[BRussell]

One thing we all know for sure is that Bush and the Republicans are tough on terrorism. Everyone admits that, right? And Clinton and Kerry and the rest of the Democrats are soft on these sorts of things - which is why 9/11 happened in the first place.

Maybe not. First off, let's not forget that Bush was in power for 9 months before Sept. 11 2001. It turns out that on Sept. 10, the Bush administration decided that our counter-terrorism work didn't really need any more funding.

"On Sept. 10, Ashcroft rejected a proposed $58 million increase in financing for the bureau's counter-terrorism programs," the Times said, juxtaposing that information with news that an internal FBI investigation had just concluded the bureau was woefully unprepared to deal with the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.

Though the dismal assessment was never shared with FBI budget officials, the paper notes that last August, then-acting FBI director Thomas Pickard "met with Ashcroft on a supplemental financing request for counterterrorism, but was turned down."

While there's no question that the FBI and Justice Department were indeed caught napping by the bin Laden attacks - and even the conservative Wall Street Journal has called for Director Mueller's resignation - media coverage like Saturday's Times report has focused almost exclusively on intelligence failures during Bush's eight months in office.

Note the "NewsMax" link here, who, while maintaining that the reports are biased, still admit that the Bush administration was "caught napping by the bin Laden attacks." So pre-9/11 was Bush really tough on terrorism? Was he tougher than Clinton and the Democrats?

There's also this, that there were pre-Bush administration plans to take the fight to al-Qaeda that were ignored. And of course, Clinton did take the fight to bin Laden, but Republicans criticized him for distracting our attention from Monica - as if to suggest we needed more attention on Monica and less on bin Laden.

But what about Iraq? Doesn't that war prove that, at least post-9/11, Bush is tough on terrorism? Maybe. But maybe Iraq was more of a distraction from the war on terrorism rather than a part of it. How can you prove that? For one, we are now stepping up our efforts to get bin Laden.

KABUL, Afghanistan_—_The U.S. military on Saturday announced a sweeping new operation across troubled southern and eastern Afghanistan, with the aim of destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban and ultimately reeling in_Usama bin Laden.

Um, hello? Why weren't we stepped up and focused on destroying al-Qaeda and reeling in bin Laden before now? Because of the war in Iraq, perhaps?

It also turns out that the Bush administration specifically decided NOT to take out an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist, Zarqawi, based in Kurdish Iraq, who is now believed to be responsible for much of the current terrorism in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Why wouldn't they go after this terrorist? Who knows. But one hypothesis is that taking him out would have undermined the case that Zarqawi proved that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, and we therefore had to get rid of Saddam Hussein. If we could have just taken out Zarqawi, then that nixes one of the arguments for the larger goal of regime change. Again, that's consistent with the picture of Iraq as distraction from the war on terrorism, rather than Iraq as part of the war on terrorism.

There are other issues too, such as whether the Iraq war impeded international cooperation in the war on terrorism, and the flip-flopping on the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security. In any case, I think Bush critics have to stop implicitly agreeing that Bush has been tough, and instead start suggesting that he hasn't been tough enough on this important issue.

[angaq0k]

Hmm...

Forgive my ignorance, and maybe I just do not get it at all but...

...then why the war in Iraq?

...and why such laxism in fighting terrorism?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
One thing we all know for sure is that Bush and the Republicans are tough on terrorism. Everyone admits that, right? And Clinton and Kerry and the rest of the Democrats are soft on these sorts of things - which is why 9/11 happened in the first place.

No, 911 happened because of terrorists. I would say them being soft didn't help.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, 911 happened because of terrorists. I would say them being soft didn't help. [/B]

I think that BRussell means that with better intell and security, etc. it could have been prevented.

[macvillage.net]

9/11 can't be blamed on any 1 decision, administration, or even political party.

It's the result of 30 years of foreign policy shaped by American government as 1 entity.

To many hands played into policy over those years. To many individuals, in to many different parties, each with their own philosophy, hatred, love, loyalty, and betrayal...

There's no 1 group, other than "American Government" that you could blame. It wasn't Bush's decision, it wasn't his administrations, it wasn't Clinton, it wasn't the Democrats, it was foreign policy of America.


