The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-11-2007, 07:03 PM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


i didn't forget that. however, clinton and the CIA new exactly where about bin Laden was, and had the opportunity to kill him, but Clinton froze.
How much legal basis did he have at the time though? I don't clear Clinton, by any means, but I also can't fault him.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 07:12 PM   #62
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


i didn't forget that. however, clinton and the CIA new exactly where about bin Laden was, and had the opportunity to kill him, but Clinton froze.
Hmm, apparently the freezing isn't confined to Clinton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/wa...=y&oref=slogin

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

"Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

"The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda."
----------

And, i should add this link (there are plenty others), that give a nice overview of how much Clinton did try to kill Bin Laden. Interesting bit in there about Clinton's talk with Bush while handing over the presidency:

"In December 2000, when George W. Bush was finally declared the winner of the U.S. presidential election, he sat down for a private meeting with Bill Clinton at the White House. In that meeting, Clinton says he told Bush that al-Qaeda was the biggest threat to the United States and that not catching or killing bin Laden was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency.

"Director Terence McKenna asked counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke if Clinton wanted bin Laden dead, "Absolutely, absolutely, Bill Clinton had an enormous frustration. Bill Clinton had ordered the al-Qaeda leaders not just bin Laden to be arrested. That didn't work. Then he changed the order and said well, since it's evident that you can't arrest him, you are authorized to kill him and nothing happened. And he really didn't understand why the CIA was so ineffective and couldn't do that."
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 07:39 PM   #63
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 09:12 PM
I recall reading Richard Clarke's book several years ago, Against All Enemies. Quite interesting

Clarke details how, in light of mounting intelligence of the danger Al-Qaeda presented, his urgent requests to move terrorism up the list of priorities in the early days of the administration were met with apathy and procrastination and how, after the attacks took place, Bush and key figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney turned their attention almost immediately to Iraq, a nation not involved in the attacks. Against All Enemies takes the reader inside the Beltway beginning with the Reagan administration, who failed to retaliate against the 1982 Beirut bombings, fueling the perception around the world that the United States was vulnerable to such attacks. Terrorism becomes a growing but largely ignored threat under the first President Bush, whom Clarke cites for his failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein, thereby necessitating a continued American presence in Saudi Arabia that further inflamed anti-American sentiment. Clinton, according to Clarke, understood the gravity of the situation and became increasingly obsessed with stopping Al-Qaeda. He had developed workable plans but was hamstrung by political infighting and the sex scandal that led to his impeachment. But Bush and his advisers, Clarke says, didn't get it before 9/11 and they didn't get it after, taking a unilateral approach that seemed destined to lead to more attacks on Americans and American interests around the world.
__________________
Lila64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 08:11 PM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


oh really? how is that?
Question: How can you blame 9/11 on Clinton and not the CIA and FBI, but then say it's not Bush's fault because of the CIA and FBI?

Question: What about the warnings Bush received and did nothing about?

Question: How can you only base his presidency on terrorist attacks alone? Aren't there MANY MANY other issues out there, which I pointed out?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 08:12 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


How can we not base it on that? Before President Bush, all of the big three were extremely distant from each other. They hardly functioned with each other. Now, they do joint operations and share information, which you did not see during Clinton's age. Is that part of the reason why we have seen so many terror ploits foiled? Maybe.


Did you even read what I said? I doubt it. If so, tell me what the point of my post was.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 11:41 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26




Did you even read what I said? I doubt it. If so, tell me what the point of my post was.
He didn't conform

so he had to go.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 02:20 AM   #67
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


He didn't conform

so he had to go.
I hope you aren't serious...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 11:50 AM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:12 AM
He's screwed everything up.
__________________
verte76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:32 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:12 PM
So here's a question for this thread:

Which will be viewed by history as better/worse (depending on your perspective) -

Bush's supreme court

or

Bush's war on terror/Iraq war
__________________
Varitek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:04 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:12 AM
The war will be remembered. Supreme court decisions, or like here, appointments, and such get forgotten quite fast. Except by those studying it or having some interest in learning about those times.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:21 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Sorry Vincent, I think the full effect of that question can only be felt by Americans, particularly liberals - while it is obvious that Bush's international legacy will be most remembered as screwing up Iraq and meddling with the excuse of a war on terror, for us, the restrictions on civil liberties, the backwards steps on abortion, the openings created between religion and the state are possibly as excruciatingly painful as the war on terror is. And arguably as long-lasting. Some of the decisions made recently will not be forgotten fast but will have a lasting impact on American institutions and quite possibly society and values. By extension of the supreme court you could also talk about his legacy of consolidating presidential power, which has come up for decisions and sadly been validated.

So, I know this is an international forum, but I guess that question was aimed at the other American liberals on here (u2dem, unico, Mrs. Springsteen, BVS, Irvine...all the people I always agree with...sorry if I missed anyone...) because I can't decide where I fall on the question - it sort of depends on what current events are enraging me at any given moment.
__________________
Varitek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:27 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 11:12 PM
i think worse would be the bush administration itself. i think this war is just one example of the corrupt practices of this administration. it is sickening really.

i'm regretting of being asked about this by young people in the future.

'how did you let this happen?' i guess upon retrospect, things are going to seem a lot clearer to many than they do now. but i'm almost embarrased by it all, really.
__________________
unico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:31 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:12 PM
But I'm assuming you, like me, didn't just "let this happen" but voted against him, maybe worked for one of the other guys, protested the war, called your senators and congressman, etc.

However how my generation, my parents generation, and my grandparents generation as a whole let this happen is a complete mystery. Karl Rove comes to mind, but some of the blame lies with the voters, and a lot of the blame lies with those who don't exercise their right to vote, and a lot of the blame lies on the system that deprives people of the will or ability to exercise their rights to vote. Which in some ways comes back to Karl Rove.
__________________
Varitek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:37 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 11:12 PM
well no, not me individually. i was protesting too. i meant the "you" as a collective "you." these people have gotten away with so much, and under our watch...with 13% STILL supporting the frontrunner. i think it just makes it look very bad. in history class, it is more of a discussion of politics than anything else. students of the future are going to be reading our chapter and asking "wtf was up with those people?"
__________________
unico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 02:59 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Do you think they'll have the same embarassed and apologetic guilt that young Germans/Austrians had? (NB: NOT comparing Bush to Hitler, just referencing a feeling...)

I mean, I kind of already do.
__________________

__________________
Varitek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com