As expected, President Bush is resisting a key recommendation by the Iraq Study Group to engage Iran and Syria. He said Thursday that unless those two countries are committed to supporting an Iraq democracy and stopping their support of terrorists, “then they shouldn’t bother to show up.” He also disagreed with the group’s view that there is little hope for a military victory in Iraq. “I believe we’ll prevail,” Bush said. But how? As the group noted, the situation is Iraq is “grave and deteriorating,” and America doesn’t have the thousands of extra troops that might be needed to secure Iraq.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
148 Comments
Bush not eager to speak with Iraqi Study Group, either. States “no punt intended”.
Why should he?
I ademently disagree with you Political_mom!
So “Stay the Course” no longer works, what about “We’ll Prevail”?
Thanks but no thanks.I feel sorry for the Iraq panel those elderly statemen could have use their time doing something else. God bless America.
pmom…
I have a feeling that many in this world look at Wichita and our “abortion mills” and say the exact same thing about us!
We do what we want irregardless.. we kill innocent babies… we ARE disgusting!
We talked with the Soviets throughout the “cold War” and that might have prevented it from ending in apocolypse. It also may have accellerated the collapse of the “evil Empire”
The soviets weren’t religious fanatics hell bent on destroying America. What Bush did will impact the world for decades to come. If we talk with Iran and try to make an alliance, then we will probably have to cave on the nuclear issue. Guess where their first bomb will drop? I’m not an Israeli supporter, but they will be the first target. The Israelis know this and have nukes of their own. Bam. The Middle East gets turned to glass. I think Iran and Syria are bad ideas. Neither are nor will they ever be allies to the US.
>>Better than siding with the Jews. They do what they want irregardless. They murder innocent babies. They are disgusting<<
EXCUSE ME? Where do you base this accusation? You had better be able to back this statement up.
I’m a Jew and I have never killed a baby.
Absolutely agree Erik. Religions ‘in and of themselves’ are not the problem. I don’t want us siding with ANY extremists, regardless of religion. This includes jihadists, settlers, etc. On the other hand, we SHOULD be talking with anyone who might be interested in finding solutions to the problems in the region.
p-mom; Yitzak Rabin was a Jew; he had a vision of peace. No religion is absolutely homogeneous.
I’m all for the ISG, but I wonder at 4 years into this morass, what , if anything, can be accomplished. Why should we be looking now for a new road map?
It seems as if Bush is outsourcing the responsibility for this screwed up operation.IMHO
I hope that pmom was trolled on her comment about the Jews.If not, she has sunk to new lows.Bush shouldn’t sit down with the terrorist states until they can come to the table with something other that kill all Americans and kill all Jews.
How can we ask Iran for help, expect them to actually do what they say, all while violating nuclear proliferation?
He said Thursday that unless those two countries are committed to supporting an Iraq democracy and stopping their support of terrorists, “then they shouldn’t bother to show up.”
Does anyone have a problem with that statement?Please argue your case.
SolDevVB- You raise good points, but not talking is not a policy and will surely accomplish nothing.
My case: Perhaps they DO support Iraq democracy and stopping support for terrorists. Perhaps they just have a different interpretation of that – figuring that a foreign power inserting foreign fighters into iraq is the true terrorist and questioning whether the current regime is truly democratic.
A rather large number of Iraqi leaders have called on foreign fighters (US troops) to leave their country.
When we talked with the Soviets they weren’t exactly on our side either.
hmmmmm-Spoken like a true America hating lib.
Bush hit the wrong country. I don’t think Iran is trustworthy. They are building nuclear arms for…. The only thing that comes to mind is Israel. Israel isn’t dumb and they have nukes and may be preemptive. It’s a mess.
I think the report is correct in stating that this is not just getting Iraq fixed, but trying to settle the Middle East.
Does anyone believe that Iran will talk to the US? Should the US talk to Iran while they are STILL building nukes?
I see a possible solution as using sanctions against Iraq until the government steps up and cleans house. Be it splitting up the sects or just getting them to stop the violence.
Iran and Syria will keep their fingers in that pot just as long as they like. Are they really going to listen to anything we have to say?
Bush brought down a hornet nest. The hornets are buzzing in Iran’s back yard. If they can play the hornets to sting their enemy, why would they stop? It is Iran’s interest to promote their sect and continue the discourse in Iraq. What would a stable Iraq offer Iran?
fleettwood – you are full of shit
I love my country.
sol – we talked to the Soviets while they were building nukes. We support Israel while they build nukes. I’d like to see them ALL get rid of their nukes (but have nuclear power) but don’t see that happening until their is some sort of move toward denuclearizing the region.
You are right, Bush DID bring down a hornets nest. He has deliberately created anarchy in the region. Now we need to find a way to pick up the pieces.
Will Iran and Syria listen to anything we say? I don’t know. Will we listen to anything THEY say? After all, they are sovereign states and it is the region in which they live.
Talking with an enemy provides knowledge: the enemy I know is far easier to manage than the enemy I do not know.
North Korea is a good example. By talking, we do not accede to any of their demands, nor lose “face”.No good thing ensues by not communicatiing on some level.
Sol, a stable Iraq offers Iran only one thing at present, IMO, namely, a cessation of influx of refugees into the country, potentially (the refugees) destabilizing Iran.
I was provided a post from a client (tried to bookmark the link for posting here, failed for some reason unknown) suggesting that the Grand Ayatollah of Iran is in critical physical condition, perhaps nearing death. If this be true, the post argues that there will be a period of unrest and potential citizen protest in that country; thus, as I recall, the argument went the Iranians would be interested in stabilizing Iraq, presenting one less thing for it to worry about while dealing with its own internal issues. Should I be able to recapture the post, I will post it here.
“I hope that pmom was trolled on her comment about the Jews.If not, she has sunk to new lows.”
Oh come one, reading her typical comments does anyone really think that she WASN’T trolled?
