lordhelmet recently made the following claim:



and today, offered the following to back up this claim:



questions for debate:

1. do you agree or disagree with lordhelmet's statement? why or why not?

2. was Clinton's response to al Qaeda better, worse, or essentially the same as the Bush administration's?

I agree with lh's claims absolutely, because they're...well... true.
Clinton had numerous opportunities to take Bin Laden; we were attacked numerous times during his administration; and since 9/11 no attacks have happened on American soil where as during Clintons terms we were under perpetual attack.

The reality is that military inaction has been the stalworth of the Democratic party since Truman. Clinton failed to strike back and take the fight to the terrorists on their doorstep, so they consistently brought it to us.

**side note**- when Clinton had the chance to take Bin Laden, he was actually watching golf live on a PGA course. He was warned repeatedly that he had Sandy Berger on the line... only to brush off his Airforce Aide (and the guy w/ the nuclear football) Col Robert Patterson. Gotta love those priorities...

Well, those are the right wing radio talking points, but as most know here on AD, are full of so much bull-puckey.

I think most here just ignore Lord Helmets claims on this kind of stuff, because we know most of it to be false, or deliberate half truth.

A quick search on "snopes" can tell you how full of crap the majority of those statements are.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Let us go over the reality of the world when Bush 1 took over first:

We were changing from a Cold war one main enemy type reality to a regional madman and rogue states type intelligence situation.

The task is huge. Reagan didn't have a handle on it- when Bierut Marines were killed- we did nothing- we simply pulled out. Reagan, nor his advisors, could see the future of what the coming new world paradigm would be- and for this, I don't blame him.

Bush 1 started to convert over to this way of thinking- but he had Gulf 1, and he still thought in terms of country vs country as well.

Clinton did not change Bush 1 or Reagan policy, but simply built upon it. Clinton was very pragmatic.

Somalia, Bosnia and David Koresh were all problems that were already under full swing under Bush 1, and Clinton walked into office, not even inaugurated, when these problems were already in full swing. He jumped in and had no radical or real change in policy-

From Snopes:

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.


Aevens- I expect better from you. Backing up some claims would be nice. To say he could have done more, or seen more into the future or something- this I can understand- the right wing will do anything to descredit Clinton- including, outright lying- as the evidence shows many times on this subject.

But Clinton did more than Reagan, and Bush one did more than Reagan, and Clinton was the first to recognize the problem and start changing the entire way of though about external threats- and in fact, pretty much handed GW a running program as soon as he walked into office.

Elected officials DO , as is appropriate take blame and credit for things that happened on thier watch- but in reality, most of this stuff is changing the giant monolith of American intelligence from one reality to another is a herculean task.

Even today, after 9/11, they are having problems converting over to this reality.

LH's claims are just plain right wing propaganda, and have no basis whatsoever in reality.

I think you have a increasing response of each president as the paradigm of the world order changed. There was no real change in foriegn policy from Bush 1 to Clinton, though Clinton ramped up the focus to Al-Quaida as best his administration could and passed on the problem to the next guy as he should and is appropriate in the American system.

1. Bill Clinton never once attacked Al Qaeda directly, neither through hindering financial transactions nor attacking military operations at the source. He perceived this as a legal matter as opposed to a military matter, and of course, this led to more attacks. Putting one man in prison does no good at all... it would be like the war on drugs arresting the street dealer and claiming victory.
2. The attacks on the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings were credited directly to Al Qaeda and discussed by Bin Laden on videos accepting blame/credit. Nothing was done to Al Qaeda.
3.According to Col Robert Patterson in "Deriliction of Duty"; Bill Clinton was on the golf course watching a PGA tourn when Sandy Berger called and told him that the Northern Alliance had Bin Laden pinned down, but with a limited window of opportunity to attack. Clinton was too busy watching golf to take the phone call(s). Bin Laden got away... fact.
4.Did you see who snopes uses as sources?? Come on CR, the best you could do is use a credible site. They use the Wash post, the NY times, etc. Absurd. That would be like me quoting Rush on here...
5. There is no outright lying, as you claim... so if you can't handle the truth I apologize, but these are cold hard facts.
6.Please get your facts correct, as we weren't in Bosnia, Somalia, nor had we attacked anyone in Waco during Bush sr's term. These were flawed missions that really had no purpose other than flag waiving. If Waco had happened during a republican president... liberals would never let go of it...

The Bosnian debaucle, the failure to act in Rwanda, never attacking Al Qaeda directly, never attempting to take Bin Laden (even allowing Pakistan to let him go), allowing unfettered access to our borders, and treating terrorism as a "police" matter helped to cause a plethora of attacks on US interests and personnell. Was it completely Bill?? Not really... but largely his attitude caused the lead up to 9/11 and Al Qaeda's belief (and rightfully so) that America wasn't going to push back...
then came GWand all of it stopped.... WHY? Because we are keeping the fight on their doorstep. Because we stepped up immigration laws, airport security, and we're keeping their financial resources and operatives off American soil.

What you forget is that the Beirut issue was during a Democratic congress, of which Reagan attempted to get congressional approval for military action. We did bomb the heck out of them, and how exactly did Khadafi react??? No such attacks on Americans or American interests since... in over 20 years.

This trend of democratic inaction has been prevalent since Truman, as I've mentioned previously. This applied to N Korea, Vietnam, China, Eastern Europe, and Africa when it came to communism. The lack of Military action caused many nations to succumb to communism and it's economic and social woes for decades... this can't happen with terrorist muslim regimes, and hence... here we are.

To answer the question, yes unequivocally, GW's terrorist fighting ideology is more effective... the proof is in the pudding.

1) I must agree with CruisingRam that Lord Helmet's claims are biased. Almost every president of the U.S. have made mistakes in his international policy. Do not forget that we look at Clinton's actions through hindsight. We know what happened and we have the opportunity to analyse where things went wrong, Clinton was faced with the beginning of this 'holy war' and thought that the more diplomatic way was the best way to handle this new threat. One can argue that in the end his approach may have been the wrong one, but that doesn't mean that one can freely bash on him like LH does. In general a lot of people and politicians in Europe regard Clinton's administration in almost every sense better than the gungho tactics of Bush and his neo-con friends. I remember well that when W Bush was elected the first time, the whole of Europe was concerned what would happen to the stability in the world.

