Jesus fulfilled the law, not change them. That is what was meant by New Testament in the bible. Beside, where in the bible does it say that you must stone your children?
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Gov. Bill Owens and Mayor Lionel Rivera declined to extend an official welcome to the Atheist Alliance for its national convention this weekend, and attendees said they felt slighted.
Guess it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. No matter what President Bush does you surely will be there to say that it is the wrong thing. We sure don't need the U.N. in there shooting at us like they are in Clinton's quagmire right now...
JUBJLANA, Slovenia, April 17 — Two American women working as prison guards with the United Nations in Kosovo were killed Saturday and 10 other Americans and an Austrian working as prison officers were wounded when a Jordanian, also with the United Nations, opened fire on them, officials said. The attacker was shot and killed...
...It was another blow for the ethnically divided city, which is still recovering from a recent wave of ethnic unrest in which 19 people were killed and more than 800 injured.
The violence began in Mitrovica and spread across the region as ethnic Albanian mobs attacked the province's minority Serb community. More than 4,000 people were displaced from their homes as a result, and more than 500 homes destroyed or damaged, according to United Nations figures.
The prospects of the United Nations taking over the transition in Iraq may now be fatally compromised. The world body is caught up in a welter of allegations and evidence suggesting strongly that a noble effort of humanitarian assistance was tainted by greed, bribery, and the most venal kind of power politics. The U.N. was supposed to oversee the oil-for-food program that allowed Saddam Hussein to sell oil and use the proceeds to buy essential food and medicine for the Iraqi people. At least $10 billion, evidently, went into the pockets of political operators.
It is a tribute to the new American-installed democracy in Iraq that an Iraqi newspaper has been in the forefront of exposing the racket and naming the 270 international power brokers who seem to have had their hands in the till. Here's how the scam allegedly worked: Saddam sold oil to his friends and allies around the world at deep discounts. The buyers resold the oil at huge profits. Saddam then got kickbacks of 10 percent from both the oil traders and the suppliers of humanitarian goods. Iraqi bean counters, fortunately, kept meticulous records...
Bush asked the U.N, Twice, they refused. Fine. The U.N left after it's H.Q was attacked after refusing U.S security. They left, period. People have constantly said, get the U.N invoved etc. etc. unilateral blah blah. Well we have asked, they don't have the will to do so and have already left the building. So we want them to come back to help with elections. That's fine, in fact there's very little the U.N does well but overseeing elections might just be one of them. It's a strech though. As Dan pointed out they are mired in quite a scandal regarding Iraq and the food for oil program. The U.N has grown so large and bereaucratic that it's a lumbering wooly mammoth. I think the U.N is soon to go the way of the wolly mammoth.
"Nor apparently, is he a strong enough LEADER to KEEP the small contingents from the smaller nations that are now leaving, to STAY the course with us,"
I'm wondering if this coalition matters that much to him. If it ends up just the U.S. and Britain on this journey, I don't think the neocons will be too broken up about it.
Yes, well that is certainly ONE story, but the fact is that GDubbya has NEVER wanted the U.N. involved, was never talented enough as a politician to GET them involved, or to form a truly STRONG and SWEEPING coallition of nations, as did his pappy?
Amazing how consistently wrong you are. Bush would have welcomed the UN and they would have joined in if France, Germany and Russia didn't have an interest in keeping Saddam in power.
Let's say for one minute that the U.N was in charge of ops in Iraq. What countries would most of the troops come from ? The U.S and England. What countries are most of the troops from there right now ? The U.S and England. What countries supply most of the equipment?Hint, it's not Germany.
The fact remains that they left, plain and simple. They've done it many times before. When they are needed the most they leave or spend so long debating it that it's over by the time they do act. Rwanda ?
Kevin Phillips' book American Dynastystarts out tracing back the family tree of the Bushes and Walkers. Geneological records show the Bush family can claim descendancy from Henry VIII and probably Henry III. They also have a common relative with Winston Churchill.
