[PacHead]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/


DEMOCRAT RANGEL WANTS TO REINSTATE DRAFT ! ! !

Where's spliffdaddy with his smackdown ?

[Joshua]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The only difference is that they normally don't go as far as forging documents.

The Boston Globe has an update on the controversy, in which at least one expert cited as claiming it was a forgery has come around:

Not quite: Bouffard complains he was "misrepresented" by the Globe.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by PacHead:

DEMOCRAT RANGEL WANTS TO REINSTATE DRAFT ! ! !

Yet again, proving that "Democrat" <> pacifist or peacenik. I'm constantly amazed how conservatives accuse Dems of being weak on National Defense then gleefully point to evidence that contradicts that very assertion.

Do you not "get it" that this sort of thing (along with Zimph's recent iteration of the unilateral military action Clinton took against Iraq in the 90's) just helps to prove that conservative accusations of military "wimpiness" in Democrats are pretty much hot air. It'd be like a liberal going out of his way to highlight the generous social policies of a conservative -- showing they're not heartless d!cks after all.

[BlackGriffen]

From Joshua's Link:

He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted,

Sounds like your side has a bunch of bitter, childish freaks.

Nice company.

(not intended entirely as a flame, I mostly thought it was funny)

BlackGriffen

[CreepingDeth]

Zimph pointed out that "unilateralism" is only ok when a dem does it.
Pac pointed out that a Dem wants the draft back openly, not some :closed-door" thing you leftists complain about. They're saying that it's only bad when anyone right-of-center does anything like that.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Yet again, proving that "Democrat" <> pacifist or peacenik.

I guess that's why something like 90% of Kerry supporters = anti-Iraq war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You just quoted Richard Clarke. One of the biggest Leftist shills of the past 3 years.

SIGH

What you refuse to understand, or admit, is that this administration is it's own worst enemy when it comes to alienating people(s) and turning them into opponents or enemies.

Richard Clarke was doing a GREAT job helping to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. SO GOOD, in fact, that President Bush wanted him to continue his service in the new administration.

As much as I feel the administration is guilty of LIDS
(Lies-Incompetence-Deception-Secrecy), I seriously doubt the President is so incompetent that he would keep a "leftist shill" in his post unless he was shown to be a loyal AMERICAN who was at LEAST willing to work with the conservatives in "TEAM BUSH."

In Clarke's book, he was incredulous that the people who were advising the President on military and national security related diplomatic issues were all focused on Iraq-Iraq-Iraq.

Clarke was trying to be a good team player but those around the President refused to allow Clarke to even make his case to the POTUS.

Many of the neo-conservative team (including Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz) didn't even know who Osama bin Laden WAS before 9/11.

Clarke knew and was straining at the bit trying to inform the President so GWB could understand the threat OBL posed to our security.

In his book, Clarke says, "Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled...well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden. You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things (list of past terrorist attacks including the first WTC attack in 1993) without a state sponsor..."

"Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue."

If Clarke is as you say, a "leftist shill," I maintain he is so because he saw what needed to be done, he tried his best to convey that information to the POTUS but the President's 'trusted advisors' wouldn't allow it, and Clarke is now simply letting us know the truth behind the Administration's "LIDS."

After the attacks on 9/11, Clake continues, "...after ignoring existing plans to attack alQaeda when he first took office, George Bush made disastrous decisions when he finally did pay attention."

I don't think Clarke wanted to be an Administration critic, he simply wanted to keep America safe, and when he could no longer stand the incompetence he left and did what he could to tell the American people the truth.

Labeling those who try to make America safe and strong as "leftist shills" only helps to 'enable' the current administration which has proven itself unable to do the kind of job you want, expect and deserve from an American President, to continue to ill-serve us all.

Lies-Incompetence-Deception-Secrecy

[Joshua]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
From Joshua's Link:

Sounds like your side has a bunch of bitter, childish freaks.

Nice company.

(not intended entirely as a flame, I mostly thought it was funny)

BlackGriffen

True, but "our" bitter, childish freaks just criticize the news; yours report it.

[aberdeenwriter]

General: Bin Laden Still Issuing Orders

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) - Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden and his deputy are still issuing orders for attacks by al-Qaida, a top American commander told The Associated Press Saturday.
Maj. Gen. Eric Olson said that an al-Qaida linked group was suspected of a deadly car bombing at a U.S. security firm in the Afghan capital last month. He said the attack was a suicide mission.
``There are senior leaders of al-Qaida that are working through operatives in Afghanistan,'' Olson told The Associated Press in an interview. ``They are involved in planning and in some cases directing attacks inside of Afghanistan.''
Olson, the operational commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, said the military had no fix on the whereabouts of either bin Laden or al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri. But the involvement of well-trained foreign fighters in attacks near the Pakistani border convinced him that the fugitive leaders were pulling the strings.
``What we see are their techniques and their tactics here in Afghanistan, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the senior leaders are involved in directing those operations,'' he said.

Olson spoke to AP after a ceremony at the main American base north of Kabul to mark the anniversary of the 2001 attacks, which sparked the U.S. campaign to oust the Taliban and drive al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
snip

What does this have to do with Bush's National Guard service, exactly?

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/def...raftboards.htm

Serve Your Community and the Nation

Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member
The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board.

Prospective Board Members must be citizens of the United States , at least 18 years old, and registered with the Selective Service (if male). Prospective Board Members may not be an employee of any law enforcement occupation, not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces, and not have been convicted of any criminal offense.

