|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:36 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
War Child
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 05:36 AM
|
Quote:
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." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 10:36 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
Quote:
![]() Did you even read what I said? I doubt it. If so, tell me what the point of my post was. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:36 PM
|
Quote:
so he had to go. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:36 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:36 AM
|
He's screwed everything up.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,722
Local Time: 07:36 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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
well no, not me individually. i was protesting too.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 12:36 AM
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 09:36 PM
|
There HAVE been terrorist attacks in the U.S since 9/11. Anthrax, anyone? 5 people dead, 17 infected, and we still have no idea who did it.
There's a hilarious parade of "thwarted attacks" that the Bush Administration has trotted out, true. For instance, there's the guy that was going to blowtorch the Brooklyn Bridge to pieces! Of course, he was caught by law enforcement, not the military like Bush attacked Kerry for suggesting in the '04 elections. Better to use the military to attack foreign countries and stop the terrorists there. So that worked out well. Let's ignore terrorism though. Are there any Bush Administration successes anyone can point to? I try and look, but I see an Anti-Midas Touch of Failure, that whatever they try and do they inevitably fail horribly. North Korea? Failure. Curbing Iranian influence? Failure. Fiscal responsibility? Failure. Immigration reform? Failure. Privatize Social Security? Failure. I can think of only Medicare and No Child Left Behind, and even those now look sketchy w/ an enormous donut hole in coverage and a terrible unfunded mandate. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#77 | ||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:36 AM
|
Not really saying anything new, but a reminder of how UK conservatives don't want anything to do with Bush.
The writer is probably one of the most right wing mainstream commentators in Britain, outside of tabloids. US can't get rid of George W Bush fast enough - Telegraph Quote:
Also, an interesting, and in my view perceptive comment re Powell: Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:36 AM
|
Only thing is, I saw through Bush from a long time back, pretty much from day one.
Why did other conservatives not? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:36 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 05:36 AM
|
Quote:
Wow. That was a year and a half ago. I didn't read this whole thread, but man, that is some amazing shit right there. Solidified relationships with other countries? Are you nuts? Guided the nation through Katrina? Wow. I think you are nuts. The sweetest part is your assesment of the economy though. Yep, it really worked out well didn't it? YourPost=Epic Fail. Really, is this poster around anymore? Because he/she has got to answer for this kind of display of outright stupidity. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|