I know this is relatively unmoderated but I would strongly propose that whoever maintains this site (the Eagle or their contracted provider) to identify whether the computer used in this trolling is used by a regular poster. Because IF this person is a regular poster, he (usually it is a he, although on another board I do know of an exception to this rule) is the one who is sinking to new lows. And he (under his posting name of course) should be dragged into the light for public shame and ridicule.
“SPECIAL TO PJM: Iran Supreme Leader Hospitalized. Condition Grave.PJM in SeattleDecember 6, 2006 9:45 PM
Supreme Leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei
Ayatollah’s health fails as Iran power struggle growsby Michael Ledeen
Three days ago, Iran’s dictator, Supreme Leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei,was rushed to the vast medical facility traditionally known as “Vanak”hospital (it now has an Arabic name that means “the 12th ImamHospital”), a 1,200-room facility that saves half of its beds for theleadership.
Khamenei is known to be suffering from cancer, and taking considerablequantities of an opium-based pain killer. He has lost more than 17pounds in the past ten months, and was told last spring that he wasunlikely to see another New Year (In the Iranian calendar, the New Yearbegins at the end of March).
Khamenei first complained of chills, and then broke out in a cold sweat.He lay down to rest, and began to lose feeling in his feet, at whichpoint his aides got him to the hospital.
Amidst maximum security, and under orders that the event be kept secretat all costs, the theocrat was placed in one of the luxurious suitesreserved for the country’s most important figures. Khamenei’s bloodpressure and pulse were alarmingly low, and his physicians atfirst feared some sort of hemorrhage. But they could find no trace ofinternal bleeding, and concluded that he had had some sort of cardiaccrisis.
Khamenei is still undergoing tests and receiving maximum attention. Itis clearly a serious problem because he wanted to leave the hospital,only to be talked out of it by the doctors. The precise gravity of hiscondition is not known, but the argument over the wisdom of moving himto his own home suggests it may be quite serious.My sources for this information are a very knowledgeable Iranian clericplus another Iranian who has previously provided strikingly accuratestories from the highest levels of the regime in Tehran, suggesting thata major crisis may be underway in Iran.
The Power Struggle
The Supreme Leader has good reason to keep his condition secret, and toseek to demonstrate he retains his ability to rule the country. Khameneiknows that his regime is riven by intense conflict, some of which hasbeen dramatically exposed in recent weeks in the run-up to the electionof a new Assembly of Experts (the clerical body whose mainresponsibility is the selection of the Supreme Leader).News of Khamenei’s heart problems, especially if they turn out to belife-threatening, would undoubtedly catalyze the battle at the highestlevels of the regime to control the choice of his successor. Recentevents document both the intensity and the violence of the powerstruggle.
On November 27th, a military aircraft–an Antonov 74—headed for amilitary site near Tabriz crashed shortly after takeoff from Tehran.Nearly forty deaths were reported, including several top leaders of theRevolutionary Guards Corps, the country’s elite military organization.The dead included some of Khamenei’s closest allies and advisers, andtheir loss was a serious blow for him.
Most Iranians–who are in any case reluctant to believe in accidents whenthe mighty are killed–are convinced the plane was sabotaged, especiallyas this is the latest in a sequence of spectacular airplane disasters,producing high-level military casualties.
About a week earlier, a military helicopter came down, killing all sixpeople on board. Last January, Ahmad Kazemi, the Revolutionary Guards’ground commander, and seven other senior officers, were killed in thecrash of a French-made Falcon, a small executive jet, near the Turkishborder. Barely a month before, yet another military aircraft, a C-130,came down near Tehran airport, hit a ten-story building, and killed 115people (mostly journalists).
A week ago, the Majlis (the national assembly) passed a law effectivelyreducing the presidential term of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nezhad by a full year.This was universally seen as an attack in favor of former PresidentHashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadi-Nezhad’s most visible political rival, and acandidate to succeed Khamenei.
Meanwhile, as reported in Iran Press News, the ongoing public challengeto the regime itself continues unabated.
On Wednesday, thousands of students demonstrated on the campus of TehranUniversity, chanting “death to despotism,” and “death to the dictator.”And in Mazandaran Province, up by the Caspian Sea, thousands of angryworkers protested in front of Ahmadi-Nezhad himself, announcing theywere starving and demanding the government honor its promise to improvethe lot of the poor.
As yet, news of the Supreme Leader’s medical problems has remained asecret, known only to a handful of trusted aides and colleagues. But itis only a matter of time before Khamenei’s condition becomes publicknowledge. With unknown ramifications to the stability of Iran and theregion at large.”
The above is the post to which I referred earlier, in its entirety; sorry couldn’t just provide a link. It (the post) raises many issues, which the ISG may have known. Obviously, I cannot say for sure.
My prescription for the Supreme Leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei:
Take no less than 6 Ex Lax and see me in the morning!
Interesting …
When the ‘wall’ fell it was sure good that we had been talking to the various parties involved.
The Soviets and Israelis didn’t see us as satan either. This is a whole other ball of wax. These folks are radically different than the Soviets.
Bush has really screwed the pooch. We really have no assets or allies with which to deal with this. I really see no point in bringing in Iran. Won’t they just do what is best for their own country? Help establish a government friendly to Iran?
These guys are out for themselves and their religion. No matter who talks to Iran, Iran will do what Iran wants to do.
Since when did winning a war prove anything except the might of the armies? Since when did a bar fight prove anything except the prowess of the winner? Does winning mean you’re right?
For all of you who are not in favor of talks with Iran, N. Korea, or any other nation we don’t agree with or “like”:
When you and your wife don’t agree and have an argument, do you hit her? Beat her? Stomp off and never resolve the issue?
Wars don’t bring peace. Not lasting peace. Talking with someone does not mean siding with someone. Oftentimes it takes compromise. Ever tried it? Or is everyone so stubborn that they can’t give to get?
Hardliners turn on Ahmadinejad for watching women dancers
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/07/ahmadinejad-criticized-for-watching-women-dancers/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Firan%2Fstory%2F0%2C%2C1964075%2C00.html&frame=true
More unrest coming?