"John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, would have choked," Phillips writes. "John F. Kennedy, grandson of a Boston saloonkeeper, would have heard Irish ghosts laughing uproariously."
Quite the cynical outlook. They were never asked by GDubbya to come IN, after he began the war that is, until recently,
He asked before and has said he'd welocome the U.N contributing at any time. Let me ask you, Do you think they would have anyway ?
and they WERE attacked and murdered when they DID send in some representatives and none of them were even ARMED.
Well the people working in the complex weren't but they had security. They foolishly hired ex Saddamn security personal and refused our offer of protection. Then instead of fortifying the position and continuing the work they committed to they left, terrorists win, game over. Yet we wan't them running the show?
The administration has never truly wanted them to come in until recently, and mainly because they are taking so much HEAT about it.
So numerous visits to the U.N security counsel, diplomatic jockeying were their effort to keep the U.N out ?
And finally, The Whole WORLD stood by and watched the Rwandan horrors. We are ALL to blame for the butchery that took place there, while we all slept.
You're right, but the U.N IS the body that's supposed to address things like that. There are other examples to of recent failure due to the beareaucratic nature of the UN. Right now they are mired in scandal with the corrupt food for oil program yet we want them in charge?
It's not cynical Bill, it's reality. They're inneffective most of the time, period. The idea that some wish to refer to an ineffective, inept and corrupt organization like the UN is scarry.
The warm season approaches, Earth Day comes and goes, and major dailies in the West are advising readers on how to avoid deadly encounters with man-eating lions that might be lurking along suburban trails or near backyard swing sets.
...................
And, conspicuously, two simple steps that for generations kept Westerners safe from lions are not recommended. They are, of course: Aim carefully. Squeeze trigger.
fold, in your view how would any body get an acceptable coalition when those that you want to join it were benefiting from Saddam staying in power? we did the right thing by going in.
Muskwa, I didn't ask you to take the blame, I was simply reminding LUV that it happened over a period of YEARS, and NOBODY made a move to stop it.
And it should have been stopped. That is EXACTLY what the U.N is around for and it failed yet we expect them to step into Iraq after years of inadequacy ? They were to busy lining their pockets from the oil for food program.
Now then there is IRAQ...a nation that has OIL, but no WMD, and we go in, without the U.N.
We went into Kosovo, they have no oil or WMD's and we went without the U.N. Clinton never even asked because he knew Russia would veto it.
The U.N already left Iraq, after 1 attack they surrendered and left. Yes let's give them the keys to Baghdad.
We can't really equate Africa and the Middle East. We can make a difference in the ME, but Africa is a basket case and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to get embroiled there. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the kind of thing the UN was supposedly created for.
Except for the presidential election, the most important election this year will take place on April 27 in Pennsylvania. No, it's not the "American Idol" finals. It's even more important than that. That's the day of the Republican primary pitting a great Republican, Pat Toomey, against the 74-year-old, Ira Einhorn-defending alleged "Republican," Arlen Specter.
Doesn't appear that she's too concerned about Pat Toomey, But he's worthin looking into.
I saw Specter yesterday on C-Span. He painted the picture an opponent who's been all things to all people.
Kind of a Sen. Smoothy
That said: I'm all for these two Republicans beating the tar out of each other. I like Arlen Specter, but he can go down as far as I'm concerned. If Toomey's the kind of right-winger Ann Coulter likes, chances are he is too fringe a candidate to be electable.
If there were a referendum next week that gave the citizens of this country the right to say "Continue The War", or "Set A Date And Bring Them Home"...?
Gee Whiz-Bang... I wonder what the outcome of that vote would be...?
I don't think there should be any talk of Coalition forces leaving Iraq.
How about stabilizing the country? You can't put an X on the calendar and say, on this date we're finished, because all hell will break loose the next day.