2) One cannot really compare the responses of Clinton and Bush towards the threat of Al-Quaeda. Clinton had to response towards 'mere' bombings against U.S. embassies, while Bush was confronted with the horrific attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. If 9/11 would have happened during Clinton's administration, he too would probably have attacked the Al-Quaeda organisation in Afghanistan, but probably wouldn't have started a 'unjustified' war against Iraq.

Some timelines:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...h/etc/cron.html

US President George Bush launches Somalia interventionDeteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.
Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.
This US-led United Task Force (UNITAF) is dubbed "Operation Restore Hope."




January

Clinton takes over
Clinton, like Bush, is anxious to scale down the American military presence in Somalia and let the United Nations take charge.

Okay- Clinton inaugurated on Jan 20th- he simply, as any good leader would do, does no major changes to Bush 1s ground plan- to do so would be folly, he listens to the ground commanders, takes his briefing, similar to every new president, and in this case, makes a decision to stay the course.


Bosnia timeline:

1990-91
Croatia and Slovenia declare their independence from the Yugoslav Federated Republic. In Croatia ethnic Serbs and Croats begin a long, bloody conflict. UN imposes arms embargo on all members of the former Yugoslav Republic, including Bosnia. April 1992
Nationalist Serb snipers fire on peaceful demonstrators in Sarajevo, marking the beginning of the war. Bosnian Serb soldiers are formally discharged from the Yugoslav army, but allowed to keep all of their weapons.
May 1992
The West recognizes Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state. A mortar shell fired from a Serb position in the hills of Sarajevo kills 16 people waiting in line for bread. UN imposes sanctions on Serb-led Yugoslavia.
Summer 1992
reports of "ethnic cleansing," a policy of slaughtering Muslim inhabitants of towns or driving them away, in order to create an ethnically pure region. Reports of concentration camps, mass rapes.
Winter 1992-93
Gas, water and electricity service are at best sporadic in Sarajevo. UN humanitarian convoys to Muslim enclaves in central Bosnia crowded with refugees are blocked by Serb forces leading to acute shortages of food, fuel, and medicine there. UN declares several Bosnian cities "safe havens" to no one's relief. Pres. Clinton orders humanitarian aid and food to be air-lifted to those places.
1992-1993
Many cease fires are broken. Vance-Owen peace treaty is first accepted by Milosevic and Karadzic, then rejected by the Bosnian Serb Parliament. Other peace treaties based on dividing Bosnia along ethnic lines are negotiated, rejected, then renegotiated. Croatians, originally fighting with the Muslims against the Serbs, start their own "ethnic cleansing" campaign.
1993
Mortar barrages on Sarajevo lighten up, and Serbs withdraw from some strategic positions, when US and NATO threaten air strikes. Firing resumes when it becomes obvious that no action will be taken.
Fall 1993
Bosnian Government army makes some territorial gains against Croatian separatists, reputedly with the arms supplied by the Serbs. Both Yugoslav and Croatian army regulars are observed fighting in Bosnia. The breakaway Serb republic of Bosnia orders a general mobilization among all the Bosnian Serb refugees, planning for an all out assault that will lead to the end of war.
January 1994
France, which has the most UN troops in Bosnia, calls for NATO to use air strikes to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Bosnia. French philosopher, Bernard-Henri Levi, and other intellectuals start a party "Europe Begins at Sarajevo", for the elections for the European Parliament. The party's only platform is that Europe's humanity and civility is challenged by its inactivity in the Bosnia crisis.


Once again, the problem is inherited from Bush 1 (I am not saying Bush 1 did wrong, nor Clinton in this case, both took a measured approach to an area with world wide political ramification-WW 1 started in Sarejavo!)- but nevertheless, Clinton continued the course laid out by Bush 1, and modified it as the situation modified it- and took no hasty action, and did not interact until the situation became absolutely untenable.

I think he did the right thing in not reacting early to this one and, at the time, as now, I do not think America should be the worlds police force, and crtisized Clinton for entering in what was a European problem, that Europe should have taken care of.

Timeline of Al-Quaida

Editing to fix links- excerpts I believe fall under the okay of rules guidelines

:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...w/etc/cron.html

1984

Office of Services Established

Sheik Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian religious scholar, establishes the Makhtab al Khadimat -- the Office of Services -- in Peshawar, Pakistan to recruit an Islamic army to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden provides financial support to Azzam's organization.


1986

Bin Laden Sets Up Camp, Builds Ties

Bin Laden establishes Al Masadah ("The Lion's Den"), a training camp for Persian Gulf Arabs. Bin Laden begins associating with Egyptian radicals -- who, unlike Sheik Abdullah Azzam, advocate a global jihad beyond Afghanistan -- and befriends Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.


1986

Office of Services Reaches U.S.

The journal published by the Office of Services is distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Center of Tucson, Arizona.


1989

Al Qaeda Established

Osama bin Laden -- along with Muhammad Atef and Abu Ubaidah al Banshiri -- founds Al Qaeda ("The Base"). The organization operates out of Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan.

Read more about Al Qaeda's establishment in the U.S. indictment of Osama bin Laden.


November 1989

Battle for Control of Office of Services

After a car bomb kills Sheik Abdullah Azzam, a battle for control of the Office of Services breaks out between those who believe the jihad should focus on the creation of an Islamic state in Afghanistan, and extremists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, who want to expand the struggle worldwide. The extremist faction eventually takes control.


December 1989

Oklahoma Meeting of Future Terrorists

At a conference of Muslims held in Oklahoma City, Wadih el-Hage, a U.S. citizen later convicted in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings trial, meets with Egyptian Mahmud Abuhalima, who is later convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Abuhalima later tries to buy guns from el-Hage.

For more details on el-Hage's Al Qaeda connections, read FRONTLINE's "A Portrait of Wadih el-Hage".


February 1989

Soviet Forces Withdraw from Afghanistan

The Soviets' humiliating defeat by mujahedeen forces in their 10-year long war inspires Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to believe their victory in Afghanistan can be replicated around the world. At the end of the war, many of the "Afghan Arabs," as the radicals were called, returned home. Osama bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia.


November 1990

Bomb Manuals, Photos Discovered

During an investigation into the assassination of the right-wing rabbi Meir Kahane, authorities discover bomb manuals and photographs of the World Trade Center and the Empire State Building in the apartment of an Egyptian, El-Sayyid Nosair. Nosair reportedly is an associate of Wadih el-Hage.