RD, I disagree with the majority of the posters here, being a conservative. We beat each other up with words, and really no one changes. When dealing with the issues and players at hand, I can only see that magnified.
After reading the article (thanx for posting Vaughn Tolle) I have become terrified. Iran and Iraq in disarray can be catastrophic. Especially with Iran breaching the nuclear power threshold.
With both nations chaotic, is there a way back? It truly seems to be dark times.
“It truly seems to be dark times.”
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Bush is setting preconditions for the participation of Iran and Syria as a firewall to prevent Bush from having to deal with them. Sounds like the question “When did you stop beating your wife?” Bush and company have no intention of allowing neighboring states to take an active role in arriving at a political solution to Iraq or the mess in Palestine.
nuclear ambitions …
“the House took up an agreement toallow U.S. shipments of civilian nuclear fuel to India, anadministration priority that is opposed by some because India,which has nuclear weapons, has not submitted to full internationalinspections.”
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2006120810540001641536
Why do we talk to India?
“Wars don’t bring peace. Not lasting peace.”
Dumb statement.
India doesn’t think we are satan.
Iran doesn’t think we are Satan. Some Iranian leaders do. There is a difference; especially in view of some of the above which suggests that there might be changes brewing there.
The way we live, the things we do.
Now ponder that their president is being reprimanded for watching some women at a sporting event. As religious as they (the sects of Iran) are how can we NOT be viewed as satan.
Do all the people of Iran think we are satan? Probably not. Do the people who count – the leadership now and shortly coming?
Well, thanks for admitting that Bush is an idiot, Sol.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting it. Hopefully, more right-wingers will see that Bush ISN’T right-wing (small gov’t, opposed to nation-building, fiscal responsibility, get gov’t off your back)–he’s a puppet of the avaricious rich.
(Not all rich people are avaricious, but the ones who are have made out like the bandits they are under this kleptocracy. Look at Halliburton and Exxon for starters.)
But you are in serious error when you state–”The Soviets and Israelis didn’t see us as satan either. This is a whole other ball of wax. These folks are radically different than the Soviets.”
The Soviets couched their opposition to us, just as we did to them, in strongly IDEOLOGICAL terms with the same force as religious convictions.
They were a much more dangerous foe.
Kerry was right–Al Qaeda is really just a nuisance in the great scheme of things, a nuisance magnified a thousand times over by the neo-cons to do what they wanted–seize Iraq’s oil and secure the middle East for Israel.
The way BushCo has used “terror” to manipulate Americans’ fears is a kind of terrorism itself.
capn-You and your kind are poster boys for why your people won’t be President.
RD~~ you are scarily naive. Your analogy of bar fights, domestic arguments are absurd. Mostly, because THEY HAVE SWORN TO KILL US.Not my interpretation, but, their own words.Winning this war is not about proving who ‘is right’. It is about preserving our Nation. Plain and simple.You appease-o-nuts should be forced to live in our foriegn embassies, and man our battleships, ’cause thats what your buddies (Islamic nuts) have a history of blowing up. I’ll bet you’d change your mind.Look up their definition of ‘Jihad’, twerp.
“You and your kind are poster boys for why your people won’t be President.”
You mean like the eight years of Clinton, Fleetwood?
Try using evidence and argument next time . . . of course, if you could evidence and argument, you wouldn’t be a reich-winger.
Would that be the same Clinton who didn’t do squat when we were attacked by the religion of Peace?That’s why Bush was elected twice, the American people wouldn’t trust you people to protect us and won’t trust you people in ‘08.
I see many opinions here that the Muslims want to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. While this may be true, what do you also say about Pat Robertson, one of the foremost leaders of Fundamental Evangelical Christians, who advocated murder of foreign leaders he doesn’t like? Isn’t this also wanting to wipe certain people off the face of the earth?
Words are very powerful and George W. Bush has thrown around too many inciteful words himself to be the pure little choir boy that the Republicans want to make him out to be.
If Ahmanejad gets criticized for watching dancers what would I get for a lap dance?
Thing is, though, a lot of the population of Iran is much more ‘liberal’ than their current leadership. That is why I’d like to see us able to influence things there just as we did ‘behind the curtain’
On the contrary, Clinton did do something while in office and the Republicans (those moral people you know) were accusing him of wag the dog?
When Clinton left office, his staff left detailed reports about terrorism and yet your boy George W. Bush did not want any help from Clinton and dismissed the reports and anyone else that was connected to Clinton.
Republicans need to start reading history the way it really happened rather than making stuff up to fit their spin story.
If we had the skill and tenacity of Regan or Bush The Wise, I can see us maaaaaaybe pulling that off. Bush Jr….. well, enough on that.
Thanks, Suza. You are correct and once again Fleetwood is very, very wrong.
The guy who didn’t do squat was the guy who was reading a children’s book in a Florida classroom the day two jets slammed into the WTC, the man who NEVER MET the anti-terror committee that Clinton started and which was chaired by Dick Cheney, the man who was pushing his Star Wars missile defense system for 9 months as the best protection from foreign threats.
Condi Rice’s speech planned for 9-11 was all about missile defense and not a word about “Al Qaeda.” It was still up on the White House website for awhile before they of course scrubbed it.
As for 2008, I think the people told you and your kind what they think of Bush lie-dership. Sucks to be you . . .
And lastly, it is totally unfair of you reich-wingers to keep throwing around that sarcastic “religion of peace” reference to Islam.
EVERY religion is a religion of peace–Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Moslem, Christian. They all claim to espouse peace. Yet, just about all of them (with the possible exception of Buddhists) are perfectly willing to fight if they feel they are justified.
Look at the Thirty Years War in Europe that pitted Catholic against Protestant or the on and off again Civil War of Anglican vs. Catholic in England after Henry 8 or the similar fight in Northern Ireland.
Christianity is “a religion of peace” too, last time I checked.
How many modern religions see it as OK to strap a bomb to them selves and detonate in a public area? How many religions suggest beheading non believers?
