Blame Clinton For 9-11

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

"Free Willy" Billy was aquitted, so therefore he must not have been guilty. Just like Orenthal.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

I stand corrected. As I remember it, The US wished to use Turkey as a staging area and was denied by internal pressures. As I recall, now that you have set me straight, the US said to Turkey DO NOT enter northern Iraq, and I remember wondering what the US would do if they did. It would have been a catch 22 for the US, either repel the Turks and inadvertently support Kurdish independence, or allow Turkey to grab the oilfields and partly legitimize Saddam's heavy-handed quelling of the Kurdish independence movement.

I was in error in this case.

Thanks.

[Whistler]

“...Here’s what former counterterrorism official in the Reagan Administration Robert Oakley told The Washington Post on Dec. 24, 2000, about Clinton’s national security policy: “Overall, I give them very high marks.” He went on: “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger.”

I venture the truth lies between somewhere.

[Craig Read]

Utter tripe. In the real world, Clinton pulled out of Somalia, bombed an aspirin factory as the cigar-sex scandal screamed out of control in Sudan, made no efforts to eliminate terrorist camps and did nothing to shore up and prepare national defences.

The Clinton News Network and Friends can try to cover up the truth - but the great thing is that most Americans know he screwed up. He was a patsy on Foreign Affairs.

Too busy with his personal problems and pardoning criminals to run the country properly.

A very sad President, one of the worst ever, in the same leagues as that nauseating dolt Jimmy Carter.

[Nuclear]

how many of the coliation of the willing joined without threats, or bribes?

lol.

And here is the opinion of our local UN and NATO representative who was there when this all happened.

Either you're telepathic or full of crap. Hmm....lemme guess.

For fleabag or whatever your name is....

The US has no responsibility to anyone else. Our military is paid for by Americans....so hence, their job is to protect Americans. Our second priority is to protect our allies. England is one of them. Together, we watch each others' backs.

In WW1 and WW2, England needed help and we did help. Hours after 9-11, England pledged their support for helping the US.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Nuclear,

I agree with you that Canada, and especially Chretien, was slow in supporting the US after 9/11.

In WWII, Canada was right behind the UK in fighting Naziism. A little behind other commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, because it was debated for 3 day before a vote( with only one dissenter) here.

The US finally did join the allies, in 1941, after trying to stay out of it as long as they could. The country was divided until Pearl Harbour.

I agree we must watch each other's backs. I get worried, though, when one of our 'partners' goes ahead with rash actions against our advice and actions that are against the law.

[Hugo]

But it wasn't against the law. I keep telling you, 14 UN resolutions passed that all authorised force should they be broken, and all were broken! Gulf II was made legal the day the first one was passed.

I also don't see how it can be called "rash" when the peaceful alternative was given 12 years to work. Over a decade's consideration seems rash to you? How long do you deliberate before making a decision? 20 years? 50?

[Whistler]

And who hasn’t broken a UN resolution?

I do see validity in:

1. Trying to help end the suffering of the Iraqi people.

2. Attempting to bring that region to some type of normalcy.

But don’t piss on my foot and tell me it’s raining.

[nova_satori]

is 14 do nothing, and 15 instant war? lol.

[Hugo]

And who hasn’t broken a UN resolution?

The People's Republic of China. What does that tell you?

[Craig Read]

I urge people to read this book.

The author spent 2 years on it, interviewed all top Clinton aid's, field personnel in the FBI and CIA and spend months with Arabic speaking officers in various countries who are fighting terrorism. He also somehow got his hands on super confidential documents from the US and abroad.

His conclusion: Clinton wanted an image as a peacemaker and needed the far left wing of the Dumbocrud party for support on a range of political issues. Ergo, politics trumped security.

The field forces of the FBI and CIA were fully engaged in the war on terror, but the further you climbed the bureaucratic and political ladder the more muddied and lethargic was the response to a series of direct assualts by Bin Laden against US interests, people and assets, including the Aden Hotel bombing, the '93 WTO bombing, 2 Embassy bombings in East Africa, bombing of the USS Cole, and a number of other attacks. The author states that Clinton did not do enough and viewed these attacks as criminal investigations not acts of war.

