the very day the next Republican President will be sworn in!! My hat’s off to ya!

Posted by: Duane-o at September 15, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #181487

Rahdigly-
Get a copy of the Commission’s report, and turn to page four. On that page, you will find that Mohammed Atta got on a U.S. Airways flight in Portland going express to Boston, despite the fact that the CAPPS screening software had flagged him. The text explains that the only thing that this meant was that his luggage was kept off the plane until they learned he had boarded as well.

The Movie depicts this incident as happening on and American Airline’s flight from Boston’s Logan Airport, and the screeners were depicted as having the power to keep him off the flight on basis of the CAPPS flag.

Did I mention the completely fictional scene where we had Sandy Berger freezing up while manly CIA agents and Northern Alliance Soldiers had Bin Laden in their sights?

The Movie is unfaithful to the facts, and worse takes a partisan viewpoint with the purposefully bipartisan commission’s report as cover. The report itself explicitly- explicitly- spreads the blame, with neither Clinton nor Bush singled out.

There is no such thing as an Islamofascist. It covers anybody who is Islamic and who has a nondemocratic government, which really doesn’t narrow things down in the unfortunately authoritarian middle East. It doesn’t distinguish between people who have been enemies and rivals for centuries. I have no use for brainless labels that paper over crucial differences in the Middle East.

As for WWIII? You might as well call it WWVI. If you’re going to be that loose about it, WWII is going to have a lot of weak little sequels running around. Your folks lack a decent sense of scale, of history. Calling this WWIII cheapens everything that defined WWII as a global conflict, however much it strokes the egos of the Neoconservatives who got us into this mess, and the Bush supporters who keep us there.

The truth is, your people have no idea of how to really defeat the enemy. The fact that your strategies rely on attrition and open warfare when the enemies relies on stealth, infiltration, and guerilla tactics demonstrates that. This WWIII crap just shows how off the mark you are in your focus. This Islamofascism crap, which lets you myopically lump the whole Middle East together as a single enemy shows just how little you understand your enemy.

You’re trying to wrap yourself in the glory of WWII, and name yourselves the new Greatest Generation, but you in the end, you’re using the wrong tactics for the wrong fight.

As for your five year period of peace, it doesn’t mean anything after 9/11, which took place 8 years after the WTC bombing. They haven’t ceased to attack our allies overseas. They haven’t ceased their operations in Afghanistan to restore their base of operations. Bin Laden isn’t dead or captured, and right now al-Qaeda owns a province in Iraq we should have owned three years ago. Meanwhile, almost none of the recommendations of the Commissions made about sealing up the holes in our security have been carried out.

As for Saddam? We may have ended up trading the latest model of the Kaiser for the next Hitler here. If you want to learn anything real from WWII, learn that the way in which you dispose of a tyrant is crucial to preventing them or their successors from returning. It’s irresponsible to clamor for credit for destroying a dictator, while you’ve failed to replace his government with something you can leave to itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #181495
I think the view then was that the first WTC bombing was a criminal act. If Clinton wanted OBL dead, he’d be pushing daisies up now I think. Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 09:29 PM
It was only a matter of time before righty would start blaming Clinton for the mess in Iraq.

Duaneo
Keep dreaming. After all; since reality has no place in Republican politics this should be comfortable place to be.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 15, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #181502

SE-
Well, if you don’t consider these things torture, then why don’t you volunteer to be put in restraints and subject yourselves to these things. What? No fan of having loud music played in your ear for hours on end? Not feeling too well after day upon day of being kept awake?

Torture doesn’t have to be the kind of stuff you see on Braveheart. All it has to be is an ordeal. Maybe having panties pulled over your head might be fun for you, but how about a jockstrap that’s been soiled or worse? I know having a beautiful woman drape herself on you might not be a problem, but how about some guy?

The distinction here is between stuff that is merely uncomfortable, and crap that creates intense pain, psychological distress, which deeply humiliates and offends the person’s sensibilities. These “torture-lite” measures aren’t as harmless as they seem to be.

What you and others on the right wing fail to register is that torture is about dominance, control. It’s unreliable as a means to gain the truth for just those reasons. The biases of the investigator are fare more likely to skew or obscure the facts the suspect knows, and if you’re using torture to determine innocence or guilt, then the person in question will inevitably give the response one wants to hear, rather than the truth.

On the subject of war atrocities, tell me something: did all the atrocities Germany and Japan commit help them win the war? If what you want is a race to the bottom, we can’t win that. In the case of the Taliban, you could have just shot them on their way back or something, or picked another location.