I got news for you Rick, All Hell Is ALREADY Breaking Loose, and it won't stop until ALL our troops are out, and the day after that, the same bastards that ran the country BEFORE we went off to change them into a Democracy, minus a dad and two sons, will immediately move in, and Re-Make that country into the same insanity that it has been, for centuries.
That isn't defeatism either. It is going to be the REALITY.
You're right, but the U.N IS the body that's supposed to address things like that. There are other examples to of recent failure due to the beareaucratic nature of the UN. Right now they are mired in scandal with the corrupt food for oil program yet we want them in charge?
What has the U.N. ever done right? Maybe I am wrong and that is why I am asking, but what have they been involved in that went as planned?
Now then there is IRAQ...a nation that has OIL, but no WMD, and we go in, without the U.N.
What happened to the WMD's? Everyone including Saddam admitted that they were there.
As for the pictures, it may be all the confusion surrounding them.
There are many photos at thememoryhole.org that show more than seven coffins. I'd say it was a safe bet that those weren't the Columbia astronauts. For example, this one.
Only Osama bin Laden is responsible for the tragic destruction wreaked on 9/11, conservatives solemnly declare -- but whenever the opportunity arises, they rush to hang Clinton on the same scaffold. -Joe Conason
Conason is a jackass. If Clinton would have been proactive there may not have been a 9/11.
If Clinton would have been proactive there may not have been a 9/11.
If Clinton hadn't been so busy dealing with the $70 million witchhunt, he might have had time to be more proactive, but when he flung a couple of cruise missiles at Osama and missed him by a couple of hours, he was accused by the opposition party of trying to divert attention from his sex life. The proper verb form, by the way, is "had been."
Your criticism of my tagline, though, simply illustrates its truth. GW Bush gets a briefing that is entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," which says the FBI has seen "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks." Instead of "being proactive," he nods, shrugs, and goes out to clear brush on his "ranch." When this is brought up, the official response is that people who say things like that must be reminded that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are responsible, not the Bush administration's. A few minutes later, it's all Clinton's fault.
Both could have done a lot more, though I believe that the Bush administration did a lot less than Clinton. Under Clinton, Richard Clarke had cabinet members reporting to him; under Bush, he was reporting to deputy secretaries. This "demotion" is said by some, like Condoleeza Rice, to be the source of discontent, supposedly why he left and wrote his book. However, by labeling Clarke's treatment a "demotion," the administration's spokesfolk are outright admitting that Bush put less emphasis on terrorism than Clinton.
Clarke presided over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests. The 9/11 attacks were plotted and funded under his watchful eye as well. Not demoting him would have been showing little emphasis on terrorism.
Put yourself in President Bush's position. He is in office for a matter of months, he is having troubles getting his staff O.K.ed by the partisanship of the Dems in congress, and there is the report you speak of with no specific dates or names. Would you have him close the airports and arrest suspects based on what they might be thinking of doing but have not actually done? What if he had done this and avoided 9/11? You surely would have been crying foul over that because there would be no proof to support an attack was in the pike. You would be claiming that those who would have been arrested had their rights trampled, etc. Man, you guys cry over the "pre-emption" in Iraq and then cry because we did not "pre-empt" this event.
But that Clinton administration was so much better at dealing with terrorist. Their most effective action was to bomb what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Sudan. Bin Laden was offered to us on a silver platter by Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa and Clinton turned him down.
The attempts to pin blame on the eight months of Bush Administration control on the basis of "warnings" delivered fails miserably in comparison to the Clinton administration that gave Osama a pass for eight years while his camps trained and dispersed thousands of fanatics throughout the world.
LONDON [MENL] -- Sudan has ordered the removal of Syrian missiles and weapons of mass destruction out of the African country.