Hundreds of Americans and thousands of other nationalities died.

August 7th 1998 when the embassy bombs ripped through 2 East African cities was the moment for Clinton to finally, belatedly, lethargically accept that a war was in process and to rally the nation.

He did nothing.

This is Clinton's legacy - the emboldening of terrorist activity and the devastation of 9-11.

[Nuclear]

is 14 do nothing, and 15 instant war? lol.

Nova: If someone hits you in the face, you may take it. If they do it again, you may take it again. The UN took it 14 times. The UN may bea bunch of blind idiots who are too afraid to do anything and won't do anything without US help(but love to talk bad to the US like they think they can control us or something). The US isn't going to take it and we didn't. Now Iraq isn't breaking resolutions...problem resolved.

For Criag: Clinton also has the legacy of getting action under his desk.....how many people get pid 400k a year to sit there for that! He was a moron AND a pervert.

[Synon]

oh my god, you people cant be serious, he got a bj, big freakin deal. Oh no he cheated on his wife! If you cheated on your wife and lied to the people under you about it you think you would be fired? NO! Man that is so childish to use his personal life as to how well he ran the country, it's got nothing to do with anything. If it's not relevant, don't bring it up.

Read, I think it's great that you have your opinion which you are more than entitled to. But name calling(Dumbocrud) just makes you seem really immature, surely you can make your point without stereotyping and insulting people in the process. Only I get to do that.

Saddam just released a new tape threatening "catastrophic” losses unless we unconditionally withdraw from Iraq. If a nuke goes off in the states, are you going to blame Clinton for that too? Had George Washington done something, none of this would have happened!

If Clinton had took action it might of been worse, but you guys convienently think things would have been better. Unless you have some kind of supernatural power to know what the world would be today had Clinton made a different decision, then your opinion might have some relivance, but as it stands, you have absolutly nothing to base your facts on, no matter how many you have. He couldn't predict the future, neither can you, so why are you holding it against him? It wasn't anybodies fault, but that doesn't seem to satisfy you, you need someone to blame, yet the fact still remains you have NO CLUE what would have happened had he done something different. This isn't dominos, it's not that easy to predict what would have happened, reality is a more complex than you give it credit for.

[Craig Read]

You are truly pathetic.

You did not reply to one fact listed in the thread.

You maintain that 9-11 was okay and the slaughter of thousands not a big deal.

You maintain that perjury, lying, impeachment and corrupting the highest office in the US is not of concern.

You my friend are a monumental outrage and blubbering apologist.

[Whistler]

The US isn't going to take it and we didn't. Now Iraq isn't breaking resolutions...problem resolved.

Hey great news!!! Let’s bring our boys and girls home!!!!!

This whole blame game is plain lame. We are there now and that is the only fact we can all agree on. We must see this ‘nation building’ through period. We can not afford to half azz this. Colin Powell is doing his darndest to get other countries on board. Go General go.

[Nuclear]

oh my god, you people cant be serious, he got a bj, big freakin deal. Oh no he cheated on his wife! If you cheated on your wife and lied to the people under you about it you think you would be fired? NO! Man that is so childish to use his personal life as to how well he ran the country, it's got nothing to do with anything. If it's not relevant, don't bring it up.

What he does in his house on his time is his business. No, he did this in the OVAL OFFICE. Imagine if you find your boss in his office screwing around...unless he owns the company, he is going to be out of a job.

Then, when confronted about screwing around in the Oval Office, he looks America in the face and LIES to us. You are gonna say "Bush did the same thing in his State of the Union!" Well the difference is this. Clinton redefined 'sexual relations' to suit his needs so it was a white lie. He lied. He told us what he knew was not the truth. Bush: He believed what he said was the truth when he said it. The information turned out to be bad, but that is not his fault. He can't be crawling in ditches spying on the bad guys, he needs to count on the CIA and FBI to do it right and they goofed. Oops. Clinton lied.