As for destroying Ramadi? It’s the mission that ties your hands. If your intent is to burn, destroy, and pillage, go ahead. If your intent is to enlist folk’s submission afterwards, you’ve probably just added to a list of martyrs to avenge.

Our military is the best military in the world because it doesn’t have to do stupid crap like that. They don’t have to act like a bunch of inhuman thugs like some of our enemies do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #181514

Stephen,
“Get a copy of the Commission’s report, and turn to page four.”


I already have a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and I’ve read it. That movie was pretty right on in regards to the events leading up to that day. It certainly represented the truth better than “farenheit 9/11”; a movie you have yet to admit whether or not you think it’s fiction or not. It’s a shame, b/c, even though your ideology is different from others on this blog, you’ve always been a stand up blogger. Oh well, I guess this movie irritated you as much as it did to Clinton.


“There is no such thing as an Islamofascist… As for WWIII?… If you’re going to be that loose about it, WWII is going to have a lot of weak little sequels running around.”


Ok, by that rationale, we shouldn’t call Hitler’s regime “Nazis”. If you say Nazi then you’re labeling all Germans. That’s so weak and pathetic! No thy enemy and stop trying to cover it up; they’re islamofascists and they must be stopped!!


“The truth is, your people have no idea of how to really defeat the enemy.”


Yes we do. Not only that, we know who the real enemy is; hint, it’s not America or Americans. We’re not going to defend the enemy and give them rights; that’s one way of defeating the enemy. Another way is to let our military fight them without the “yellow journalism” from the media.


“You’re trying to wrap yourself in the glory of WWII, and name yourselves the new Greatest Generation, but you in the end, you’re using the wrong tactics for the wrong fight.”

The (despicable) media and anti-war crowd won’t let this generation be the “greatest”; in fact, if they were there in WWII, the WWII generation wouldn’t be the “greatest” either, they would be considered “war criminals” and “being just like the enemy”. Whatever.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 15, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #181517

Stephen,

I believe you’re a trained pycologist/pschiatrist. Isn’t there a term for someone who could read a document like the 9/11 report and come away with an interpretation that supports their own preconcieved notions rather that the ones actually included in the report?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 15, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #181530

While the Clinton administration was trying to interest a Republican Congress in dealing with the world outside Washington that Congress was more interested in blowjobs than in combatting terrorism.

Here we are, 5 years into a failed adminsitration and GWB still says that OBL isn’t that big of a deal to him.

Time to get over yourselves. When History judges the two Presidents yours will be held truly wanting.

Posted by: grumps at September 15, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #181532

SE,

To me, torture is ripping out fingernails, using thumb screws or beheadings.

I dunno for the others, but beheading is a very ineffective way to torture someone. But kill.

Thus we get slammed world wide for putting panties on a suspect’s head, while Americans get their heads chopped off.

And putting shit on a suspect’s head and putting a second suspect genital parts in the first one’s mouth and beating them and sarving them and waterboarding them and rape them and whatelse we would never know, thanks to secret CIA prisons all
over the world…

Yeah, how could the rest of the world be shocked!?

Oh, BTW, nobody said beheading americans was not barbarious. But a wrong doesn’t make another wrong right, sorry, doesn’t works like that.

Consider the following: Blowtorching Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima during WWII, the firebombing of Dreisden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…if happened today would instantly make the leader who ordered such a war criminal and the state who did that a rogue state.

Yes. And do you know why? 4th Geneva Convention. It happened *after* these WWII events, in 1949. In the hope to raise standards for international law of war for humanitarian concerns. Does US ratified it or not?
Oh yes, I think they did!
Does US should honor treaties they ratified?
Oh yes, I think they should!

Or face the consequencies. Well, it’s starting already…

Meanwhile, car bombs explode killing women and children, and beheadings continue.

Remember, terrorists are supposed to be worst than us/you. Try to keep it that way if you dont want to lost any moral high ground left. And I’m not talking yet about winning the hearts and minds…

A war is just that…war. If 75 Marines are killed in Ramadi, then the city should be leveled. The next city that revolts would think twice.

The next cities, twice bigger, will still revolts. Because you leveled their relative in the first city. That’s called resistance. The more you press, the harder it is.

We tie the hands of the best military in the history of the world and then tell them to fight the enemy…..