Arab diplomatic and Sudanese government sources said the regime of Sudanese President Omar Bashir has ordered that Syria remove its Scud C and Scud D medium-range ballistic missiles as well as components for chemical weapons stored in warehouses in Khartoum. The sources said the Sudanese demand was issued after the Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry confirmed a report published earlier this month that Syria has been secretly flying Scud-class missiles and WMD components to Khartoum.
What could he have done? How about what Clinton did? Get the heads of the FBI, CIA and other agencies together, face-to-face on a daily basis. "Shake the trees," as Clarke put it. Despite claims to the contrary, the FAA was not notified of the information
If Clarke was such a fuckup, why did GW Bush keep him on at all? Condoleezza Rice testified, under oath, that the Bush administration didn't think the attack on the Cole required a military response. Why hold Clinton to a higher standard?
If Clinton hadn't been so busy dealing with the $70 million witch-hunt, he might have had time to be more proactive, but when he flung a couple of cruise missiles at Osama and missed him by a couple of hours, he was accused by the opposition party of trying to divert attention from his sex life.
Proactive ? Yes we see how well the left reacted to being proactive. That would be like accusing the president of going to war in for oil. That would be like accusing the president of being proactive with Iraq for political purposes. That would be like accusing the president of knowing about 9-11.
If Clinton had tried to expand the effort to eradicate Bin Laden, Republicans would have claimed Wag The Dog... OH WAIT...they DID!
If he was deterred from doing his job because of those things then he wasn't much of a leader. There were still 6 years and attacks previous to the world even hearing about Monica and he did next to nothing in that time period. Had he been a leader and not lied under oath none of it would have happened, but yes, blame the accuser.
The only thing more shitty than this stupid attack-rhetoric launched BY the Republicans, is that some Veterans will actually vote FOR the Bush-Cheney ticket.
If Clinton hadn't been so busy dealing with the $70 million witchhunt, he might have had time to be more proactive, but when he flung a couple of cruise missiles at Osama and missed him by a couple of hours, he was accused by the opposition party of trying to divert attention from his sex life. He should have resigned. He should have been doing his job instead of harassing women and committing perjury and obstructing justice. But I doubt if he would have done anything if the circumstances, which he created, were different. Clinton is no leader. He is a narcisistic follower of polls.
GW Bush gets a briefing that is entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," which says the FBI has seen "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks." Of course you make more out of that than it was. Bush had less than nine months to correct a problem Clinton did nothing about and only made worse. Now you can lie to yourself but that does no one any good.
How's this, Clinton and Bush are both to blame? Bush can only be blamed to the extent he could have fixed a problem in 8 months that was on going for 8 years.
Both could have done a lot more, though I believe that the Bush administration did a lot less than Clinton. It should be obvious that that is pure BS.However, by labeling Clarke's treatment a "demotion," the administration's spokesfolk are outright admitting that Bush put less emphasis on terrorism than Clinton. More BS
The attempts to pin blame on the eight months of Bush Administration control on the basis of "warnings" delivered fails miserably in comparison to the Clinton administration that gave Osama a pass for eight years while his camps trained and dispersed thousands of fanatics throughout the world.
Yes indeed. The WTC was first bombed in 1993. Clinton knew that the problem was international and he did nothing for the next 7+ years
How about what Clinton did? Clinton did nothing. It is my understanding that he wouldn't meet with the CIA.
Condoleezza Rice testified, under oath, that the Bush administration didn't think the attack on the Cole required a military response. Why hold Clinton to a higher standard? There was a lot more before the Cole bombing. Face it, Clinton wasn't going to put himself on the line for anything.
Jesus fulfilled the law, not change them. That is what was meant by New Testament in the bible. Beside, where in the bible does it say that you must stone your children?
dan, I took it to the religion thread crabgrass "Religion & Morals" 4/2/04 7:46pm
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Gov. Bill Owens and Mayor Lionel Rivera declined to extend an official welcome to the Atheist Alliance for its national convention this weekend, and attendees said they felt slighted.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116576,00.html
Guess it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. No matter what President Bush does you surely will be there to say that it is the wrong thing. We sure don't need the U.N. in there shooting at us like they are in Clinton's quagmire right now...