This is like how NJ blames ex-Govenor Florio and considers him the worst governor in American history because of taxes... meanwhile, Whitman (former EPA director), and Pinocio, both put our economy, and budget in such chaios, it will take NJ over a decade to recover.... Florio only did what he had to, to keep NJ out of financial trouble. But he gets the rap for raising taxes AND all the rediculus spending in the next to administrations. The papers, radio all blame him for the debt.... it's sad.


You can't blame anyone in particular. It's just to large for 1 person to possibly take responsibility for. It spans generations.

[angaq0k]

You can't blame anyone in particular. It's just to large for 1 person to possibly take responsibility for. It spans generations. [/B]

Amen to that! Especially if you generalize the whole thing.

Imho, we will never know, how it (9/11) could have been prevented, for the reasons you said, and because it is past.

[Wiskedjak]

Bush will be proven to be tought on terrorism when Bin Laden is "captured" this Fall.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's the result of 30 years of foreign policy shaped by American government as 1 entity.

It's the result of terrorists. Terrorists that want their way or else.

Someone is always going to dislike what you do. No matter what it is.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's the result of terrorists. Terrorists that want their way or else.

Someone is always going to dislike what you do. No matter what it is.

Somehow, I can't see a reason to respond to that.

Are you sure your nick is not "Simplifier"?

[Zimphire]

The difference is, one is blaming the US government for policies (Which is silly) and the other puts the blame on the people that are to blame.

The terrorists.

While the terrorists claim it's the US's fault. No one but themselves caused them to do it.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The difference is, one is blaming the US government for policies (Which is silly) and the other puts the blame on the people that are to blame.

The terrorists.

While the terrorists claim it's the US's fault. No one but themselves caused them to do it.

Terrorists are to blame for sure; they DID the thing.

But I thought BRussell meant that with more staff on security (and "stuff") it could have prevented the attack.

So... does that mean that more staff in the CIA, FBI, police, etc. is useless?

Maybe I'm "Simplifier" here....

Oh!

One more question: If we were to meet face to face (hypothetically) and I were to yell names (I leave it to your imagination and this hypothetical anyway so nothing personal), well, tell me...

What would be your response?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
But I thought BRussell meant that with more staff on security (and "stuff") it could have prevented the attack.

If he indeed did mean it that way then I agree. Cutting military and intelligence spending just because you "feel" safe is bad.

And then cutting it when someone bad just happened is even worse.

[angaq0k]

Sorry.. I edited while you answered my question.

But thanks for your answer.

[ghost_flash]

We needed more people on the ground collecting intelligence and less reliance on other sources of information. This is what has been cut over the years before Bush got in the Whitehouse. Without intelligence that can be gained from infultrating these organizations, the point is mute. This is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish.

Would Bush be inclined to increase this or would Kerry? I would say Bush. Kerry is a shadow of what Clinton was, and that cannot be good for our intelligence gathering community.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We needed more people on the ground collecting intelligence and less reliance on other sources of information. This is what has been cut over the years before Bush got in the Whitehouse. Without intelligence that can be gained from infultrating these organizations, the point is mute. This is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish.

Would Bush be inclined to increase this or would Kerry? I would say Bush. Kerry is a shadow of what Clinton was, and that cannot be good for our intelligence gathering community.

I have my own ideas about that but I'll keep them for another thread...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Would Bush be inclined to increase this or would Kerry? I would say Bush. Kerry is a shadow of what Clinton was, and that cannot be good for our intelligence gathering community.

Kerry would decrease it and brag about how he balanced the budget while we were getting surprise attacked again.

IMHO of course.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, 911 happened because of terrorists. I would say them being soft didn't help. [/B]

OK then, being soft "didn't help." The reason I bring this up is that for the past week or so, Bush has been hitting hard at Kerry for supposedly wanting to cut our intelligence agencies. The explicit argument is that Bush is tough on terrorism and Kerry is weak, as stated in Bush's ad. But if Kerry can be criticized for wanting to cut intelligence, then so can Bush, right? And I think the case can be made that Iraq set back the war on terrorism rather furthered it. If we're really going strong after bin Laden and al-Qaeda now, why weren't we really going strong after them before?

[Zimphire]

Who says we aren't going strong on them?

Do you know what all is going on?

Is something only happening if CNN is reporting it?