Sol – all of them do – in the eyes of SOME of their followers. Most, of course, would rather drop bombs on civilians from a safe distance.
Sol,
You have data somewhere that indicates what percentage of Muslims who agree with what you are suggesting? i.e., supporting suicide bombing and beheading of non-belivers.
In 2000 it was estimated that there were 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html
I am with the Capn on this one, not all Muslims are terrorists and to suggest that they are is extremely STUPID. In fact Al Qaeda benefits when they can convince Muslims in the street that the U.S. is waging war on Islam. We are not, and should not be.
We should not call terrorists “Jihadists” – Jihad is to pursue a religious quest. We should be serpeating Al Qaeda and their ilk from anything having to do with religion. We should call them “cowards who murder unarmed and innocent cilivians” not Jihadists.
Most religions have a checkered past. Read, ‘past’. The radical extremists have a checkered present and future. Are all Muslims like this? Of course not. I try not to make blanketed comments. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Look at the death for religion in today’s world. The Middle East, former soviet union, Africa… The Muslim extremists.
(D)issatisfaction with President Bush’s handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.
Terry Nichols’ son claims that his father is a Christian.
COSBY: Your father is Christian.
NICHOLS: Yes he is.
COSBY: You believe faith has helped him?
NICHOLS: Oh. God has given him the most amazing strength. I’ve seen such a change in that individual. I’ve seen such a change in my father in the past 11 years. To be in the position he is in, he’s in solitary confinement, also, he doesn’t have contact with nobody whatsoever. They bring the shower to him. He’s cut off from the world. One phone call a month and all he has is his Bible, and that’s gotten him through.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12387753/page/2/
This was the man that helped kill hundreds of people in Oklahoma City, including a dozen or more children in the day-care center.
fleettwood was apparently too busy looking into Clinton’s personal life and screaming for impeachment to know what Clinton and his administration did.
Here’s a list for you, fleet.
Clinton Admin’s Record on Terrorism
Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton Administration increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
-Clinton Administration tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton Administration detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton Administration created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton Administration’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”
-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton Administration left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”
And you are saying he did this for religion? One instance of an ignorant red-neck? What religion was he? Copenhagian?
The article is stating that he has BECOME religious. He ‘Found Jesus’
“I am with the Capn on this one, not all Muslims are terrorists and to suggest that they are is extremely STUPID.”
Agreed, but then could you stop saying that all Conservatives/Right-Wingers are stupid sheep that want to be like Hitler and kill off anyone who doesn’t agree with them??? Thaaaanks, that would be great!
But wait there’s more–
Here’s the biggest story YOU DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT:
“(AP) Man sentenced to 30 years in prison on terrorism charges”JACKSON, Tenn.
A white supremacist was sentenced Tuesday to 30 years in prison for attempting to acquire Sarin nerve gas and C-4 explosives that he planned to use to destroy government buildings.
Demetrius Van Crocker, 40, a farmhand from the small town of McKenzie near Jackson, was arrested in 2004 after an FBI undercover agent posing as an employee at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas, delivered a water-filled Sarin canister and a small quantity of explosives.
U.S. District Judge James D. Todd sentenced Crocker, a divorced father of two children. He faced life in prison.
“There is no doubt he had what he needed to cause all sorts of destruction in the United States,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Godwin said in closing arguments last April during Crocker’s four-day trial.
http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-man-sentenced-to-30-years-in-prison-on-terrorism-charges/62336.htm
Even though this hit the AP wires, it didn’t get much attention from the “liberal” media because of course Crocker is an ordinary white American, presumably Christian . . .
Huh, go figure.
Bottom line on the middle east is nothing has been done for 25 plus years since the so-called islamic revolution.Either you believe in Democracy or you don’t. If it works here, Europe, Asia, everywhere else in the world then you have to believe it will work in the middle east.
And how about the people that shoot abortion-providers or bomb their clinics.
What religion are they?
Would you call Hitler Christian Capn?
“When he talked about casualties, Crocker said they “can’t be helped.” In a separate conversation with an informant, he said, “Let God sort ‘em out.”
He also told Burroughs he wanted a helicopter license so he could spray or bomb black neighborhoods in Jackson with poison gas, booby-trap a marijuana field with mines to kill drug agents, and spike drugs with poison to kill black people.”
What a sweetheart. I remember growing up that every Klavern (KKK) had its own Protestant Christian chaplain.
I’ll go out on a limb and lay the claim that extremism (sp?) in all it’s forms is bad.But is anyone going to argue that there Islamic/Muslim extremists are not more prevalent in that faith than any other? Or more dangerous to the US and our interests?
“God has given him the most amazing strength. I’ve seen such a change in that individual. I’ve seen such a change in my father in the past 11 years. To be in the position he is in, he’s in solitary confinement…”
Once AGAIN that is the past! He did those horrible things in the past BEFORE becoming a Christian. Can you say past? P-A-S-T. I’m not saying he is or isn’t a Christian, but if you’re trying to use that to support your “Christians are horrible people” theory, it’s not working.
Yes.
He was raised Christian, he self-identified as part of the Christian culture.
Even the swastika is adapted and the flag he designed is based on the cross.
BTW, KIA, you’re last post was really lame–”either you believe in Democracy or you don’t.”
I of course believe in democracy. But when have people ever been forcibly converted to democracy at the point of a gun?
And don’t say Germany or Japan. They had the foundations of democracy well in place before it was co-opted by CONSERVATIVE throw-backs to monarchy and emperor worship.
Democracy by its very nature much be from the ground up. It can’t be imposed from the top down, because that in itself is not democracy.
“Either you believe in Democracy or you don’t.”
So, when we overthrew tha democracy in Iran and installed the dictator Shah were we believing in democracy? When we overthrew the democracy in Chile? When we fought a terrorist war against the democracy in Nicaragua? When we undermine the elected group in Palestine? Even the president of Iran was elected. I don’t like the guy but he did campaign etc and get the votes.