As far as blaming Clinton: He did NOTHING to prevent terrorism. He bombed an Asprin factory and shot a few missles here and a few there. Bush is going all the way and isn't stopping till we get them. That's why I like a Texan in office. He finishes the job when Clinton only nitpicked at it.

[KrustyKidd]

For somebody to ask a question of the pesident like "did (he) Clinton have sex" is in bad taste and totally irrelevent to any political process. Whoever thought of, brought it forward or asked it should be barred from politics altogether.

For Clinton to lie under oath is unforgivable.

[Craig Read]

I agree Nuclear and KK, Clinton is the apotheosis of Lie-beralism. His great legacy was supposedly the economy - the tax cuts which stimulated the economy were arm twisted by the Rep. Congress during the mid 90s, the welfare reforms were initiated by the Rep. Congress, and Clinton's team mis-managed macro finances and rates to such an extent that a bubble ensued and the stock market collapsed along with jobs BEFORE the 2000 election.

The man was not only ignorant, catatonic, but more importantly unable to focus on key issues; managing the economy properly, terrorism, military reform and reducing spending on non-essential programs.

Now he and his little friends are trying to arm twist a massive socialist medicare package through to fund drugs for the senior jet set which owns 65 % of US assets.

Good God, can't this guy die or just go away ??

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

But it wasn't against the law. I keep telling you, 14 UN resolutions passed that all authorised force should they be broken, and all were broken! Gulf II was made legal the day the first one was passed.

There are presently over 30 resolutions pending or broken by Israel, 20 by Turkey and 15 by Morrocco. The US has vetoed (the only member on the specific resolutions to do so) 36 times UN resolutions against Israel. As you can see, the #'s themselves aren't that important.

The use of force was not officially authorized by the UN at the time, for the inspectors were still there. They could not find WMD's, (I don't know if it can ever be proven one way or the other now) but the US decided to invade WITHOUT specific sanction from the UN. Hence the international community's reluctance to 'legitimize' the invasion.

(Here comes the illegal part):

If, indeed, the US acted without the sanction of the UN, they must declare war. If they did not officially declare war, then it is a violation of the soveriegnty of an independent nation.

As with the prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay, the actions of the US are deemed to be 'internationally illegal'. (Those prisoners are being held without legal counsel, on technicalities. The US did not declare war there also, so the prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention. It was ruled in the US that they are technically not on US soil either, so they have no 'US constitutional rights' .) In a nutshell, they have been kidnapped, for there was no declaration of war and no charges pending. One of the recognized measurements of a country for Human Rights standards are 'freedom from incommunicado detention', 'freedom from detention without charges', 'the right to legal counsel' and expediency of judicial process.

( I cannot recall exactly how these are worded, but you get the idea)

Back to Iraq: The absence of a formal declaration of war is what muddied the whole process of the 'reponsibility of rebuilding' and would have been made a lot clearer if the US had 'played by the rules (of engagement)' instead of making up the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[KrustyKidd]

Dear Hugo,

But it wasn't against the law. I keep telling you, 14 UN resolutions passed that all authorised force should they be broken, and all were broken! Gulf II was made legal the day the first one was passed.

There are presently over 30 resolutions pending or broken by Israel, 20 by Turkey and 15 by Morrocco. The US has vetoed (the only member on the specific resolutions to do so) 36 times UN resolutions against Israel. As you can see, the #'s themselves aren't that important.

The use of force was not officially authorized by the UN at the time, for the inspectors were still there. They could not find WMD's, (I don't know if it can ever be proven one way or the other now) but the US decided to invade WITHOUT specific sanction from the UN. Hence the international community's reluctance to 'legitimize' the invasion.

(Here comes the illegal part):

If, indeed, the US acted without the sanction of the UN, they must declare war. If they did not officially declare war, then it is a violation of the soveriegnty of an independent nation.

