Grade the Prez: Heres your chance

[BigRob]

then ask yourself why when he did the reblicans went after him for it. He attacked Bin Ladin, and they cried wag the dog, as if he was not a real threat. Clinton and his teams talked to Bush about the need to go after him and how he was the biggest security risk to the US, Bush did nothing. The Afghanistan orig plans where based in part on plans Clinton had drawn up, but of course had he tried to do them, we know what republican reaction would have been...talk about Monica more and try to discredit the idea as more wag the dog.

Sudan offered him up, Clinton said no thanks. Also, Clinton did do a lot to try to bring down Bin Laden, I do give him credit when it is due.

I would have supported Afghanistan regardless of who the President was.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The point most people make when saying there have been no new terrorist attacks is to point out that there have been none here in the United States. By going after the terrorists they are unable to carry out major attacks and are reduced to running supply boats into ships, or planting an IED. Hardly anything the scale of 9/11.

and its a dumb point as they had not attacked since 1992 before that, so the net gain of lack of large attacks on US soil is still at Zero till.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And andy again, the Intel was wrong, Bush acted on it. His intel was also known to be wrong and still used. As stated many times, some of the Intel bush used, I knew the be bad intel, so it goes back to are they dumb or did they not care? And blah blah blah Clinton....I dont care about Clinton, I dont like him, and we are talking about Bush and how you could have said he did A work pre bail out. When I see 8 years of failed policies, and a CIA Leak that still to this day pisses me off to no end...( and Bushs letting Libby off for his lies about it)

 

[BigRob]

and its a dumb point as they had not attacked since 1992 before that, so the net gain of lack of large attacks on US soil is still at Zero till.

Well a big rallying cry for Bin Laden did not even come until 1990 when Saudi Arabia refused his offer of protection and instead brought in American soldiers, which on Saudi soil is a "desecration."

So the time-frame in question is really not a long frame to really examine to try to get a handle on the reasoning behind attacks and targets.

That aside, on to your point. You also have to account for they really did not have a stable base of operations until arriving in Afghanistan where they could plan attacks in relative security. I think saying Bush was a success because they have not attacked on US soil again is short-sighted, but I give credit to Bush for weakening their organizational ability and killing many of their leaders and recruiters.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Sudan offered him up, Clinton said no thanks. Also, Clinton did do a lot to try to bring down Bin Laden, I do give him credit when it is due.

I would have supported Afghanistan regardless of who the President was.

well the vast majority of people would have not, even more so most Republicans.

Also Clinton did say no to that offer yes, but 2 things. one they did not even actuly have him they just offered to arrest him...nice but CLinton and the white house at the time tried to get enough evidence to indict him in U.S. courts. when they where not able to do that. Without being able to indict him it would have done no good. While it would be nice just have had him sent here and killed, pre Bush we had laws about having to actuly indict someone for there crimes before punishment.

 

[BigRob]

well the vast majority of people would have not, even more so most Republicans.

Also Clinton did say no to that offer yes, but 2 things. one they did not even actuly have him they just offered to arrest him...nice but CLinton and the white house at the time tried to get enough evidence to indict him in U.S. courts. when they where not able to do that. Without being able to indict him it would have done no good. While it would be nice just have had him sent here and killed, pre Bush we had laws about having to actuly indict someone for there crimes before punishment.

We could have put him in the rendition program. Clinton started that you know. There is always a loophole. In hindsight it seems we should have taken it. However hindsight is hindsight, and means little.

 

[Andy]

and its a dumb point as they had not attacked since 1992 before that, so the net gain of lack of large attacks on US soil is still at Zero till.

But clearly they had gained the ability to cause large scale attacks, and obviously that didn't happen in 6 months. You really don't think that if Clinton had wages an all out war against terrorism, in the 8 years prior to 9/11, that it would not likely have happened?

See, to me, the logical result of a wimpy "convict the peon sent to bomb WTC" in 1993, resulted in 9/11. If they had cut off the snakes head 8 years prior, 9/11 would never have happened. That's my view.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We could have put him in the rendition program. Clinton started that you know. There is always a loophole. In hindsight it seems we should have taken it. However hindsight is hindsight, and means little.

we actuly tried, no one would take him.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

But clearly they had gained the ability to cause large scale attacks, and obviously that didn't happen in 6 months. You really don't think that if Clinton had wages an all out war against terrorism, in the 8 years prior to 9/11, that it would not likely have happened?

See, to me, the logical result of a wimpy "convict the peon sent to bomb WTC" in 1993, resulted in 9/11. If they had cut off the snakes head 8 years prior, 9/11 would never have happened. That's my view.

becuse we all know how much the republican party pushed for that, and all the hard work Bush put in on that, before Sept 11.....

 

[Andy]

becuse we all know how much the republican party pushed for that, and all the hard work Bush put in on that, before Sept 11.....

The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

Uh, yeah, they did push for it. You act like Bush didn't do anything before 9/11 or that he had years and years to plan before the attack. Neither is true.

 

[Andy]

we actuly tried, no one would take him.

We didn't need someone to take him. WE should have taken him. But of course Clinton wanted to tread terrorist acts, like a convenience store robbing, and thought we needed criminal investigation evidence against him. Since we didn't have evidence like that, we "needed to find someone to take him". Buzz.... wrong answer, and thousands died to show that.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We didn't need someone to take him. WE should have taken him. But of course Clinton wanted to tread terrorist acts, like a convenience store robbing, and thought we needed criminal investigation evidence against him. Since we didn't have evidence like that, we "needed to find someone to take him". Buzz.... wrong answer, and thousands died to show that.

Take him and do what? Justice Dept said we did not have the evidence needed to do anything. So what would your grand idea be?

 

[BigRob]

Take him and do what? Justice Dept said we did not have the evidence needed to do anything. So what would your grand idea be?

Shoot him?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Shoot him?

and on what part of our legal system do we have that? where have a goverment send us someone , and we just shoot them, with no trial?

its a nice idea, so long as you dont care about laws and all that stuff....

 

[Bunz]

Hi Folks,
Sorry I have been largely away for a few days dealing with some other issues. So Ill do my best to catch up and address some posts here.

Firstly, I found this one from Rob to be quite telling. This one will come back to bite on a few arguments.

It does not matter who supported it, the policy was bad.