3 Die in Shootout Between U.N. Police in Kosovo
By NICHOLAS WOOD
Published: April 18, 2004
JUBJLANA, Slovenia, April 17 — Two American women working as prison guards with the United Nations in Kosovo were killed Saturday and 10 other Americans and an Austrian working as prison officers were wounded when a Jordanian, also with the United Nations, opened fire on them, officials said. The attacker was shot and killed...
...It was another blow for the ethnically divided city, which is still recovering from a recent wave of ethnic unrest in which 19 people were killed and more than 800 injured.
The violence began in Mitrovica and spread across the region as ethnic Albanian mobs attacked the province's minority Serb community. More than 4,000 people were displaced from their homes as a result, and more than 500 homes destroyed or damaged, according to United Nations figures.
A tangled web, unraveled
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman • Editor-in-Chief
The prospects of the United Nations taking over the transition in Iraq may now be fatally compromised. The world body is caught up in a welter of allegations and evidence suggesting strongly that a noble effort of humanitarian assistance was tainted by greed, bribery, and the most venal kind of power politics. The U.N. was supposed to oversee the oil-for-food program that allowed Saddam Hussein to sell oil and use the proceeds to buy essential food and medicine for the Iraqi people. At least $10 billion, evidently, went into the pockets of political operators.
It is a tribute to the new American-installed democracy in Iraq that an Iraqi newspaper has been in the forefront of exposing the racket and naming the 270 international power brokers who seem to have had their hands in the till. Here's how the scam allegedly worked: Saddam sold oil to his friends and allies around the world at deep discounts. The buyers resold the oil at huge profits. Saddam then got kickbacks of 10 percent from both the oil traders and the suppliers of humanitarian goods. Iraqi bean counters, fortunately, kept meticulous records...
Bush asked the U.N, Twice, they refused. Fine. The U.N left after it's H.Q was attacked after refusing U.S security. They left, period. People have constantly said, get the U.N invoved etc. etc. unilateral blah blah. Well we have asked, they don't have the will to do so and have already left the building. So we want them to come back to help with elections. That's fine, in fact there's very little the U.N does well but overseeing elections might just be one of them. It's a strech though. As Dan pointed out they are mired in quite a scandal regarding Iraq and the food for oil program. The U.N has grown so large and bereaucratic that it's a lumbering wooly mammoth. I think the U.N is soon to go the way of the wolly mammoth.
"Nor apparently, is he a strong enough LEADER to KEEP the small contingents from the smaller nations that are now leaving, to STAY the course with us,"
I'm wondering if this coalition matters that much to him. If it ends up just the U.S. and Britain on this journey, I don't think the neocons will be too broken up about it.
The UN is an impotent and corrupt organization.
And has been since its inception.
UNICEF activities in 158 countries
Yes, well that is certainly ONE story, but the fact is that GDubbya has NEVER wanted the U.N. involved, was never talented enough as a politician to GET them involved, or to form a truly STRONG and SWEEPING coallition of nations, as did his pappy?
Amazing how consistently wrong you are. Bush would have welcomed the UN and they would have joined in if France, Germany and Russia didn't have an interest in keeping Saddam in power.
Let's say for one minute that the U.N was in charge of ops in Iraq. What countries would most of the troops come from ? The U.S and England. What countries are most of the troops from there right now ? The U.S and England. What countries supply most of the equipment?Hint, it's not Germany.
The fact remains that they left, plain and simple. They've done it many times before. When they are needed the most they leave or spend so long debating it that it's over by the time they do act. Rwanda ?
Kevin Phillips' book American Dynastystarts out tracing back the family tree of the Bushes and Walkers. Geneological records show the Bush family can claim descendancy from Henry VIII and probably Henry III. They also have a common relative with Winston Churchill.