It is later learned that Nosair's legal bills in the WTC bombing trial were paid for by bin Laden. This is the earliest known intelligence information linking bin Laden to terrorists.


1991

Bin Laden Flees to Sudan

Bin Laden leaves Saudi Arabia and travels to Afghanistan with some of his supporters. By 1992, they finally settle in Khartoum, Sudan.

Read more on FRONTLINE's "Hunting bin Laden" chronology.


1992

Bin Laden Organizes Attacks on U.N. Forces in Somalia

According to a document released by the British government after the Sept. 11 attacks, between 1992 and 1993, Mohammed Atef, an Egyptian aide to bin Laden, travels frequently to Somalia to organize violent attacks on U.S. and U.N. troops stationed there. After each trip he reports back to bin Laden in Khartoum.


1992

Expanding the Terror Network

According to the U.S. indictment of bin Laden, between 1992 and 1996 Al Qaeda makes overtures to Iran and Hezbollah to take part in a global war against the U.S. The indictment alleges that Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, an Al Qaeda leader, met with Iranian officials and that Al Qaeda sent members to Lebanon to receive training from members of Hezbollah. American officials also claim that around this time bin Laden's group begins an effort to secure components for chemical and nuclear weapons.


Dec. 29, 1992

Al Qaeda's First Attack

In an apparent plot to kill U.S. servicemen headed to Somalia, a bomb explodes at a hotel in Aden, Yemen and kills two Austrian tourists. Two Yemeni Muslims -- who had been trained in Afghanistan -- are injured and later arrested. Intelligence officials believe this is Al Qaeda's first attack.

The Associated Press later reports that two of the Yemenis detained for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole were involved both in this 1992 Aden bombing, and a series of other attacks in 1993.


Feb. 26, 1993

World Trade Center Bombing

A truck bomb explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center (WTC) killing six and injuring hundreds. Investigators discover the suspects have links to a network of Islamic extremists. Several people eventually convicted in the bombing are linked to the Office of Service's Al Kifah Center in Brooklyn; four of these men are connected to Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric who was the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, is later convicted of conspiracy for his involvement in a plot to blow up New York City landmarks. He is sentenced to life in prison.


Investigators charge Ramzi Yousef as the mastermind behind the WTC bombing and begin a worldwide manhunt. They discover immigration officials had already detained Ahmed Ajaj, a Yousef associate, when he entered the U.S. carrying terrorist training manuals.
Osama bin Laden's name surfaces during the 1993 WTC investigation as a financier of the Office of Services. His name is also found on a list of individuals who was called from a safe house used by the conspirators. During the WTC bombing trial, bin Laden's name appears on a list of potential unindicted co-conspirators, but Al Qaeda is never mentioned.

1) Al-Quaida basically came into being under Bush 1's watch, though it was not really considered a threat at the time- which I believe is reasonable without 20/20 hindsite.

2) Clinton's administration found and jailed all the 93 direct conspirators, and this is the first time that intelligence had started to really consider Al-quaida and OBL a threat- and to his credit, and the credit of his appointees, they started the ball rolling on gathering intell on these guys- until Clinton there was no real mobilization at all against these folks- Clinton tripled the budget on this alone- another oversite by right wingers? [B]


I think, it would be nice if the Prez had a time machine to see what happens in the future- but not even the "great" Reagan LOL- was able to see what he money for "jihad" in Afghanistan was achieving, now did he?

1. do you agree or disagree with lordhelmet's statement? why or why not?

I disagree. I find Lord Helmet's accusations to be unfair and largely a typical conservative attempt at passing the buck. Time and again I have noted that Conservatives, especially hard line Republicans always try to point the finger at some one else. They never accept any form of responsibility for their own failings.

Blaming Clinton is just more of the same.

The first al qaeda attack against the USA came the 7th of August 1998 against the US embassies in east Africa. From this point to the attacks on 11 Sept is only four years, during which time Bill Clinton was only president for what? three years?

This was also the time when the Republicans greatest interest was apparently a White House internee called Monica Lewinsky.

Since 11 September 2001, George W Bush (and what did he do against al qaeda prior to the destruction of the World Trade Center?) has had what...? nearly four years?

...and what has he acheived? The destruction of al qaeda? the capture of Osama Bin Laden? the end of Islamic terrorism?

No.

What GW Bush has acheived is to realise the ambitions of Osama Bin Laden and set the eastern and western cultures dead against each other. He has managed to create war and anarchy and civil strife, if not civil war in Iraq. His policies have not prevented terror but rather encouraged them to an all time high.

George W Bush is an abject failure who has given Osama Bin Laden evreything that murderer desired.


2. was Clinton's response to al Qaeda better, worse, or essentially the same as the Bush administration's?

It was essentially the same that any other president in his position would have done. He acted within the context of the situation as it was then and not in the post 9/11 reality that GW Bush faces.

I suppose dozens of tomahawk missiles being fired at a camp where Bin Laden was believed to be doesn't constitute a military operation for you? I suppose you also don't recall when Clinton was accused of "wagging the dog" as a result of this effort?


Yeah, and this happened one month before the 2000 presidential election. Given how much Yemen stonewalled our investigation, how can you possibly blame Clinton for not responding when the investigation wasn't even complete by the time he left office? Bush had 8 months, what message did he send Al Qaeda? Seems like it would have been a great chance for him to tell Osama there's a new sheriff in town.


You do know the difference between news reporting and editorials right? You're indicting legitimate, respectable news sources by equating them to Rush? Gimme a break. You don't want to look at the fact because they don't jive with your worldview. Why let the truth get in the way of good partisan fiction?


I'm not accusing you of lying, that assumes intent. But your mastery of the facts is lacking.

Both Clinton and Bush had much to be desired when it comes to their approach to terrorism. Both have coddled the Saudis too much. Clinton was too resistant to putting "boots on the ground" to ensure a mission's success. Bush had Iraq on the brain from the first day in office, blinding him from the real threat by Al Qaeda. Clinton, in my opinion, understood and appreciated the threat more but was less willing to think outside of the box in combating it. The solutions were available to both presidents, and neither have used them effectively, for different reasons.