As with the prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay, the actions of the US are deemed to be 'internationally illegal'. (Those prisoners are being held without legal counsel, on technicalities. The US did not declare war there also, so the prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention. It was ruled in the US that they are technically not on US soil either, so they have no 'US constitutional rights' .) In a nutshell, they have been kidnapped, for there was no declaration of war and no charges pending. One of the recognized measurements of a country for Human Rights standards are 'freedom from incommunicado detention', 'freedom from detention without charges', 'the right to legal counsel' and expediency of judicial process.

( I cannot recall exactly how these are worded, but you get the idea)

Back to Iraq: The absence of a formal declaration of war is what muddied the whole process of the 'reponsibility of rebuilding' and would have been made a lot clearer if the US had 'played by the rules (of engagement)' instead of making up the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Lonious, you are correct. All sorts of legal problems are there. Lots of shortcuts were taken for sure but if you define "Soveriegn Nation" in any loose sense it would not include Usay, Uday, and Saddam's personal 320 thousand square mile sex dungeon would it?

Now to Afganistan; American was attacked by people who came from Afganistan or whose head was there. The ones in AFG dressed in robes and carried AK47s, wore no recognizable uniforms and blended in with the local population. Spies.

Hang them all, no sense giving them anything. Kill them. There is a legal alternative.

[theloniusfleabag]

[Dear KK,

I am afraid you would be right, spies are traditionally shot on the spot. However, it would be tough to prove one was a spy while one was defending one's country against armed invasion.

The ones in AFG dressed in robes and carried AK47s, wore no recognizable uniforms and blended in with the local population.

Apart from the AK47's and robes, that was the same complaint the British Redcoats had about the 'American revolutionaries'.

Most of the people I know were not happy with Saddam, and perhaps a clean, unattributed assassination was in order. That would have been a lot more palatable than the 'Wyatt Earp' style justice that is going on. (Just so you know, Wyatt Earp was subsequently run out of town as a murderer after the OK corral, since it was an ambush with the intent of murder, not a 'bust gone wrong')

[KrustyKidd]

it would be tough to prove one was a spy while one was defending one's country against armed invasion.

Yes indeed. Things to look for are; Morrocan, Saudi, Egytpian, Iranian, American (Jon Wlaker Lingh), Syrian, Yeman, Lybian, Sudanese and Pakistani passports. Posession of shoes, boots or anything made in a foreign country. A knowledge of a world outside the village they are captured in, knowing the name of anybody but Bush, Saddam, Uday and Usay, . Also dead give aways are inability to account for hometown recollections in Afg and Iraq. There are experts in Arabic there that can tell the difference between an Eqyptian and an Iraqi accent as well I'm sure. Oh, one other thing, an Iraqi welcomes money, freedom and democracy while an Egyptian fundementalist hates it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

That's a lot o' hangin's. Shooting is way quicker, but more costly. One could 'add value' by using the 'spies' as target practice for green recruits. I'm sure it's been done before... lol

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

I am guilty of digression on this thread.

The author states that Clinton did not do enough and viewed these attacks as criminal investigations not acts of war.

While Pres. Bush was willing to 'declare war of terrorism', it is in fact impossible. Mr Clinton was, at the time, without benefit of hindsight, (except his 'behind sight'), correct in not 'declaring war' on an identifiable nation. Given the acceptable definition of 'terrorism', one cannot declare war on it anymore than one can declare war on 'pre-emptive self-defence'. It is an idea, not a place or a nation, or even a person.

[Hugo]

There are presently over 30 resolutions pending or broken by Israel, 20 by Turkey and 15 by Morrocco.

Yes, and as I said, 0 against China, despite Tiananmen Square and Tibet. This alone should tell you the worthlessness of the UN as a body of law, and the inherent satire in appealing to this international gang of thieves as any kind of authority.

In a nutshell, they have been kidnapped, for there was no declaration of war and no charges pending.

My heart bleeds. I wonder how their treatment in Guantanamo Bay compares to how they treated their own prisoners and hostages?