"John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, would have choked," Phillips writes. "John F. Kennedy, grandson of a Boston saloonkeeper, would have heard Irish ghosts laughing uproariously."
He asked before and has said he'd welocome the U.N contributing at any time. Let me ask you, Do you think they would have anyway ?
Well the people working in the complex weren't but they had security. They foolishly hired ex Saddamn security personal and refused our offer of protection. Then instead of fortifying the position and continuing the work they committed to they left, terrorists win, game over. Yet we wan't them running the show?
So numerous visits to the U.N security counsel, diplomatic jockeying were their effort to keep the U.N out ?
You're right, but the U.N IS the body that's supposed to address things like that. There are other examples to of recent failure due to the beareaucratic nature of the UN. Right now they are mired in scandal with the corrupt food for oil program yet we want them in charge?
It's not cynical Bill, it's reality. They're inneffective most of the time, period. The idea that some wish to refer to an ineffective, inept and corrupt organization like the UN is scarry.
And I refuse to accept responsibility for Rwanda.
The warm season approaches, Earth Day comes and goes, and major dailies in the West are advising readers on how to avoid deadly encounters with man-eating lions that might be lurking along suburban trails or near backyard swing sets.
...................
And, conspicuously, two simple steps that for generations kept Westerners safe from lions are not recommended. They are, of course: Aim carefully. Squeeze trigger.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040421.shtml
fold, in your view how would any body get an acceptable coalition when those that you want to join it were benefiting from Saddam staying in power? we did the right thing by going in.
And it should have been stopped. That is EXACTLY what the U.N is around for and it failed yet we expect them to step into Iraq after years of inadequacy ? They were to busy lining their pockets from the oil for food program.
We went into Kosovo, they have no oil or WMD's and we went without the U.N. Clinton never even asked because he knew Russia would veto it.
The U.N already left Iraq, after 1 attack they surrendered and left. Yes let's give them the keys to Baghdad.
We can't really equate Africa and the Middle East. We can make a difference in the ME, but Africa is a basket case and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to get embroiled there. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the kind of thing the UN was supposedly created for.
Except for the presidential election, the most important election this year will take place on April 27 in Pennsylvania. No, it's not the "American Idol" finals. It's even more important than that. That's the day of the Republican primary pitting a great Republican, Pat Toomey, against the 74-year-old, Ira Einhorn-defending alleged "Republican," Arlen Specter.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040422.shtml
Doesn't appear that she's too concerned about Pat Toomey, But he's worthin looking into.
I saw Specter yesterday on C-Span. He painted the picture an opponent who's been all things to all people.
Kind of a Sen. Smoothy
That said: I'm all for these two Republicans beating the tar out of each other. I like Arlen Specter, but he can go down as far as I'm concerned. If Toomey's the kind of right-winger Ann Coulter likes, chances are he is too fringe a candidate to be electable.
If there were a referendum next week that gave the citizens of this country the right to say "Continue The War", or "Set A Date And Bring Them Home"...?
Gee Whiz-Bang... I wonder what the outcome of that vote would be...?
It probably wouldn't be the result you want.
I don't think there should be any talk of Coalition forces leaving Iraq.
How about stabilizing the country? You can't put an X on the calendar and say, on this date we're finished, because all hell will break loose the next day.
I think by placing restrictions on what can be covered, they call attention to it all the more.
Tell the media what is off limits, then what is off limits becomes a story.
I got news for you Rick, All Hell Is ALREADY Breaking Loose, and it won't stop until ALL our troops are out, and the day after that, the same bastards that ran the country BEFORE we went off to change them into a Democracy, minus a dad and two sons, will immediately move in, and Re-Make that country into the same insanity that it has been, for centuries.
That isn't defeatism either. It is going to be the REALITY.
Do you lack faith in all mankind or just Arabs?