I am not sure what you mean.

As far as I know, we haven't stopped.

[BRussell]

In my first post, I quoted this story:

KABUL, Afghanistan_—_The U.S. military on Saturday announced a sweeping new operation across troubled southern and eastern Afghanistan, with the aim of destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban and ultimately reeling in_Usama bin Laden.

Why didn't we do this - destroy al Qaeda and reel in bin Laden - before now? I'm suggesting that the war in Iraq was a distraction from this task of finding bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda. Perhaps we could have started this new operation 2 years ago rather than now if it hadn't been for Iraq.

People assume Bush is tough on terrorism. I'd say he was tough on Saddam Hussein. But did that further the war on terrorism, or delay it?

[Zimphire]

But we WAS doing things there. I know a guy that has been stationed there for awhile. They chase the pig dogs out of caves all day long.

[tie]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We needed more people on the ground collecting intelligence and less reliance on other sources of information. This is what has been cut over the years before Bush got in the Whitehouse. Without intelligence that can be gained from infultrating these organizations, the point is mute. This is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish.

Would Bush be inclined to increase this or would Kerry? I would say Bush. Kerry is a shadow of what Clinton was, and that cannot be good for our intelligence gathering community.

I must live in a different universe. Isn't Bush the one who exposed an undercover American spy? This helps us get more human intelligence exactly how?

(If you want to get technical, yes I know that Bush may not have personally exposed the spy, high-ranking individuals in his administration did, and he just participated in the cover-up. Same difference.)

Not to get sidetracked: I think Bush can reasonably be assessed blame for 9/11, but no more than Clinton and Congress deserve blame. His refusal to engage in a war on terrorism -- instead concentrating on a traditional and completely unrelated war on Iraq -- is shameful. We should have gotten bin Laden and we should have gotten Zarqawi.

This quote disgusts me:

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Hundreds of people have died because Bush was unwilling to go to war on terror. The military drew up three attack plans, and Bush refused to carry out any of them. Preventing terrorism apparently just wasn't a priority.

[Spliffdaddy]

Millions have died because folks would rather talk than take action against terrorists.

Peaceniks kill more people than all the wars combined.

If all you have to offer is lip service - take a number. we'll get to you as soon as we hear from the billions of other moving lips.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Millions have died because folks would rather talk than take action against terrorists.

Billions more where those came from. Overpopulation is the true enemy!

[BRussell]

Kerry gave a speech today in which he criticized Bush for not doing enough in the war on terrorism.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little. When the focus of the War on Terror was appropriately in Afghanistan and on breaking al Qaeda, President Bush shifted his focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's pushed away our allies at a time when we need them most. He hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden.

For months this Administration stubbornly refused to allow a Department of Homeland Security - and then shifted course when the pressure mounted. But since then, they've used the Department of Homeland Security to track down state legislators in Texas. And this week, we learn from Time Magazine that the Department's employees have been asked to provide President Bush with a homeland security photo-op every month.

I think this is exactly the message Kerry needs to send. Too often liberals have sent the message that they think Bush is being too tough on terrorism. Maybe that's not the message they intended, but that's what comes across: "we need to understand the terrorists." ********, we need to kill them. And I think many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and that's why they support the war in Iraq. He needs to get the message out that Iraq wasn't really part of the war on terrorism, it was a diversion that set it back several years.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Too often liberals have sent the message that they think Bush is being too tough on terrorism. Maybe that's not the message they intended, but that's what comes across: "we need to understand the terrorists." ********, we need to kill them.

I agree with this statement. This is not an extreme position. This is not murder. This is defense, and meeting assaults with an appropriate response.

And I think many people still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and that's why they support the war in Iraq. He needs to get the message out that Iraq wasn't really part of the war on terrorism, it was a diversion that set it back several years.

Allow me to ask: If the insurgency in Iraq at this time is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, does that render Iraq a front in the War on Terrorism?

Thank you.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
"we need to understand the terrorists." ********, we need to kill them.

Yes, they do need to be dealt with, and in such a way that they can't attack again. If the only way to do that is killing them, then fine. Bug we need to make sure that in our pursuit and destruction of current terrorists we aren't persuading more terrorists to join their ranks. And to do that we do need to understand them. War is not just the act of going out and killing people. It involves strategy and tactics and actual thinking. It's not some mindless video game, and shouldn't be treated as such.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Millions have died because folks would rather talk than take action against terrorists.