I want to start off with a couple of quotes. First, Paul Bremer (of course we all know who he is, but he was also part of the counterterrorism efforts in the Reagan administration): He said that Clinton had "correctly focused on bin Laden." [Washington Post, Dec. 24, 2000] Second, Robert Oakley, also ambassador for counterterrorism at the Reagan State Dept., had this to say about Clinton:

(emphasis mine)[ibid]

Here was a Republican criticizing Clinton about terrorism. Interesting though, that the criticism actually bolsters the case against the Clinton-bashing lordhelmet loves to insert into his posts.

There are a number of things I want to say, some general, and some specific. I suppose I should say first, that I am no fan of Clinton's. I think that, overall, he was just another in a long line of politicians who look out for monied interests and place the welfare of the corporatists over the welfare of the actual people of the United States. But one's criticisms ought to at least be accurate - and so here I am in the uncomfortable position of defending Clinton. So be it.

Six weeks after Bill Clinton came into the White House, the WTC was bombed. After 12 years of Republican ineptitude concerning terrorism (I will elaborate if needed, but the public record is obvious), this would have been a ripe time for the Democrats to really consolidate their power by blaming the Reagan/Bush administrations for their appeasing of terrorists. The democrats could have blamed Bush for the first WTC attacks - after all they happened right after Clinton came in - but they didn't. In retrospect, perhaps they should have. But the fact remains, they never sank to that level. Sadly, the Republicans were all too eager to play the blame game after 9/11. The Congressional elections of 2002 were won by Republicans taking full advantage of the "Democrats are soft on terror" theme.

Now, about that first bombing. It wasn't until 1996, three years after the bombing, that any links to Osama were found. Indeed, back in 1993, he really wasn't on the radar. But, once those links were discovered, Clinton began to take the problem of al Qaida and bin Laden very seriously.

The main hindrance was Republican opposition in Congress. It is obvious that the public will to pursue a massive military campaign against al Qaida wasn't there; Clinton did what he could.

1. He instituted an al Qaida unit in the NSC and the CIA, which stopped several attacks - the millennium LAX plot, plots to bomb tunnels in NYC and the UN building, a plot to bomb the Israeli embassy in DC. Dozens of terrorist cells overseas were caught. there were both prosecutions, and executions.

2. After the WTC attack, Clinton included antiterrorist provisions in his first Crime Bill. However, in 1995, after the bombing in Oklahoma City, he tried to expand those provisions - provisions similar to some in the USA PATRIOT Act. He wanted to expand: swifter deportation procedures, a new deportation court which could hear secret evidence, new powers to turn away suspect immigrants; broader powers on roving wiretaps, new powers for monitoring money laundering operations. He was opposed by Republicans in Congress. Indiana Republican Representative David McIntosh, said at the time, "We find it very troubling that you're asking us for additional authority to wiretap innocent Americans, when you have failed to explain to the American people why you abuse their civil liberties by having FBI files brought into the White House."

3. When Clinton wanted to tighten controls on encryption software, to ensure that the police and the FBI could decode the same kinds of messages used by Ramzi Yusef in the 1993 bombing, he was defeated by Republicans - led by Senator John Ashcroft. It is now thought that the 9/11 plotters used encrypted computers, too.

4. What about an administration bill to close loopholes that allowed terrorists to launder money through offshore banks? Its part of our operations NOW, but when Clinton tried to get it to go through, it was defeated by Republicans, led by Phil Gramm from Texas, who called it "totalitarian."

5. Between 1996 and 2001, federal spending on counterterrorism rose to 12 billion annually. The FBI's counterterrorism budget went from 78 million in 1996 to 609 million in 2000. Of course the FBI had its own troubles - led by Republican Louis Freeh (appointed by Clinton).

6. What happened in Sudan? It's true the Sudanese had bin Laden. They were offering to turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Though we asked, Saudi Arabia refused this offer - not Clinton. Also it should be noted that the Sudanese had a history of offering faulty intelligence, trying to get favors from the US.



This is a fact because of this book? So does that mean you are willing to believe the whistle-blowing books by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke about the Bush administration? I'd be happy to give you this one, in return for that!



I'm sorry, but there is no way you can compare the Washington Post and the NYT to Rush Limbaugh. That's simply bizarre, and I imagine most conservatives would agree with me. You don't like what the source says, so discredit the source. Typical Republican strategy these days. O'Neill, Clarke, Wilson, Whitman, Cleland, Kerry... the list goes on. It's one thing to go after one guy's word - but to make the claim that basically these two papers just make up the news is ridiculous.



I love this one. This might be my favorite. Let's go back in time....

1976. Chilean dictator Pinochet's secret service kills an exiled Chilean and an American with a car bomb, on the streets of Washington DC. When Pinochet refused to extradite the suspects to the US, Carter imposed sanctions on Chile. One of the first actions by Reagan was lifting those sanctions.

The funding of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, one of Reagan's mistakes that has really come back to bite us. From this group we saw the creation of both Al Qaida and the Taleban.

What about Iran-Contra? Supporting Saddam Hussein, while making secret deals to sell weapons to Iran. The incident of the attempted negotiation for the release of the Dawa'a prisoners (who were terrorists) is a high point. Making deals with Iran, the sponsored of Hizbollah - hmmmm, makes ya think. About who maybe deserved some time in a jail cell. Maybe the 'Great Communicator" could have used some...

1. do you agree or disagree with lordhelmet's statement? why or why not?

Not really.

Clinton's approach was certainly much different than the current administrations. It is pretty far out there to say that nothing was done in the 1990s. What was done, however, was done in a law enforcement mode rather than a diplomatic or strategic mode.

I think that the Clinton administration's view of Islamic terrorists was that they were criminals who needed to be monitored and apprehended after the fact, similar to organized crime rings. Of course, you try to catch them in the act before the worst happens, but you don't proactively go "over there" and kill them.

The first Islamic terrorist attack on the US happened in 1993, moif, not in 1998. I think it's pretty hard to overlook the first World Trade Center bombing but somehow you managed it. Although the planning of that first attack certainly predated Clinton, the response to it was Clinton's to make. It is interesting that the two major attacks on US soil both occurred during years when we inaugurated a new President.

Clinton's approach seemed to be "let the CIA take care of it". For example, in December 1998, the CIA declared war on Al Qaeda.