AFN–
Get a clue. I’m not saying Christians are horrible. I’m a Christian (at least, I call myself one).
I’m saying you can’t tar Islam with sarcastic references as a “religion of peace” unless you want to do the same to your own.
Capn,Again, he did this for religion? Another idiot red neck white supremist. Just because someone is Christian and they do dumb shit, does not mean they did said dumb shit for their religion.
Huh.
RD–
Great list. I’ve got this stored for future reference.
Notice that the Bush-worshippers got nothing similar before 9-11?
Except their incessant whine that “Clinton did nothing.”
Well with regards to Hitler being a Christian, I can scream all day long about what I am but your actions would speak louder than your words.I think anyone who claims to be a Christian but either hates or doesn’t have an understanding of our Lords relationship with Jewish people is certainly lost.
And I’ll stick with my statement on Democracy. I don’t think I’ve ever read a post on here that would be pro-US when it comes to our place in the world or foreign relations. Past and present.
That should be posts not made by those referred to as reich-wingers and whatever else seems to be the hypocritical bash of the day.
Sol–
Just because someone is MUSLIM and they do dumb shit, does not mean they did said dumb shit for their religion.
Right, Sol, now you got it right.
That was exactly my point.
Capn, you are finding individual and widely time spaced events. None of your listings said that they did what they did because of Christianity, that the bible told them to, or any religious connotations what so ever.
The fact that they were Christians of whatever they claim was not the motivating factor in their heinous crimes.
Thank you Mr. KIA, that is what I’ve been trying to say all along!!! Apparently the logical fallacies flying around here are keeping people from understanding that.
Lord’s Resistence Army – fighting against the government of Uganda. Child rape, children enslaved as soldiers. They want to establish a theocracy based on the 10 Commandments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Resistance_Army
Oh wow, you’re not one of those God-needs-Israel-so-the-end-times-can-happen people, are you, KIA?
Oh man, that would explain a few things.
God only had ONE relationship with the Jews–they were his chosen people: chosen for evangalism, chosen for mission.
Not chosen to own a piece of real-estate in a desert.
For being so “religious,” I’m always appalled at how little the Rapture-right actually knows about the historical context of their religion.
The Muslim extremists DO DO It for religion!!!! Watch youtube clips of these crusty turd fucks detonating an IED. As soon as it goes off, the praise allah. Of COURSE they do it for religion. The proclaim it.
Hitler being a Christian is a historical fact. Hitler was a Catholic. I don’t know why this fact is even questioned. Germany was filled with a lot of Christians, Hitler often referenced his religious beliefs in his writings and speeches, he attended the Catholic church, he received endorsements from Catholic and Protestant churches, he imposed a religion tax where the benefits still go to the Catholic church, he put religious slogans on military uniforms, a person couldn’t be a member of the SS unless they were a Christian.
Someone also mentioned Christian terrorists. The last terrorist attack in America was an attempted suicide bombing that failed:http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/19/3328/99097
The moron thought he was blowing up an abortion clinic. He caused a lot of damage but after the terrorist act it was revealed the clinic didn’t perform abortions. The press didn’t cover the story much because the terrorist is a Christian, had he been a Muslim it would have made headlines.
“Notice that the Bush-worshippers got nothing similar before 9-11?”
Okay, so Bush was president for what, about 8 months before 9-11 happened? You can’t get much done in the first 8 months of a presidency. It’s called the honeymoon period because people are usually more willing to work with the president and incoming cabinet during that period, BUT it is still hard to get large things done – cabinet members are being chosen and people are still settling into the job(s).
Sol – and many who drop bombs from planes or launch missles also praise whatever God they look to. What else is new?
Good point by Sol.I don’t know of any historical record regarding the Nazi’s reading from the bible while extreminating Jews.
From Wikipedia “The Thirty Years War:”
Religious tensions were growing throughout the second half of the 16th century as well. The Peace of Augsburg was unraveling as some converted bishops had not given up their bishoprics, and as certain Catholic rulers in Spain and Eastern Europe sought to restore the power of Catholicism in the region. This was evident from the Cologne War (1582–83) onwards. This occurred when the prince-archbishop of that city converted to Calvinism. Being an imperial elector, this could have created a majority of votes for the Lutherans in the College that elected the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor had always been a Catholic until that time. Therefore the prince-archbishop was expelled by Spanish troops and replaced by Ernst of Bavaria. After this success, the Catholics regained pace, and the principle of cuius regio eius religio began to be exerted more strictly in Bavaria, Würzburg and other states. This forced the Lutherans to choose between conversion or exile. The Lutherans also saw the defection of the lords of Palatinate (1560), Nassau (1578), Hesse-Kassel (1603) and Brandenburg (1613), who had all adhered to Calvinism. Thus at the beginning of the 17th century the situation was the following: the Rhein lands and those south to the Danube were largely Catholic, while the Lutherans were the majority in the north, and Calvinists were predominant in some areas such as the Central part of Western Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. However, minorities of each creed existed almost everywhere. In some lordships and cities the number of Calvinists, Catholics, and Lutherans were approximately equal.
*****
It was all based on two versions of interpreting religious scripture.
It’s as clear an example of fighting for one’s religious view as one is likely to find–and of course, both sides were Christian.
The American Civil War was also constantly justified on religious grounds by both the North and the South.
I don’t think that anyone is questioning the fact that Hitler was a Christian, but we are questioning your theory that seemingly since Hitler=Christian=Violence then All Christians=Violence. Maybe if you’d stop throwing around phrases like reich-wingers we might not have a problem with this conversation…
OK, so I am guessing you are referencing our troops in action right now. We are not there because the Bible told us to drop bombs on Muslims.
The extremists that kidnapped and beheaded people proclaimed that infidels (non-muslims) should be beheaded. They took the heads off of people FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS
AFM – good point. “Hitler=Christian=Violence then All Christians=Violence” is CLEARLY WRONG.
So is “OBL=Muslim=Violence then All Muslims=Violence”
Sol, Bush said he invaded Iraq because God told him to.