It’s too early to say “in the history of the world”. Until, it’s quite arrogant and could be even dangerously overestimating. Ask Israel’s Tsahal, they know knew better.

Last but not least, by your logic Iraq and Afghanistan should have been carpet bombed, white phosphored and eventually nuked. Twice. As Iran and North Korea. And France for so vocally oppose Iraq War. Right?

Because, afterall, what the point to have any rules of engagment in war time, hum? By instinct you and me we know the best solution is to use the most effective and riskless tool to kill them all as fast and as much as possible. For US, that would be air nuclear strikes, no doubt.

Wonder why you’re not openly advocate it, though.
It will make way more sense than just asking to relax some troops ROE which won’t protect ever them totally and enough from enemy lost bullets. Be a man, SE/Dr Strangelove, follow your logic to its end: WMDs in Iraq.
Finally Bush will be right!

How ironic.

Now, excuse me, I really need to vomit.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #181552

There’s yet another example of Islamists reacting irrational and unjustly over “disagreements” with what the Pope said. Do they actually think we’re going to take them seriously when they act like animals?!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 15, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #181571

Does anyone here know a man or woman that is currently serving our country in this fight against terror? I have 2 family members who are in Iraq right now and I feel that the trash talking about why we are over there is doing nothing but sending the wrong message to our troops. We could fight all day about who was wrong, Clinton or Bush in the OBL debate…the point is, we need to support our men and women who are following orders to instill liberty in a country who has not known the kind of freedoms that we have in this country. This has become a humanitarian effort to save the people of Iraq from a dictatorship and tyrantical gov’t. It is the right thing to do no matter what the reasons were that got us there to begin with.

Posted by: Becky at September 15, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #181587

Becky:

And yet, now we have allowed a terrorist(Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) to come to power in Iraq. A jihadist terrorist, part of an orgnization (al-Dawa) which is oppressing the Sunni population and which has a known history of attacking the west using terrorist tactics (the 1983 bombing of the US and French Embassies in Kuwait). Are these the ideals your relatives are over there fighting for, or would they be as horrified by these facts as we are?

If we really want to make this a humanitarian effort, we need to start understanding the Iraqi people AS people. As individual human beings with cultures and histories that we need to understand before we try to impose our own way of doing things on them. We also need to understand the factions well enough not to allow terrorists to use this opportunity to come to power. Those are the things that need to be done if your relatives missions are really going to be a success in Iraq, and those are the things this administration has abysmally failed to do.

Posted by: Jarin at September 15, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #181589

Jarin

Quick question:

Didn’t the British view Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the Continential Congress, whuch advocated the violent overthrow of the British governmet in America….as terrorists?

Just thought I’d ask

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 15, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #181600

“Didn’t the British view Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the Continential Congress, whuch advocated the violent overthrow of the British governmet in America….as terrorists?” Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 15, 2006 04:02 PM

No.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 15, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #181621

SE,

This is a preposterous attempt to attribute 9/11 in some way with Clinton. Who was it that instigated the Lewinski distraction in the first place?

Clinton had weekly meetings on countering terrorism. Bush discontinued those and pulled anti-terror funding prior to 9/11. Bush had 9 months during which time we had in our posession all the pieces of the intelligence puzzle to know what could happen and who in the country to pull it off.

This republican B.S. about trying to pin it on Clinton is as preposterous as it is dishonest.

The only people buying this bile are the ones already predisposed to do or say anything to discredit the democrats or help the republicans even if it means turning a blind eye to treason (Plamegate).

GET REAL

Posted by: RGF at September 15, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #181628

Rahdigly-
No sir, you don’t get a pass on this. Tell me: are the facts presented in The Path to 9/11 concerning the first flight that Mohammed Atta and others took from Portland wrong or are they right? Are the facts about how we supposedly lost Bin Laden in it’s climactic scene for the Miniseries’ first part made up, or are they true?

If you’re honest, you will admit they are not, as the makers of the film have. I trust you are honest.

Additionally, Farenheit 9/11 could be every bit the pack of lies you claim it to be, and it would still be irrelevant to the truth of Path to 9/11, or to the right and wrong of its confabulations.

Moreover, I long ago sent you that link to Moore’s site, where he backs up his claims line by line. That’s an implicit argument that it’s non-fiction, and that I think it’s claims stand up to scrutiny. I think he reaches on some of his interpretations, but Moores documentaries are opinion pieces, and opinion pieces fall under the rubric of non fiction. Path to 9/11 could be forgiven for being fictional in its details, except those marketing the movies are marketing it as if its a definitive adaptation of its source, and a truthful one at that. Because of its claims to represent the truth, it’s held up to standards of such.