This tactic certainly differs from Bush's stance that we will not differentiate between terrorists and states that harbor them. To my recollection, Clinton never targeted states that sponsored terrorism. As a matter of fact, he gave deference to the sovereignty of other nations (not that that is a bad thing necessarily) such as when he passed on trying to kill bin Laden when his location in Afghanistan was known.

2. was Clinton's response to al Qaeda better, worse, or essentially the same as the Bush administration's?

Different, as documented above. The threat certainly was increasing over Clinton's term. In response, the actions taken should have also increased. Although Clinton made some good decisions (such as forming the "Get bin Laden" team) he did not put pressure on states that harbored Al Qaeda (such as the Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan). That was the flaw in his plan.

I know that, but the first attack carried out by al qaeda, which is what I wrote, was the 1998 embassy bombings.

I'll happily leave the misspellings and factual oversights just to prove a point about the last portion of your post, simply because it negates reality so badly that it makes me sick to my stomach.

Iran-Contra was a necessity that only liberal "talking-point" mongers believe was a tragedy in American history. Oliver North put his hind parts on the line politically and literally.

We're talking about an operation directed at freeing American prisoners as if it were some criminal act... let's say like Whitewater, for which you and I would've been imprisoned. This was a patriotic operation aimed at both freeing prisoners while supporting anti-marxist regimes in Nicaragua.

Funding the Taliban in Afghanistan fell in the same boat, basically as it was attempting to aid in getting rid of the Soviets in the middle east. Was it not?? The only mistake we made was pulling out, which inherently got us partially into the dabaucle that we're in now in relation to these organizations.

Basically, you mention that there were 12 years of Republican ineptitude prior to the Clinton administration? Reagan was only in office for four, and actually used military action to quell terrorist activity (ie Beirut), which seemingly has been impossible since Truman. These types of things are large dividing lines politically. Liberals believe that terrorist actions should be prosecuted via the legal system, while conservatives in the US believe that it should be an all out assault. Consider the fact that communism spread completely unfettered during democratic administrations, and the only free nation that fell during a republican's term was Vietnam- which was really lost in Congress as opposed to the battlefield.

The bottom line is that Clinton never did anything but impose "legislation" and "add funding", which is like I mentioned earlier... like adding cops on the streets instructed at picking up street drug dealers, while never looking for the drug routes, the hierarchy, or the the infrastructure of the organization.

Yes, I believe the book by Col Robert Patterson; surely over any media news journalist. However, you can google this subject and find 100 similar posts if you'd like...

Finally- I do question the motives of periodicals such as the NY Times, just as you all negate what is stated by Fox news time and time again on this board. The NYT and the Wash Post are just like CBS in my eyes... continually employing SPIN, misinformation, and intentionally bending the truth. Should we talk about Rathergate?? lol Just google "ny times misinformation" and who knows how many articles pop-up... appalling.

OH- and side note... all of those lovely things that you state that Clinton "did" and all of the republicans that "opposed" those actions... where do you find that information? ? ? I can't say I've ever heard anything like it, nor do I know that Clinton actually introduced any such ideas/legislation. I don't doubt that such units/efforts were made... but would venture to guess that Clinton had nothing to do with it...

Well, I certainly am sorry to have made your stomach feel ill. I'm going to address specifics here. Let's start with misspellings. Taleban and taliban are interchageable - look it up. I did inadvertently add an extra "d" to Mujahedin. I apologize. I also should have put a 'dash' in Al-Qaida. But let's move on, because I suspect it was not my spelling that made you feel ill. Perhaps it was a side-effect from the "pill of truth?"



A necessity? Something only "liberal "talking-point" mongers believe was a tragedy??" I'm curious what motivates you to say this. I don't think it's necessary to go over facts on the public record about the details of the entire Iran-Contra affair. But truth is not on your side. Yes, what Reagan's administration did may have been politically expedient, but it was still illegal. Was it necessary to funnel arms to Iran, the sponsor of Hizbollah (also a correct spelling, thank you)? In order to fund the Contras, who were fighting a brutal struggle against Nicaragua's (democratically elected) Sandanista government? Was that really a necessary cause that justified breaking the law?



Hmmm. I never even mentioned the arms for hostages deal. I was talking about the negotiations for the release of the Dawa'a prisoners - who were Islamic terrorists. I suggest you look it up. But, since you mention it,


Link

References: John Tower, Edmund Muskie and Brent Scowcroft The Tower Commission Report Random House, USA 1987 pp102
Theodore Draper A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair Hill and Wang, New York 1991 p 229
Magnus Ranstorp Hizb'Allah in Lebanon: the politics of the western hostage crisis. MacMillan, London 1997 p7-11
Lee Hamilton & Daniel Inouye Report of the Congressional Committees investigating the IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR Washington 1987 p6



Link



Our only mistake was pulling out? Pulling out what? Our CIA advisors? I can understand the funding and training of the Mujahedin. I don't excuse it, but I understand it. But whether it made sense at the time or not, it certainly played a big part in giving the Mujahedin political and military power in Afghanistan, which led to the Taleban, as well as the ennablement of Al-Qaida.



Reagan was in office for eight years, Bush for four. Since 1980, that would add up to... 12 years. You mention Beirut. Have you studied history? Because frankly, I don't know about your claim - that Reagan was engaging in military activity against terrorists...


Link

Fighting terrorists was not a reason given for involvement in Lebanon - a country we had been involved in since Eisenhower sent troops there in 1958.



Here, we agree. I have always felt that terrorists are criminals who should be dealt with as such. Wars are between actors, and I will never elevate terrorists to that level. I do not think it is OK for us to invade countries, killing innocent people who are not terrorists, in order to get terrorists. That is too high a price. Should Cuba be allowed to bomb Miami in order to kill Bosch (read up on that one, it's interesting)? "War" gives these terrorists way too much legitimacy.



I am truly baffled. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Please provide some sources for your claim. And by the way, study up on Vietnamese history too, please. "Free country?" Let's see, after we funded the French struggle to maintain Indochina as a French Colony, we decided to go in to prevent the 'spread of communism.' In fact we quashed the election that would have put Mihn into power.



I have already refuted this. I have been specific. You may, if you wish, continue to deny the truth, that is your right.



So, then you are more inclined also to believe O'Neil and Clarke than reporters, too? Why or why not?