You might want to cut back on your weed intake. Terrorists haven't killed "millions" even if you include every terrorist attack in the last 100 years.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You might want to cut back on your weed intake. Terrorists haven't killed "millions" even if you include every terrorist attack in the last 100 years.

You know what number is most relavent to me? 3,547. Guess what number that is?

LINK

The other numbers are just as *important* to me and other Americans as we lead the world in seeking these murderers until they are defeated. Just like America has taken the lead against tyrants throughout our history as a nation, and a world leader.

[clt2]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Just like America has taken the lead for tyrants throughout our history as a nation

Fixed that for you.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by clt2:
Fixed that for you.

I'm sure you had an original thought once. Once. Try to repeat the instances that occured just prior to that one thought, and then get back to me. It may take you another few years, but I am certain it can be done and have complete faith that you will try very hard.

[clt2]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm sure you had an original thought once. Once. Try to repeat the instances that occured just prior to that one thought, and then get back to me. It may take you another few years, but I am certain it can be done and have complete faith that you will try very hard.

Ad hominems are really impressive. You're my hero.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You know what number is most relavent to me? 3,547. Guess what number that is?

LINK

The other numbers are just as *important* to me and other Americans as we lead the world in seeking these murderers until they are defeated. Just like America has taken the lead against tyrants throughout our history as a nation, and a world leader.

Not a million though, is it? Nor "millions". Bush and his ilk can go peddle hysteria elsewhere, I'm not buying. We are not facing the Apocalypse, no matter how much some might wish we were.

As for the 9/11 murderers--they're dead. Now we're in the process of finding the callaborators. I'm confident we'll succeed.

And it won't be done with smart bombs and bullets. It will be done the same way that has always worked--intelligence gathering, international cooperation, careful police work and determination.

Terrorism dates back to the Roman Empire. Some people need to to regain some perspective on the problem.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by clt2:
Ad hominems are really impressive. You're my hero.

You see! I knew you would *try*. Keep up the good work, I'm all for your succeeding, eventually.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As for the 9/11 murderers--they're dead. Now we're in the process of finding the callaborators. I'm confident we'll succeed.

And it won't be done with smart bombs and bullets. It will be done the same way that has always worked--intelligence gathering, international cooperation, careful police work and determination.

One of the arguments I've heard from lots of Bush supporters is that Bush understands that we are at war, whereas Kerry proves he's weak on terrorism because he doesn't really think this is a war. But does that really make sense? Of course we should use the military against terrorists when appropriate, but I'm not sure that makes it a war. Does calling it a war mean you're tougher on it, because war is bloodier than law enforcement? Aren't wars normally against other countries? How do you win this war? It seems to me that, at the least, it's a very very different kind of war, one that doesn't involve much in the way of troops taking land and all those other traditional war concepts. It really is much more like law enforcement and intelligence gathering and special operations. Are people who believe that softer on terrorism?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Allow me to ask: If the insurgency in Iraq at this time is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, does that render Iraq a front in the War on Terrorism?

Yeah, I'd say it is, now anyway. I think it's very questionable whether it was before we decided to invade.

Did you see the link about Zarqawi that I provided above? He seems to have links with al- Qaeda, and was in northern Iraq, and we had the opportunity to take him out without invading. That would have been part of the war on terrorism. Does invading the country further the war on terrorism? I think it's doubtful.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You know what number is most relavent to me? 3,547. Guess what number that is?

LINK

The other numbers are just as *important* to me and other Americans as we lead the world in seeking these murderers until they are defeated. Just like America has taken the lead against tyrants throughout our history as a nation, and a world leader.

In 2000, 435,000 people died from tobacco related causes. That's over 120 times the number of people killed by terrorism in 2001.

Shouldn't tobacco be a higher priority?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not a million though, is it? Nor "millions". Bush and his ilk can go peddle hysteria elsewhere, I'm not buying. We are not facing the Apocalypse, no matter how much some might wish we were.

As for the 9/11 murderers--they're dead. Now we're in the process of finding the callaborators. I'm confident we'll succeed.