As for Islamofascists and Nazis. Let me point out one eensy-weensy little distinction here: Nazis actually called themselves Nazis. It wasn’t just some grab-bag term invented so one could toss practically the whole Middle East in one bag, it was the actual nickname of the National Socialist Workers Party, which did indeed exist. Hell, the Fascists actually existed! That was the actual name of Benito Mussolini’s party!

But is their any such thing as the Islamofascist party? No. There are Islamist parties, to be sure, and Arab Socialist/Baathist parties, but Islamofascists? That’s an externally applied label which has no corresponding party or political movement to actually call its own.

When you say, “Islamofascists must be stopped!”, I have to actually stop to wonder who you’re talking about. Are you talking about al-Qaeda, or the Saudi Royals? Are you talking about the Theocracy in Iran, or the secular Arab Socialists in Iraq? Are you talking about the Radical Islamists of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, or the Socialists of Mubharak’s government there?

Who are we really talking about when we talk about Islamofascists, and then why must we defeat them? I can understand a call to defeat the Radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, and terrorist groups that it franchises out. No doubt, putting a stop to them is a priority for America.

So too is ending support for the suppression of Democracy in the Middle East. But that’s a distinct, although somewhat related issue. We don’t need to talk of Islamofascism, because often, the theocratic elements and the fascist/authoritarian elements don’t really mix. Lumping them in together conflates two different social groups with different agendas.

You can blame the journalists and the media for the failures you’ve had so far, but most Americans will lay blame with the management rather than the messenger. The man who lead your war effort not only didn’t plan for a postwar occupation, he didn’t even allow for such a plan to be written up by others He explicitly forbade the one thing that could have brought this war to a true end.

It’s sad that you continue to blame the media for the lack of greatness in this generation, in your government. It’s sad that you can feed us that stuff about personal responsibility elsewhere, then point to the screw-ups of Iraq and say its just bad press. If it were just bad press, your policies would have worked by now, and your president would have been vindicated. If the president is truly so worried about his political skin that he’s holding back the policy necessary to win the war at this late date, then he’s an absolute coward, and in no way deserves to be termed a bold leader. Bold Leaders do the right thing regardless of what it costs them. If Bush can boldly invade, but not boldly win, is it not reasonable to believe that his previous boldness was just that of a poseur who thought nobody would call his bluff.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #181632

“Didn’t the British view Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the Continential Congress, whuch advocated the violent overthrow of the British governmet in America….as terrorists?”

Yes. And it begs the question doesn’t it? What if King George had actually sent reinforcements to help Cornwallace?

Dave1-20-09-

Maybe you need to read a little bit before you embarrass yourself. Start here:

http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Sangam3_2_01.htm

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 15, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #181720

Kevin,

I read your link. Did you? The “American Revolutionaries were terrorists” is a recent quote, not from the 18th century. It refers to the new GB terrorism laws.
C’mon, you gotta do better than that before you try to insult someone and simply embarass yourself. Have something real?
BTW: SE’s loaded question wasn’t even worth answering, just seemed like easy fun.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 15, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #181747

Is sicilian Beagle playing dumb? is he for real? Are you still blaming clinton for everything? Do you think people take the stuff you write seriously? Do you have a job? If there is another attack in NYC, who will be to blame? Clinton? The democratic minority in both houses? The mayor? Do you really believe the s*** that you write? I still cant believe that you do. Im amazed by you, delusions, delusions.

Posted by: truth at September 16, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #181796

Lets us not forget that one of the reasons he was pre-occupied with Monica Lewinsky affair was the Republican House was impeaching him. This distracted the whole country.

According to the one percent doctrine by Ron Suskind - The intellegence agencey saw this threat in the early 90’s - SE your quotes are accurate, but could not imagine that some roque madman was really a threat. It was ignored as not being serious.

GW Bush had his warnings as well. Richard Clark also mentions that in the transition meetings from Clinton to Bush, the Al-qaeada warnings were not taken seriously. We all saw the Report “Bin-Laden determined to attack the US”

We all dropped the ball on this. Clinton does deserve his share of the blame. He did not see the threat, did not act - Lewinskt or not. Richard Clark blamed him in his book. But it was a failure throughout the government. The intellegence agencies failed and GW failed too.