So... the only truth comes from partisans with an axe to grind? We can't trust any sources of information? What exactly are you saying here? Do you realize you are promoting an extremely radical view? How do we find out the truth? From what trusted sources do you get the information that causes you to support Bush? How can you possibly trust it? Or is the truth only spun and broken by liberals?!?



What's the point, really? I'm sure that any sources I used are just a bunch of liars.

Try The Age of Sacred Terror by of Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, National Security Council directors during the Clinton administration. Their book, despite what one might think because of their credentials, does not give Clinton a pass. He made his share of mistakes.

Oh, but wait - this should be a credible source for you, since you stand by Patterson...

The only clarification I would seek here is that he did in fact sent a few volleys of tomahawks into Bin Laden's camp. Where I will agree with that take is that if he had sent troops in there so we could watch him closer, Bin Laden would be a footnote at this point. I think 9/11 would have still happened, however. His respect for sovreignty, hamstrung him at the time.

Also though, terrorism didn't have the political capital it does today. So that respect for sovreignty may have been well heeded. During the time there was yelling even back then that some of Clinton's military actions (Sudan and Afghanistan) were unconstitutional. If we had sent a small force in there to finish the job there might have been stronger outrage, "wag the dog" nonsense notwithstanding.

Then you'd be dead wrong aevans. Take a look.......

When Clinton first pushed his anti-terrorism legislation, this is the kind of response it got from conservatives: The American Enterprise


Hmm, sounds a lot like many of the provisions in the Patriot Act, doesn't it?

Future of Freedom Foundation

Congress's response to this "Patriot Act, before the Patriot Act"? I mean, the Republicans were such anti-terror hawks, even in the 90's, while Clinton "did nothing", right? Well, not exactly......

CNN.com


Add to that the fact that when he did use military action in 1998 and 1999, Republicans accused him of every thing from diverting attention from the Monica scandal, to vastly over-reaching his authority. After all, as Republicans and conservatives are so fond of noting, 9/11 changed everything. The Republican congress, and the nation as a whole, in 1998 or '99, had no stomach whatsoever for entertaining a military invasion of, say, Afghanistan, to route out the Taliban and AL-Qaeda. And to say that we did, and Clinton did nothing about it, is to buy into the revisionist history of the right-wing ideologs.

Aevans, no offense, but I submit that the fact that you never heard of these provisions before, os that you are all too willing to believe what's being spoon-fed to you as "history", by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al., rather than an honest look at history. And if you're willing to believe what they tell you on this, what else are they misleading you on?

Hmm, already we start this off with a ton of inaccuracies. Bush has also had numerous opportunities to take Bin Laden and he hasn't done so. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say that he doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore. In case you have forgotten that bit of recent history, here is a refresher - source:


Do you really think that anyone would be ok with a Democrat saying that? I guarantee it would play on all the right wing hack shows for weeks! What if Clinton had said that he wasn't too concerned with Timothy McVeigh after the Oklahoma City bombings? What if he said he was convinced he was on the run and not a threat anymore?

Secondly, I'm not sure what your point is about no attacks on oil soil since 9/11... so what? It certainly hasn't been because of anything Bush has done. Currently we have pretty good airline security but as I have been saying for years the terrorists won't use planes any more, they'll go for soft targets (see Spain and London for proof). Until recently our mass transit systems were completely unprotected (and are still relatively unprotected), we are searching a very small fraction of the containers that come into this country every day, our borders are a joke and all the data suggests that terrorist incidents the world over have increased since 9/11 not decreased. Don't believe me? These are old government supplied numbers from the Washington Post - source. The new numbers are higher still.


Finally, to show we aren't really doing anything to prevent terrorist attacks domestically - look at where the money is going. A smart person would assume that most of the money allocated would go to states which had a higher probability of being attacked like New York, California, etc. I'll even link you to a very conservative publication if you have the inclination not to believe me - Newsmax story

Now let's address your enumerated list of "facts":

Really? I suppose you have top secret clearance and you know that no covert ops were ever conducted against AQ. Both doclotus and quarkhead have adequately refuted this one with indisputable facts. If you believe otherwise then make your case.


As doclotus noted, this happened one month before the 2000 presidential election. Bush of course did nothing about this and the next time we heard from the terrorists it was 9/11/2001.


It also happens to be a fact that Bush was getting good information about the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil in 2001. Specifically he was warned by his counterterrorism advisor, Clarke, about this. Instead Bush took one of the longest vacations in presidential history in August and he was in a kindergarden class when we were attacked. He was too engrossed in the recital of "My Pet Goat" to do anything about the attacks or react until he was practically dragged off. We even have footage of this one - see Fahrenheit 9/11.


Man, that is some pretty bad pudding. I wouldn't eat too much of it if I were you, might make you sick.

Fact: Terrorism has sharply increased globally since the 9/11 attacks.
Fact: We still haven't caught Bin Laden and the president doesn't seem to really be bothered or motivated by that.
Fact: Our country has opted to spend less homeland security money on areas that actually need it and more money on areas that don't.
Fact: Bush burned a mole being used by the British inside AQ for political purposes during the election who might have prevented the London bombings - link

If you consider that success then you certainly have a weird barometer for success.

1. do you agree or disagree with lordhelmet's statement? why or why not?
Helmet's unsourced comments barely dignify a response and have thoroughly been debunked by numerous posters here by evidence.

2. was Clinton's response to al Qaeda better, worse, or essentially the same as the Bush administration's?
It was simply different, but it certainly wasn't completely ineffective. He thwarted quite a few incidents, brought men to justice for their crimes.

Bush has to be credited with bringing down the Taliban, which was certainly a good thing in the grand scheme of things.

Both men made mistakes, but I personally believe that Bush's mistakes have been bigger. In my opinion he has made some dumb moves and has limited his options, burned the goodwill of the international community, etc.

Terrorism is not a problem that can be tackled by the US alone, it is going to require global cooperation. That doesn't mean it has to be a "UN" operation, but it is going to require cooperation. That means that we have to be on good terms with other countries (we aren't, some flat hate us and our list of friendlies is dwindling) and we can't try and bully them into doing things our way.

Terrorism is also a problem that can't be handled solely by a military solution, the military option should remain in the chest of tools but until you tackle the root causes our approach will continue to make the problem worse, not better.