Hmmm, I completely agree with you there, that is my point.
Capn,You are referncing the civil war? C’mon man. I’m talking about today. And the 30 year war? How many people knew about that before Hmmm posted it?
But Muslim extremists? Find some one who DOESN’T know about their atrocities.
“Agreed, but then could you stop saying that all Conservatives/Right-Wingers are stupid sheep that want to be like Hitler and kill off anyone who doesn’t agree with them???”
I don’t think I have ever referred to anyone as being like Hitler. The closest thing to that was my statement that if we intend to kill every Muslim it will require at least a 100 year war.
And, to whoever asked the question about Muslims having the largest percentage of extremists, I don’t know the answer to that question. There may be some data available on the net.
Hmmm – Actually I correct myself, that is PART of my point.
“You can’t get much done in the first 8 months of a presidency.”
Really, AFN.
Bush got tax breaks for the rich done. He pushed his star wars plan. He rammed through “no child left behind” against opposition.
So you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t be held responsible for 9-11 because he was too stupid and incompetent to quickly identify the real threats to our country despite Clinton’s people telling him as forcefully as they could.
Okay, you win.
Closest similaroty to Hitler in this discussion would be OBL.
Has anyone posted that anyone should kill all Muslims? I think the point here is the idiots who think that the Koran tells them to kill people and they do.
I wish the Muslim people would police the Muslim people. What better solution? They understand each other.
“Tax breaks for the rich” Geez, enough already dingus. Saying that over and over don’t make it so. Everybody got a tax rebate…unless you don’t pay no taxes.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but damn near all terrorists have been Muslims (pre-dead). Paints a picture don’t it.
I get so tired of that tax cut for the rich garbage.Tax cuts for everyone.Yes higher incomes received greater percentages because THAT will stimulate the economy.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm
“So you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t be held responsible for 9-11 because he was too stupid and incompetent to quickly identify the real threats to our country despite Clinton’s people telling him as forcefully as they could.”
First of all, the people who should be held responsible are the jerks who got on the planes and flew them into buildings killing thousands of people. Second of all, I was replying to your comment that we couldn’t say that Bush had done anything similar in his first 8 months in office as Clinton had done in 8 years in office. Duh! There’s a big difference between 8 months and 8 years!
Great point SOB
Thankee, yours as well.
Yup, I got a tax break. 300 dollars.
However the top one percent got 38,000 dollars.
My tax break was eaten up by higher local taxes because the feds cut help to them.
So really it was a tax shift.
BTW, as far a stimulating the economy–why did Clinton’s tax hikes lead to the balanced budget and Bush’s lead to the highest national debt (as a percentage of GDP) since WW2?
Vote Republican. It’s easier than thinking.
Be a lib. Raise taxes. Good one! Come join our party of whiners and victims!
New motto for ‘08: “It aint our fault” Go for it.
Come on man, Clinton’s era also had the big .com bubble. Remember that? It was awesome. Can Clinton take credit for that? His little buddy Gore didn’t “actually” invent the internet so I reckon not.
The economy was much better under Clinton’s tax increases on the rich and corporations. The economy hasn’t done so well under Bush’s immense tax cuts and increased spending. The only thing keeping the economy afloat is his huge deficit spending. The problem is when the inflation rate increases we won’t be in such a good situation.
Since poverty rates increased as a result of these tax breaks on the rich, but the wealth of the rich grew should we be assuming that KIA is only concerned with the economy of the wealthy, not us peasant folk?
You got a 300 rebate. How much did you pay in? How much did the top one percent put in?
Clinton allowed the dot com bubble to become massively over inflated. When it popped (as there was no other alternative) Bush kept the economy from collapsing.
It would seem that cutting spending (to your locality) would be saving federal dollars in favor of letting the locality govern its own taxes. Tax shift? No putting the tax burden where is belongs.
Read capn’s posts, funnier than the looney tunes.
If you neocons haven’t realized, our economy isn’t fully dependent on pets.com.
Maybe the reason it’s the highest since WW2 is because we are in another war. Although I don’t have proof, I would be willing to bet that our country’s debt has always been higher during wartime.
Our debt was higher during WW2 and the government increased taxes to deal with the increased spending. After the war the government maintained a balanced budget and reduced that debt. The Bush regime increased spending on an illegal occupation and decreased taxes. About the only thing similar to this occupation and WW2 is the length of the conflict.
No shit Doug. I said it as happened then (the .com) , not near as much now. You know what I mean.
“About the only thing similar to this occupation and WW2 is the length of the conflict.”
I never said that this was similar to WW2, I’m only suggesting that maybe, just maybe, our debt is always higher during times of war/conflict because we are spending so much money to support extra troops, machinery, etc outside of our borders.
The stock market increased because of increased investments in internet companies, but that’s not an indicator of the strength of the economy. The economy grew under Clinton because the country was recovering from the Bush recession and it was the longest period of economic growth because Clinton didn’t use the Reagan/Bush economic model.
During the Clinton era of record growth incomes on all economic scales went up. If what you said was true then we’d have the working and middle classes getting more revenue from their investments in Ebay and Amazon.com. However their investments in the stock market are usually over the long term and 401k plans don’t invest in risky ventures like start up internet companies. So the stock market had nothing to do with their economic growth and an online bookstore doesn’t create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The so-called dot com boom is just another Fox talking point memo that tries to discredit the Democratic contribution to economic growth. It has little basis in fact. Internet companies only played a small factor in the economic growth. I really don’t know why Republicans continue to rehash their debunked nonsense. Perhaps it’s a mantra like liberal media, cut and run, tax and spend or other crap nutters dream up and is constantly repeated on that liberal media I hear so much about.
Dear RD,
Almost every point that you made documenting the Clinton administration’s heroic battle against terrorism is pure crap.
Why don’t you pick one or two of your favorites and we’ll start debunking them in a logical and systematic manner?
Hank
Howdy Hank
SOB,
“Gore didn’t “actually” invent the internet”
Gore never claimed that he did — but he DID take the leadership role in Congress for creating it.