It was a Government intellegence failure of group think, false sense of security and lack of imagination. We were just coming out of the cold war and could not perceive the new world and threats we were entering.

Blaming one person is scape -goating. A tough lesson learned…

Posted by: Stefano at September 16, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #181840

SE:

Jarin

Quick question:

Didn’t the British view Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the Continential Congress, whuch advocated the violent overthrow of the British governmet in America….as terrorists?

Just thought I’d ask

Cute question, but utterly irrelevant. Of course the British viewed them that way. France did not. However, the WEST viewed al-Dawa as terrorists, not just Iraq. Al-Dawa struck against US and French targets in Kuwait, not just Iraqi targets. If the US had, in its war for independence, struck at the installations and citizens of uninvolved nations, you might actually have a point. It did not, it actively used diplomacy to seek aid from other uninvolved nations. Also, you might have a point if the early US government was created specifically to replace a secular government with a theocratic one as part of a “holy war”. It was not.

Posted by: Jarin at September 16, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #182057

Dave(some date)-

They just used a different word. You didn’t get that? It was kinda the point.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 17, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #182224

Kevin,

The article had nothing to do with redefining the term “terrorist” for American revolutionaries. At the time we were viewed as “rebelious colonials”. We didn’t use the tactics of terror, we weren’t called “terrorists”, which had been in the vernacular at the time. You can read into the article what you want but don’t be a Republican and redefine terms for selfish purposes.
However, I’ll be happy to appologize if you correct me and give the direct and explicit quotes where 18th century Britain commonly labeled the colonial revolutionaries as “terrorists”.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 18, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #182458

They just didn’t use the word “terrorist” …how many times should I say it? You read it, so you should know the point was to show that it is very parallel to the war on “terror” today. Just not in name.

You keep getting stuck on a non-point.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 19, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #182460

9-11 happend under G.W. not Clinton, the right was so blinded by hate for Clinton that they didn’t say one word about Osama either!!! They saw the samething as everyone else. If u blame Clinton for 9-11 then u got to blame George senior for the first WTC bombing!!!

Posted by: jim conway at September 19, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #182598

Kevin,

If you’re talking about the politics of demonization of an enemy, then we agree. But the GOPer theft of language to their advantage in distracting the uninformed is a personal sore point.
I still respect language, even if I don’t always use it well. That is why I took umbrage with articles like your sangam link. Our current enemy uses terrorism as their political strategy. Therefore, they are terrorists. Making unfounded links is irritating.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 19, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #182629

Dave-

I am not sure how you find the sangum article an “unfounded link”, but I rather enjoyed the idea of these framers of British legislation going through the exact same thought processes that we are. The parallels are clear, and we have now decided to call it “terrorism” because of the use of “terror” as the means to a desired end. If you can define “terror” for me in any meaningful way that contradicts how the British viewed rebel colonists who took up arms, then I’ll concede that the word is distinct in its current use. But the idea is the same. The reality is that no nation can agree on exactly what “terrorism” is. Therefore, we are forced to draw parallels as the only way to flush out any kind of meaning. And my link does exactly that. Example:

“The relatively innocuous Boston Tea Party, where the Americans threw out some tea chests belonging to the British East India Company into the waters of Boston harbor [16 Dec 1773], too would have been characterized as terrorism under this new law. Well, this is not surprising. Back then the British did call that also with an synonym for terrorism.”

I apologize if your love for language got in the way of a common sense analysis. I think we agree on everything except in the answer to SI’s question, which, I believe was very much worth answering, and answering well. I know you disagree…we’ll leave it at that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 19, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #185195

Clinton heard, and tried frequently to enact anti-terrorism measures, like the 1997 Anti-terrorism bill and the $2.8 billion he budgeted for defense against chemical or germ attacks by terrorists by 1999…except that the Republicans fought him tooth and nail. They called his efforts unconstitutional; no less a notable politician than Porter Goss said that we should not give up our civil liberties for security and, in his words, terrorism was something we had to live with. Their biggest gripe about Clinton’s bill: his desire for warrantless wiretapping.

“But”, some have said, “Bill Clinton didn’t do anything to avenge the attack on the USS Cole!” Think about it for a minute—neither did President Bush. Exactly what anti-terrorism measures did he take before 9/11? Zero. And the Bush administration even threatened to cut the anti-terrorism budget. Most notably, John Ashcroft wanted it cut so the money could be funnelled into domestic law enforcement.

Posted by: Danny Adams at September 29, 2006 6:44 PM
Post a comment