Finally it requires us to do quite a few things domestically that aren't being done such as:
- Actually funding security in states that need it
- Addressing problems like border control, mass transit security, port security, etc
- Making a huge investment in alternative and renewable fuels to eliminate dependency on mideast oil.

Neither man had the "right" approach, but the problem is that Bush still has the opportunity to learn from his mistakes and lead - his is just too stubborn to do so.

There is an interesting debate in there somewhere, but unfortunately, the foundation is flawed. Namely, if it's from lordhelmet, it can't be credible. So no, there is no reason to believe it.

I swear, sometimes I think this entire site has been hijacked by hannitized cyborgs who's only mission is to disrupt what should be intelligent debate. Well, at least they're not using PG-13 words. That will never be tolerated...

During Clinton's tenure, the Taliban had declared war on us. Al Qaida tried to blow up the World Trade Center and failed miserably. After that, we didn't have an attack on our soil until 10 years later. In securing our safety (if you're going to credit Bush post-9/11, be consistent and give Clinton credit), Clinton did not spend $300 billion dollars of our tax dollars, did not send 1800 Americans to their deaths, did not kill 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, did not erode our freedoms under the guise of national security, did not search my daughter's biddy baby knapsack to make sure she is not a terrorist, and didn't run our allies off. In fact, Clinton never got a presidential daily briefing warning that the Taliban planned to fly airplanes into our buildings.

What has Bush done? He has consumed every resource we have to fight an enemy that on September 11, 2001, wasn't our enemy.

So tell me again how Bush has been more successful in his fight against terrorism?

Edited to add:
I have to make a couple corrections here in the interest of credible debate.

Actually, Bin Laden and Al-Qaida declared war on us publicly and repeatedly. In my opinion, them and the Taliban were one and the same. However, it would be technically more correct to say it was Bin Laden and the Al-Qaida versus simply the Taliban.

Secondly, the presidential daily briefing referred to Bin Laden attacking us and hijacking airplanes. It really didn't suggest they would fly them into buildings. That intel was provided by the Phoenix Memo that gave everything but seat numbers. Another thing Clinton didn't have and the White House rejected out of hand.

Speaking of the LAX plot, the case was just resolved in court. The judge's statement at the end is particularly important I think:

I have read every post on this topic and have learned a few things.

1. Almost every premise that LHhas presented has been debunked or disproved, with credible and reliable evidence from reliable sources.

2. Also his ally,aevans, who fell into the same trap, repeating the same falsehoods (can I say, lies).

3. I will have to say 1 thing about LH, he is very consistent in most of his post. Consistent, that he keeps repeating the same old propaganda and falsehoods. Joseph Goebbels,master of the Nazi progaganda machine, would pale in comparsion to LH.

4. There is nothing else I could add to this topic, after CJ,DR,NiteGuy,Doc,Quarkhead, and Moif have presented more than enough sufficient evidence to prove their point.

1) No. I think they are partisan slurs, nothing more. I'd take the time to debunk them but it has already been done well here by others. Snopes does it the best.

2) Clinton actually went after the people that attacked the WTC under his watch. Bush has ignored those that did under his watch. Someone needs to tell George Bush that when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR declared war (well got the congress to if you want to be technically precise) on Japan, he did not invade Argentina.

Arguing who has done a better job combatting terrorism, Bush or Clinton, is like arguing who is sexier, Roseanne Barr or Janet Reno.

Maybe we need to ask why are they killing us? Let me quote from Pat Buchanan's article which just happens to be titled....

Why Are They Killing Us?

by Patrick J. Buchanan



Later, same article



Later, same article



The neocons have simply escalated our poor foreign policy. I guess you have to state Clinton did a less worse job. Oil exporters will sell us oil without a military presence. Can't recall many terrorist threats to Switzerland.

Sometimes the best defense is not to provoke an attack in the first place.

Careful Hugo, you're treading dangerously close to Isolationism. Next you will be saying No foreign entanglements......

Aww George, you old paleoconservative you.

Do business with them, vacation there....but if they decide they must, let them kill each other.

Never happen though will it? One side wants to save everyone in the world and the other side wants to beat it into submission.

Reagan Bush Clinton Bush......They were all wrong and the line of who was wrong runs all the way back to Wilson.

[

Not really, the Clinton's administration was bogged down with those politically motivated investigations on White Water. When he did respond by sending cruise missles into the training camps the press called it the tail wagging the dog. According to confirmed sources they nearly got Bin Laden but that slippery little vermon escaped only to reemerge worse then ever. Where was the popular support for a war on terrorism then I wonder.



I don't think anyone was responding to al Qaeda as vigorously as they should have, until 911. Bush responded by going after Iraq and honestly, I suspect ulterior motives that had nothing to do with terrorism per se. Don't get me wrong, I fully support a strong presence of US military in the Middle East and Central Asia but I was not impressed with how Bush or Clinton handled the al Qaeda threat.

I think Clinton and Bush had more similar foreign policy styles than most people realize or perhaps simply aren't willing to admit. Both are/were interventionists and nationbuilders. In fact, Clinton was the first president to "nationbuild" since the post-WWII efforts in Japan and Germany. Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia. The Kobar towers incident should have never happened because our forces shouldn't have been there in the first place. The no-fly zones were pointless and led to much animosity. Why was the USS Cole sent to the port of Aden in Yemen? That place was a hot-bed of Islamic militancy and the outcome was easy to foresee.

Somalia should have been abandoned sooner, not escalated, because our occupation simply strengthened the warlords. Kosovo and Bosnia had a history of severe ethnic violence there...no side was "clean". Both were brutal in their tactics. In fact, thousands of Mujahideen fighters were smuggled into Bosnia to help fight the Serbs during the first few years of the 1990 civil war. We backed the underdog (the side of the Mujahideen, BTW) because the Serbs had been armed so heavily by the Russians it was an uneven fight. If the peacekeepers on the ground had armed themselves appropriately in the first place the outcome would have been better, and the air-war likely unnecessary.

One difference I can think of is Clinton seemed afraid to truly commit when he ordered a combat operation. He micromanaged. The soldiers in Mogadishu would have been a lot better off with tanks available to save them instead of having to wait for the Egyptians (or Pakistani? I've forgotten) to send them some (he thought bringing tanks in would appear too aggressive). In Kosovo and Bosnia, he ordered a military air assault campaign but didn't permit any ground troops. So, there were a lot of 500,000 dollar weapons blowing up cardboard-tank lookalikes with heating elements inside. I can't criticize him for not going into Rwanda. Imagine what the world would have said if we'd sent in troops or just dropped bombs on the machete-wielding population which included thousands of child-soldiers. Certainly nothing favorable to put it mildly.