We owe more to the people who have been injured or killed, and to the sacrifices of the troops than to leave with the mission unfinished.
If it was one of my family in one of those caskets, I would like to see the casket first, rather than on the internet or on the national news.
If the families are o.k with it I see no problem in showing them. And I disagree with the decision not to show them.
I'm worried about the outcome too, Bill. I don't see the Iraqis leaping to the fray to protect their new country.
You're right, but the U.N IS the body that's supposed to address things like that. There are other examples to of recent failure due to the beareaucratic nature of the UN. Right now they are mired in scandal with the corrupt food for oil program yet we want them in charge?
What has the U.N. ever done right? Maybe I am wrong and that is why I am asking, but what have they been involved in that went as planned?
Now then there is IRAQ...a nation that has OIL, but no WMD, and we go in, without the U.N.
What happened to the WMD's? Everyone including Saddam admitted that they were there.
As for the pictures, it may be all the confusion surrounding them.
Columbia Crew Mistakenly Identified As Iraqi War Casualties
There are many photos at thememoryhole.org that show more than seven coffins. I'd say it was a safe bet that those weren't the Columbia astronauts. For example, this one.
Yeah, soldiers die sometimes.
Why does that surprise so many people?
Here's some pics of funeral of one of our fallen soldiers. Scroll all the way down and look at all the pics. It's worth it IMHO.
http://members.accessus.net/~tmcdonld/lighthse/Texas.htm
Only Osama bin Laden is responsible for the tragic destruction wreaked on 9/11, conservatives solemnly declare -- but whenever the opportunity arises, they rush to hang Clinton on the same scaffold. -Joe Conason
Conason is a jackass. If Clinton would have been proactive there may not have been a 9/11.
I don't care who's to "blame". I'm more concerned with what we're going to do about it now.
I think the 9/11 commission has turned into more of a witch hunt, that finding out how to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.
If Clinton hadn't been so busy dealing with the $70 million witchhunt, he might have had time to be more proactive, but when he flung a couple of cruise missiles at Osama and missed him by a couple of hours, he was accused by the opposition party of trying to divert attention from his sex life. The proper verb form, by the way, is "had been."
Your criticism of my tagline, though, simply illustrates its truth. GW Bush gets a briefing that is entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," which says the FBI has seen "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks." Instead of "being proactive," he nods, shrugs, and goes out to clear brush on his "ranch." When this is brought up, the official response is that people who say things like that must be reminded that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are responsible, not the Bush administration's. A few minutes later, it's all Clinton's fault.
Q.E.D.
How's this, Clinton and Bush are both to blame?
Both could have done a lot more, though I believe that the Bush administration did a lot less than Clinton. Under Clinton, Richard Clarke had cabinet members reporting to him; under Bush, he was reporting to deputy secretaries. This "demotion" is said by some, like Condoleeza Rice, to be the source of discontent, supposedly why he left and wrote his book. However, by labeling Clarke's treatment a "demotion," the administration's spokesfolk are outright admitting that Bush put less emphasis on terrorism than Clinton.
Clarke presided over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests. The 9/11 attacks were plotted and funded under his watchful eye as well. Not demoting him would have been showing little emphasis on terrorism.
Put yourself in President Bush's position. He is in office for a matter of months, he is having troubles getting his staff O.K.ed by the partisanship of the Dems in congress, and there is the report you speak of with no specific dates or names. Would you have him close the airports and arrest suspects based on what they might be thinking of doing but have not actually done? What if he had done this and avoided 9/11? You surely would have been crying foul over that because there would be no proof to support an attack was in the pike. You would be claiming that those who would have been arrested had their rights trampled, etc. Man, you guys cry over the "pre-emption" in Iraq and then cry because we did not "pre-empt" this event.
But that Clinton administration was so much better at dealing with terrorist. Their most effective action was to bomb what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Sudan. Bin Laden was offered to us on a silver platter by Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa and Clinton turned him down.