Enjoy your easy-to-use multimedia web browser?Mosaic was the first browser that handled graphics and audio — web growth exploded after it was developed.
Gore’s legislation funded the NCSA Mosaic team. Their 1993 demo page, http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html
That was a joke Cosmos, relax a bit. Everyone knows he invented it.
Defending Gore=humor every time.
Political Mom; YOU are disgusting and YOU and all the bigots in the world are the reason nations like Iran are allowed to exist. Peddling their religious fervor and hate in order to drum the masses into a frenzy.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can have the audacity to believe THEIR religion is the right one.
Well how freaking fortunate for you that YOU were born to a family who has it right; who somehow KNOWS they are on the correct path because THEY follow this 2000 year old book as opposed to THAT 2000 year old book.
Good job on being born, PMOM…way to go.
~Dubyahttp://wichitavoice.com
Dubya,I think political_mom was trolled. She made two off color comments then disappeared.
SOB,
In case you haven’t noticed, text here doesn’t convey inflection, humor, sarcasm, etc.
If you post something meant to be a “joke”, mark it with an emoticon, or “/joke”
Cosmos,
I figured since that was such an old joke people would infer it. But I know what you mean.
“That’s why Bush was elected twice, the American people wouldn’t trust you people to protect us and won’t trust you people in ‘08.”
Maybe the Repubs did not notice what happened to them in ‘06. We can only hope they cling to this one note song. Because if they do, ‘08 will not be very pretty for them.
Doug,
Right on! What you said, but the opposite.
I don’t personally care if you are Muslim or Christian; but when both of you say that God has told you to invade a country and/or fight the invaders of a country – both of you are totally nuts!
The US is seen as hypocrits because the Bush Administration and fellow Republicans have wrapped this Iraq War around the God and Democracy crap line.
Hank,
Please, be my guest. Debunk away. But post links to back it up, ‘k?
“Dumb statement.”
Really, fleet? Show me one time that war brought lasting peace. On this planet, anyway.
rox – it can, if we win the peace afterwards. Case in point: WW2. The Marshall Plan built Germany and Japan into allies of the US.
Sanford,
Perhaps you should try researching the basic reason we are not liked by Muslim nations.
And just who is “they” who have sworn to kill us? And why?
If you had a brain, you’d be dangerous.
hmmmm….
Time will tell.
There will never be lasting peace on this earth until everyone is dead and gone. Someone, somewhere is going to want what someone else has. Or they’ll want the other to live as they do, think as they do, worship (or not) as they do.
I wouldn’t say WW2 made peace in Germany all that lasting. What about the split of Germany into East and West? Would you call that peaceful? No war, but it wasn’t peace, either.
As for Japan, we cowed them. Weannihilated them, or at least a part of them. There’s no way to know if they might someday retaliate.
Face it. We love war.
rox – I guess my thinking is that in the 60+ years since V-E/J days we have had relative peace in and with the old Axis. The split of Germany was a problem but probably necessary at the time. My main point is that by re-building rather than further crushing the countries we laid a groundwork for peace.
Looking WAY back I wonder how OUR history would ahve turned out after the Civil War if Lincoln’s dream of a real reconstruction (rather than just occupation) had been followed.
That is what I meant by “winning the peace”
I say let’s all try holding hands with the enemy instead of trying to defeat them.
Pick your favorite myth, RD. I’ll debunk away!
Hank
AARGH! It’s an SOB convention.
Hi Hank, how ya doing? Any word from Nathan? Hope he’s OK.
hmmmmm….
I see your point. Well made. I hope you’re right.
Nathan has been pretty busy, momma got an email from him today.
He says its like being stuck in the movie ‘Groundhog Day’, every day is the same.
He appears to be relatively safe, thanks for your thoughts.
Hank
Hank,
Let’s just start from the top.
*Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Are you saying the Clinton Admin didn’t do that, or it wasn’t the first to do it?
Hank, glad to hear latest on Nathan.
Hank – thanks for the update.
The Israeli state is just a puppet of the American government. 1) They’re all soldiers. 2) They kill Palestinians indiscriminately.
Now all we need to do is ship Israel Jerry Seinfeld, and all will be well with the world.
God only had ONE relationship with the Jews–they were his chosen people: chosen for evangalism, chosen for mission.Not chosen to own a piece of real-estate in a desert.For being so “religious,” I’m always appalled at how little the Rapture-right actually knows about the historical context of their religion.Posted by: CapnAmerica | December 08, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Well you obviously have an understanding of the Jews place as God’s chosen people.I’m surprised you would believe that but not the rest.
Dear RD,
When you bring up Clinton’s national Anti-terrorism co-ordinator I assume you mean the feckless Richard Clark.
And what, exactly, was the great anti-terrorism policy that Richard Clark was responsible for?
Whatever it was it allowed al Qaeda to blissfully exist in Afganistan for eight years. Years in which they pumped out thousands of trained terrorists from their training camps.
It was a policy that allowed the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center to be treated like common criminals with no attempt to go after the real leaders of the attack.
It was a policy that allowed al Qaeda to carry on a war against the US basically unhampered for eight years. A war that cost hundreds of lives from the attack on our foriegn embassies, the USS Cole, our Air Force barracks in Saudia Arabia and many many more.
Hell, the RPGs that brought down our helicopters in Somalia were rigged by the very terrorists that Usama Ben Ladin trained under the inept ‘anti-terrorist’ policy of the Clinton administration.
Basically it was a policy in name only.
Hank
Hank,Blaming the Left for the ills of American foreign policy. How typical!
Hank–
Wow, did Clinton suck or what?!
Thank goodness we had Old Brass Balls Bush in there to really kick Al Qaeda’s ass, right?
Good thing he went on the offensive from day one, because you’re right, Hank, after 8 years of horrible non-stop Al Qaeda atrocities, BB Bush would surely want to shut them down immediately.
So what did he do to reverse Clinton’s do-nothing policies?