My last signature is an old Italian saying. It translates to roughly "the fox will lose its skin before it changes the flaw". That's our foreign policy, IMO. We keep repeating the same mistakes and many of our solutions are more of what led to the problems in the first place.

Actually, I agree with you, here, even though probably from a different ideology. Our foreign policy has been very consistent for many decades, regardless of who is president. In fact it was on matters of foreign policy that I disagreed with Clinton the most.

If I sound like I have been defending him, it is merely circumstance. Lordhelmet continues to make baseless and untrue accusations about Clinton, which deserve clarification. I am a proponent of discovering the truth, and the truth is that Clinton's approach to foreign affairs was right in line with Reagan, Bush, Bush, Carter, and on back. Indeed, the historical record shows that the most egregious errors (and crimes) concerning international terrorism occured during Reagan's term.

Interestingly, lordhelmet has not brought his flimsy accusations to a thread dedicated entirely to them - to a place where he must actually back them up...

This may or may not be off topic but I wonder if anyone can give me an idea of what role the political climate played in some of Clinton's decisions. I've heard the "Wag the Dog" theory and that Republicans were making a big deal/being obstructionists out of any sort of military moves Clinton made in order to keep the people focused on the scandals. Is it possible that Clinton wouldn't fully commit troops to combat due to pressure from the right or the American public? Somalia is always considered "chickening out" but how much of that was Clinton bowing to pressure from the American people? Would I be correct to say that Americans would have rather used diplomacy, negotiations, giving autonomy to ethnic tribes, and using international means rather than the American military means to resolve conflict? If so, wouldn't Clinton's reluctance to send troops be justified?

Well, that's just an inflammatory statement with no basis in fact.




Yes. Bill Clinton was president for those three years. And, you forgot to mention that the Taliban took over in Afghanistan and gave Bin Laden and his group free reign and the support of that state. AND, you forgot to mention that in 1996 (when Clinton was president), Saddam Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq and in 1998 attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. You also forgot the first attack on the World Trade Center as well.




This is interesting spin. It seems to me that during this time that Monica was Clinton's greatest interest, not the republicans. She was, at least, more important to him that our national defense or the intelligence around terrorism. It is a documented fact that Bill Clinton had more personal meetings with Lewinsky than he had with the CIA director or his secretary of defense during the months surrounding that sordid "affair".

snipping the rest ....

Clinton deserves blame for his foreign policy incompetence particularly when it relates to confronting Iraq and Bin Laden; two issues that led us directly to 9/11 and to war.

Clinton had other priorities for sure. Monica was one. Fund raising was another. Creating a pseudo "legacy" was also high up there.

Confronting terror? Hardly. Clinton had a terrorist (Arafat) to the White House multiple times. He failed to hit Bin Laden when given multiple opportunities on a "golden platter". He largely ignored Saddam's build up and pretended the oil for food scandal didn't exist.

Bush inherited an economic recession and a terrorist threat poised to strike after being emboldened by the inaction, passivity, and outright naivete (via Albright) of Clinton's misadministration.

Someday, people will come to accept the fact that Clinton was a failure in these critical areas. Someday, those emotionally tied to his facade and those who pathologically hate George W. Bush will see the light.

Until that day, I will continue to post these reminders. Clinton deserves to be on the scrap heap of US history in my view.

OK. Let's look at this bit by bit. The Taleban did come into power in the nineties. That is true. They also harbored bin Laden. In fact, it is surprising Clinton was able to get away with the cruise missile attacks, given the mood of the US at the time. Remember that through the nineties, bin Laden was an alleged mastermind of terrorism. Certainly the Texas oil companies under Bush's governorship had no problem doing business with the Taleban. Remember, when Clinton sent the missiles into Afghanistan, the Republicans weren't saying "you fool! We need to invade, kill him! Take out the Taleban!" No, they were too busy scoffing that the whole thing was a "wag the dog" attempt at distracting us from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The way you talk about the GOP now, one might think that their opposition to Clinton's campaign against bin Laden was because it was so weak. But in reality, they opposed his counterterrorism efforts wholesale (as I detailed in a long post earlier).

Next: Saddam didn't kick out the UN inspectors. Iraq barred three American inspectors from entering the country, and in response, UNSCOM withdrew all the inspectors. It was in 1997, not 1996. And after Yeltsin met with Iraq, the UN (and US) inspectors returned to Iraq (after a seven day withdrawal).

The attempt on GHW Bush was in 1993, not 1998. In response, Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraqi intelligence headquarters, on June 27. Should we have invaded Iraq at that point? Maybe, maybe not. But I reckon that in any book, launching cruise missiles at people is not the same thing as "doing nothing."



Then document it. Don't just say it. Back it up. With all the factual errors you keep making, why should anyone believe a single word of what you are saying here? Back. It. Up. If it's documented, show us the documentation!



Untrue. I notice that you have avoided even attempting to address the long and well-resourced posts I have already made in this thread.



Are you under the impression that if you repeat lies enough without backing them up, eventually everyone will believe you? Please address my first posts in this thread, point for point, using sources.



Well, couldn't the same thing be said in reverse, by some left-wing polemic? That those who pathetically hate Clinton will eventually be proven wrong? All you are doing is spouting party-line rhetoric. Thankfully most conservatives have a greater respect for facts and truth. Indeed, I personally disprove your theory. As I clearly stated in my previous posts, I am no fan of Clinton's, particularly of his foreign policy.

Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread. I started it with two quotes by Republicans. Oakley's in particular was apropos:
"The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger."

What fact? Are you telling us what historians will write a generation from now? Generally it is necessary for at least a generation to pass, (25 years, maybe more now that people are living longer) before historians can write a definitive account. Objective history finds its way into print once all or most of the players ar dead, pertinent documents are released, etc.

Instant predictions about Bush as "savior of the world" are decades premature lordhelmet. You have neither the scope nor method to make reliable predictions. You might, I suspect, be using a crystal ball, an Ouija Board or something very similar.