The attempts to pin blame on the eight months of Bush Administration control on the basis of "warnings" delivered fails miserably in comparison to the Clinton administration that gave Osama a pass for eight years while his camps trained and dispersed thousands of fanatics throughout the world.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 4/26/04 9:14pm
Bingo.
Sudan is in the news again. I wonder where the Syrian government got this stuff from???
SUDAN ORDERS SYRIAN WMD OUT OF COUNTRY
LONDON [MENL] -- Sudan has ordered the removal of Syrian missiles and weapons of mass destruction out of the African country.
Arab diplomatic and Sudanese government sources said the regime of Sudanese President Omar Bashir has ordered that Syria remove its Scud C and Scud D medium-range ballistic missiles as well as components for chemical weapons stored in warehouses in Khartoum. The sources said the Sudanese demand was issued after the Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry confirmed a report published earlier this month that Syria has been secretly flying Scud-class missiles and WMD components to Khartoum.
What could he have done? How about what Clinton did? Get the heads of the FBI, CIA and other agencies together, face-to-face on a daily basis. "Shake the trees," as Clarke put it. Despite claims to the contrary, the FAA was not notified of the information
If Clarke was such a fuckup, why did GW Bush keep him on at all? Condoleezza Rice testified, under oath, that the Bush administration didn't think the attack on the Cole required a military response. Why hold Clinton to a higher standard?
Proactive ? Yes we see how well the left reacted to being proactive.
That would be like accusing the president of going to war in for oil. That would be like accusing the president of being proactive with Iraq for political purposes. That would be like accusing the president of knowing about 9-11.
If he was deterred from doing his job because of those things then he wasn't much of a leader. There were still 6 years and attacks previous to the world even hearing about Monica and he did next to nothing in that time period. Had he been a leader and not lied under oath none of it would have happened, but yes, blame the accuser.
A majority of them that is.
If Clinton had tried to expand the effort to eradicate Bin Laden, Republicans would have claimed Wag The Dog... OH WAIT...they DID!
Clinton's timing brought about "Wag the dog", not the action itself.
If Clinton hadn't been so busy dealing with the $70 million witchhunt, he might have had time to be more proactive, but when he flung a couple of cruise missiles at Osama and missed him by a couple of hours, he was accused by the opposition party of trying to divert attention from his sex life. He should have resigned. He should have been doing his job instead of harassing women and committing perjury and obstructing justice. But I doubt if he would have done anything if the circumstances, which he created, were different. Clinton is no leader. He is a narcisistic follower of polls.
GW Bush gets a briefing that is entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," which says the FBI has seen "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks." Of course you make more out of that than it was. Bush had less than nine months to correct a problem Clinton did nothing about and only made worse. Now you can lie to yourself but that does no one any good.
How's this, Clinton and Bush are both to blame? Bush can only be blamed to the extent he could have fixed a problem in 8 months that was on going for 8 years.
Both could have done a lot more, though I believe that the Bush administration did a lot less than Clinton. It should be obvious that that is pure BS.However, by labeling Clarke's treatment a "demotion," the administration's spokesfolk are outright admitting that Bush put less emphasis on terrorism than Clinton. More BS
The attempts to pin blame on the eight months of Bush Administration control on the basis of "warnings" delivered fails miserably in comparison to the Clinton administration that gave Osama a pass for eight years while his camps trained and dispersed thousands of fanatics throughout the world.
Yes indeed. The WTC was first bombed in 1993. Clinton knew that the problem was international and he did nothing for the next 7+ years
How about what Clinton did? Clinton did nothing. It is my understanding that he wouldn't meet with the CIA.
Condoleezza Rice testified, under oath, that the Bush administration didn't think the attack on the Cole required a military response. Why hold Clinton to a higher standard? There was a lot more before the Cole bombing. Face it, Clinton wasn't going to put himself on the line for anything.