Hank?
Hank?
Richard ClarkE. Let’s get it right. And I wasn’t necessarily referring to him. Still, you didn’t really give a definitive answer, so let’s try the next one. I wouldn’t say you debunked anything, more gave your opinion. Doesn’t count, sorry.
*Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
And before you say the Clinton Admin didn’t do this themselves, that statement is fairly general, as it encompasses those working in and with the White House.
Oh, well, shoot, let’s go for broke and do a threefer.
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
I’ll even give you a link for these.http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
If you weren’t thinking of the inept Clark, who were you thinking of? And what, pray tell, was Clinton’s policy against terorism that allowed his buddy Yassir Arafat to visit the White House more than his head of the CIA?
What was his policy? Who was his national head of anti-terrorism?
“*Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.”
Oh, really! This was just blind luck. It was the result of an observant customs agent. Not the result of any policy of the Clinton adminstration.
“– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).”
How did he try to kill Osama? Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the 9/11 commission that three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because “we’re not quite sure.” In 1996 Sudan offered OBL to us on a silver platter. What was the policy that Clinton had in effect that allowed this offer to go unaccepted?
“– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.”
This was not the result of any anti-terrorism policy. It was the result of the justice system treating these terrorists as mere common criminals. Completely independant from any national policy of the Clinton administration! Clinton never went to the World Trade Center. Clinton made no changes to policy to adjust to the incresed activity of al Qaeda.
“– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office.”
So what? The Bush administration has never blamed Clinton for 9/11.
“Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.”
Bullshit. There is only one thing ever proven that Clinton was ‘obsessive’ about, and it wasn’t terrorism.
Hank
Hank?
Wanna talk about the original “cut and runner”?
YOU know. When Reagan bailed outta Lebanon?
If you weren’t thinking of the inept Clark, who were you thinking of? And what, pray tell, was Clinton’s policy against terorism that allowed his buddy Yassir Arafat to visit the White House more than his head of the CIA?
What was his policy? Who was his national head of anti-terrorism?
“*Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.”
Oh, really! This was just blind luck. It was the result of an observant customs agent. Not the result of any policy of the Clinton adminstration.
“– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).”
How did he try to kill Osama? Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the 9/11 commission that three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because “we’re not quite sure.” In 1996 Sudan offered OBL to us on a silver platter. What was the policy that Clinton had in effect that allowed this offer to go unaccepted?
“– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.”
This was not the result of any anti-terrorism policy. It was the result of the justice system treating these terrorists as mere common criminals. Completely independant from any national policy of the Clinton administration! Clinton never went to the World Trade Center. Clinton made no changes to policy to adjust to the incresed activity of al Qaeda.
“– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office.”
So what? The Bush administration has never blamed Clinton for 9/11.
“Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.”
Bullshit. There is only one thing ever proven that Clinton was ‘obsessive’ about, and it wasn’t terrorism.
Hank
I don’t know, Hank. Why don’t you check the link I posted to answer your questions.
Or do you consider snopes a liberal website?
If you weren’t thinking of the inept Clark, who were you thinking of? And what, pray tell, was Clinton’s policy against terorism that allowed his buddy Yassir Arafat to visit the White House more than his head of the CIA?
What was his policy? Who was his national head of anti-terrorism?
“*Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.”
Oh, really! This was just blind luck. It was the result of an observant customs agent. Not the result of any policy of the Clinton adminstration.
“– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).”
How did he try to kill Osama? Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the 9/11 commission that three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because “we’re not quite sure.” In 1996 Sudan offered OBL to us on a silver platter. What was the policy that Clinton had in effect that allowed this offer to go unaccepted?
“– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.”
This was not the result of any anti-terrorism policy. It was the result of the justice system treating these terrorists as mere common criminals. Completely independant from any national policy of the Clinton administration! Clinton never went to the World Trade Center. Clinton made no changes to policy to adjust to the incresed activity of al Qaeda.
“– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office.”
So what? The Bush administration has never blamed Clinton for 9/11.
“Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.”
Bullshit. There is only one thing ever proven that Clinton was ‘obsessive’ about, and it wasn’t terrorism.
Hank
The historical record refutes all your points unequivocally, Hank.
“How did he try to kill Osama? Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the 9/11 commission that three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because ‘we’re not quite sure.’”
Wrong. It was the CIA who wasn’t quite sure. They never had “actionable intelligence,” meaning they couldn’t be sure that Osama was there or that he was with others who the US didn’t want to kill, like Saudi royals.
Clinton bombed his training camp in Afghanistan and killed a lot of Al Qaeda, but that was widely ridiculed by people like you at the time as “wag the dog.”
ANYWAY, you still haven’t answered my criticism. If Clinton was such a POS and his policies toward terrorism were so bad, why didn’t Bush make that priority ONE from day ONE?
If it were so obvious that Al Qaeda was a threat to Americans on American soil as you say it was, why didn’t Bush do something about it with his kick-ass, guns blazing approach?
Why didn’t he shoot tomahawks at Bin Laden? Why were members of the Bin Laden family IN THE UNITED STATES when 9-11 happened? Why didn’t he “bring it on” as soon as he took command of the military in January of 2001?
See, you don’t get to have it both ways, Hank.
You can’t say that “Clinton pussy-footed around” for 8 years and ignored all the warning signs, and then say at the same time that Bush did everything possible to prevent 9-11.
Clinton said on Fox News that he didn’t do enough to kill Bin Laden because he didn’t kill him. (Notice that Bush has never and I mean never admitted any kind of a mistake, even when directly asked.)
But Clinton said, “at least I tried.”
How did Bush try, Hank?
Perhaps it’s better to let Hank and his ilk live in their fantasy world. If they’re lucky, history revisionists will see things their way, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can learn in school that George W. Bush was the greatest American President that ever lived.
After all, what difference does it make? We’ll all be dead by then anyway. ;)
Capn, on the same note…
Hank, why did Bush and his administration call a halt to the Predator in Afghanistan, shortly after GW took the oath on that Bible?