Bill Clinton addressing '9/11 conspiracy' hecklers in Minnesota. - Page 5

PLOlover · #41 10-28-2007, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How about attempting to assassinate a former President?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure this was made up, same as the totally fabricated iraqis throwing kuwaiti babies out of incubators.

slickss · #42 10-28-2007, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
These conspiracy hecklers give him a free pass over his real failures, so he loves them.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I do see your point, I have the impression that Bill Clinton is pretty good at facing questions about and answering for any actions during his presidency (Lewinsky aside) - especially if compared to the awkward responses of President Bush on tough questions.

boracay · #43 10-28-2007, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's more to the story than merely what the president could have done. Intelligence failures happened across the board in areas that neither Bush nor Clinton would have ever had time to address even if terror was their top priority. Clinton was distracted by Saddam too if you remember (as well as other issues), and ordered extremely weak responses to several terror attacks during his stay in office. You can't place the blame exclusively on either of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to some point. What i wanted to say is that:
Fighting against terrorism was NEVER a top priority for this administration.
Catching Osama was NEVER a top priority for this administration.
Attacking Iraq was ALWAYS a top priority for this administration.
War on terror is a myth.

PLOlover · #44 10-28-2007, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Catching Osama was NEVER a top priority for this administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

commanding general in afgan (3 star centcom) said on radio show (stan monteith) that the mission in afgan was overthrowing taliban government and getting bin laden was *not* part of the mission. at all.

vhawk01 · #45 10-28-2007, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's more to the story than merely what the president could have done. Intelligence failures happened across the board in areas that neither Bush nor Clinton would have ever had time to address even if terror was their top priority. Clinton was distracted by Saddam too if you remember (as well as other issues), and ordered extremely weak responses to several terror attacks during his stay in office. You can't place the blame exclusively on either of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that isn't even considering the fact that if any president had decided to make terrorism any of his top 20 priorities he was a complete moron and should have been strung up.

iron81 · #46 10-28-2007, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catching Osama was NEVER a top priority for this administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

commanding general in afgan (3 star centcom) said on radio show (stan monteith) that the mission in afgan was overthrowing taliban government and getting bin laden was *not* part of the mission. at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
This actually makes sense because 1. Osama isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Pakistan. We can't admit that our military is after Osama in Pakistan because then the Pakistanis go ape and 2. Getting Osama is the CIA's job.

Copernicus · #47 10-29-2007, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Catching Osama was NEVER a top priority for this administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

commanding general in afgan (3 star centcom) said on radio show (stan monteith) that the mission in afgan was overthrowing taliban government and getting bin laden was *not* part of the mission. at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
This actually makes sense because 1. Osama isn't in Afghanistan, he's in Pakistan. We can't admit that our military is after Osama in Pakistan because then the Pakistanis go ape and 2. Getting Osama is the CIA's job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to that the strategic advantages that he and his protectors had once he had gone to ground, and the tremendous loss of US lives for the capture of one person, it wasnt worth it. Its far more important to restrict his movement and ability to direct the organization than it is to kill him, which would have momentary impact.

boracay · #48 10-29-2007, 04:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's more to the story than merely what the president could have done. Intelligence failures happened across the board in areas that neither Bush nor Clinton would have ever had time to address even if terror was their top priority. Clinton was distracted by Saddam too if you remember (as well as other issues), and ordered extremely weak responses to several terror attacks during his stay in office. You can't place the blame exclusively on either of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that isn't even considering the fact that if any president had decided to make war on terror any of his top 20 priorities he was a complete moron and should have been strung up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but the reality is that most presidental candidates would put so called 'war on terror' among their top 5 priorities.

boracay · #49 10-29-2007, 05:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Add to that the strategic advantages that he and his protectors had once he had gone to ground, and the tremendous loss of US lives for the capture of one person, it wasnt worth it. Its far more important to restrict his movement and ability to direct the organization than it is to kill him, which would have momentary impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basicly saying that catching a terrorist responsible for a death of a few thousand innocent Americans should not be a top priority. I guess many Americans would disagree. Moreover, this opens question what terrorist acts should be persecuted then? What would be an appropriate answer in case of bombing US embassy where very limited number of officials die then?

But ok, let's accept that it wasn't worth it. I'd believe the last thing they should do is making a superhero out of him. Contrary, they we're extremely successful in doing just that. Osama was relatively unknown terrorist before 9/11, but all the propaganda made him a supreme leader or a legend in the eyes of ten thousands extremists. AQ influence is much higher because of that and spreading around where it wasn't even present before and West is more vulnerable than ever before.

Sadly, it's a win-win combination for both parties. Extremism and Obama's cult is rising and AQ suddenly have no problems with recruiting new fanatics and US administration has opened doors for blaming them or finding acceptable reasons for their problems or Middle East policy and even as a special button for reducing liberties at home by establishing higher control over its citizens.

Dead Osama would be good for the people on both sites, but bad for both parties involved. IMO his death definitelly would not have just a momentary impact on terrorists, although i agree in case of his death a new personalized reason / enemy should be 'invented' soon by the US administration.

vhawk01 · #50 10-29-2007, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's more to the story than merely what the president could have done. Intelligence failures happened across the board in areas that neither Bush nor Clinton would have ever had time to address even if terror was their top priority. Clinton was distracted by Saddam too if you remember (as well as other issues), and ordered extremely weak responses to several terror attacks during his stay in office. You can't place the blame exclusively on either of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that isn't even considering the fact that if any president had decided to make war on terror any of his top 20 priorities he was a complete moron and should have been strung up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but the reality is that most presidental candidates would put so called 'war on terror' among their top 5 priorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, NOW. And even now its stupid. Just not as stupid as it was, because at least now if makes POLITICAL sense, even if it doesnt make practical sense.