Remember when President Bush said he wanted to bring suicide bombers to justice?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And it won't be done with smart bombs and bullets. It will be done the same way that has always worked--intelligence gathering, international cooperation, careful police work and determination.

Terrorism dates back to the Roman Empire. Some people need to to regain some perspective on the problem.

There is no substitute for "legwork". Never has been. "Shortcuts make for long delays". Attempt to be cool. Try not to bomb to show that bombing is wrong.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
In 2000, 435,000 people died from tobacco related causes. That's over 120 times the number of people killed by terrorism in 2001.

Shouldn't tobacco be a higher priority?

Yes, but a "WoT/War on Tobacco" won't get you re-elected, now will it?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes, but a "WoT/War on Tobacco" won't get you re-elected, now will it?

Which just goes to show that the government's concern is power, not protecting its citizens.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
In 2000, 435,000 people died from tobacco related causes. That's over 120 times the number of people killed by terrorism in 2001.

Shouldn't tobacco be a higher priority?

And coming in a close second was 400,000 by being overweight.

These two things are done by people to themselves. It isn't being done to them.
Thanks for the useless statistic to back up your equally empty argument.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Which just goes to show that the government's concern is power, not protecting its citizens.

What do you think governement's role is? To protect us from ourselves? Ok there BIG BROTHER.

[Spliffdaddy]

*we* are the government.

edited:

scary, huh?

now let's go kill some terrorists.

[daimoni]

.

[itai195]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What do you think governement's role is? To protect us from ourselves? Ok there BIG BROTHER.

Protecting US citizens from attack is a pretty important role and I'm not sure our government is doing an adequate job on the 'defensive' front here at home. Strange that you mention 1984, because it reminds me so much of what the Bush administration is doing. Fighting some vaguely defined war against a vaguely defined enemy in a distant land with no clear purpose or plan and claiming that this perpetual state of war will somehow bring us peace. No doubt if another terrorist attack were to take place on US soil, the administration would capitalize on our fear and claim that our job has only begun, our resolve reinvigorated. I am not a pacifist, but I find this state of affairs frightening.

[MindFad]

(LBK will appreciate that ... to an extent.)

[mr. natural]

I thought this op-ed makes a reasonable argument that the war in Iraq has done exactly as this pre-Iraq invasion anti-war poster suggested it would do.



Just as some have argued about the MA. Supreme Court Gay Marriage ruling creating a backlash, this scholar argues that the US invasion of Iraq is not promoting freedom & democracy as we would wish, but more anti-American hate to fuel terrorism.

All might not be lost. But so far, in Iraq and beyond, the neoconservative mission is achieving the opposite of what it intended.

Time will tell who is right.

But just because it hasn't happened here since 9/11 doesn't mean it won't happen again.

More interestingly, when it does happen will Bush then be faulted?

Will his apologists ("He's made us safer") continue to defend him and claim it's not his fault.

[Zimphire]

Yes by all means. We should obey the terrorists. That will teach them terrorism doesn't work!

[dtriska]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You know what number is most relavent to me? 3,547. Guess what number that is?

LINK

The other numbers are just as *important* to me and other Americans as we lead the world in seeking these murderers until they are defeated. Just like America has taken the lead against tyrants throughout our history as a nation, and a world leader.

Italics mine.

HOLY ****!!! Thanks for the best laugh of my life! America taking a lead against tyrants. Holy ****, you've got to be ****ing crazy to believe that. Or, the world's stupidest person. Take your pick.

Heh, leaders...****, that's good stuff...

Oh, and by the way, the death toll for 9/11 is below 3000 now. Then again, I know how strictly you conservatives ****s fact check before taking action. ****.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dtriska:
Italics mine.

HOLY ****!!! Thanks for the best laugh of my life! America taking a lead against tyrants. Holy ****, you've got to be ****ing crazy to believe that. Or, the world's stupidest person. Take your pick.

Heh, leaders...****, that's good stuff...

Oh, and by the way, the death toll for 9/11 is below 3000 now. Then again, I know how strictly you conservatives ****s fact check before taking action. ****.

Too many *** to understand this post to make sense.

You might wanna think about the adjectives you use.

[benb]

Originally posted by MindFad:

Hahaha. I like that. Very subtle.