Once identified as qualified candidates for appointment, prospective Board Members are recommended by the Governor and appointed by the Director of Selective Service, who acts on behalf of the President in making appointments. Each new member receives 12 hours of initial training after appointment, followed by 4 hours of annual training for as long as he or she remains in the position. They may serve as Board Members for up to 20 years, if desired.

Local Board Members are uncompensated volunteers who play an important community role closely connected with our Nation's defense. If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines.

Positions are available in many communities across the Nation. If you believe you meet the standards for Selective Service Board Membership, and wish to be considered for appointment please visit our web site at:

http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm

[Krusty]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Zimph pointed out that "unilateralism" is only ok when a dem does it.
Pac pointed out that a Dem wants the draft back openly, not some :closed-door" thing you leftists complain about. They're saying that it's only bad when anyone right-of-center does anything like that.

Nonsense: I don't think unilateralism is "OK" when a Dem does it either. Clinton's unilateral bombing in Iraq (which turned out to be an aspirin factory) was a dumb idea and a mistake.

Originally posted by PacHead:
I guess that's why something like 90% of Kerry supporters = anti-Iraq war.

Anti Iraq War <> Anti ALL War. Many Dems supported our actions in Kosovo and even president Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Being against a war you think was a dumb idea is not the same thing as being against war in general.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I guess that's why something like 90% of Kerry supporters = anti-Iraq war.

Maybe I'm missing something, Pachead.

Exactly how does the quagmire of Iraq help avenge 9/11?

How does our $140 billion monetary investment and 1,000 American lives lost in Iraq help make America safer?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Maybe I'm missing something, Pachead.

Exactly how does the quagmire of Iraq help avenge 9/11?

How does our $140 billion monetary investment and 1,000 American lives lost in Iraq help make America safer?

It has nothing to do with avenging. It has to do with dealing with our enemies.

I support action against many more places than just Iraq. This is a new kind of war, and we are fighting it in the correct way.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I guess that's why something like 90% of Kerry supporters = anti-Iraq war.

BTW, I get the idea you support fighting the terrorists and that you are in favor of a strong military.

Have you given thought to actually enlisting?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Have you given thought to actually enlisting?

Nope, not my career choice, unlike the others who have willingly decided to make it theirs.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Nonsense: I don't think unilateralism is "OK" when a Dem does it either. Clinton's unilateral bombing in Iraq (which turned out to be an aspirin factory) was a dumb idea and a mistake.

Small correction: Sudan. Sudan had the asprin factory. We also "bombed" (really, cruise missiles) Afghanistan at the same time.

Conservatives called them the "Monica Missiles" and accused Clinton of trying to "Wag the Dog" at the time.

Just shows you how deep the committment to national security over partisanship the Republican leadership has.

BlackGriffen

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Nope, not my career choice, unlike the others who have willingly decided to make it theirs.

Hmm.

I understand what you mean. But excuse me if I point out your statement reminds me of something George Bush would have said back in the 'day.'

In Frederick Forsyth's latest book, "Avenger" he wrote a line explaining the nature of people who hate.

"...the hatred came first, then the cause, then the target, then the methods, and finally the self-justification."

But the hatred came first.

You say you are quite convinced the war in Iraq is being fought the right way.

How do you know?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
BTW, I get the idea you support fighting the terrorists and that you are in favor of a strong military.

Have you given thought to actually enlisting?

I do support a good military.
1. Not old enough
2. If we were attacked again in 2007, I'd probably enlist to do my part. Not very good athletically, but I'd do whatever I could. I take my hat off to anyone who served.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Nope, not my career choice, unlike the others who have willingly decided to make it theirs.

Another thing that comes to mind is that you would probably make a good fighter in the American cause, for which you so passionately seem to feel.

You needn't make it a career, they have 3 year enlistments.

Don't you agree all Americans should do their part to help keep America free and strong?

Some people accuse President Bush of being a "Chicken Hawk." I don't know if that's a fair label. I don't recall ever having used it to describe him.

Hypocritical, perhaps. But NOT a Chicken Hawk.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Another thing that comes to mind is that you would probably make a good fighter in the American cause, for which you so passionately seem to feel.

You needn't make it a career, they have 3 year enlistments.

Don't you agree all Americans should do their part to help keep America free and strong?

Some people accuse President Bush of being a "Chicken Hawk." I don't know if that's a fair label. I don't recall ever having used it to describe him.

Hypocritical, perhaps. But NOT a Chicken Hawk.

He just wants to be director of armchair operations, but only after 9 or ten in the morning.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I do support a good military.
1. Not old enough
2. If we were attacked again in 2007, I'd probably enlist to do my part. Not very good athletically, but I'd do whatever I could. I take my hat off to anyone who served.

I commend your patriotism and use your warmly received comments to remind everyone, "Freedom Isn't Free.

Everyone can contribute something!

Thanks for the tip of your hat!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Small correction: Sudan. Sudan had the asprin factory. We also "bombed" (really, cruise missiles) Afghanistan at the same time.

You do recall why, don't you? Clinton had intelligence that they were producing chemical weapons for al-Queda.

I suppose Clinton must have mislead the nation. I mean that's the only explanation. Presidents never act in good faith based on the intelligence they receive.

But this is off topic. You started this thread about Bush's Vietnam record. Now that story has blown up we are suddenly back on the Iraq war and people are calling others chickenhawks. What a surprise.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Another thing that comes to mind is that you would probably make a good fighter in the American cause, for which you so passionately seem to feel.

You needn't make it a career, they have 3 year enlistments.

Don't you agree all Americans should do their part to help keep America free and strong?

Some people accuse President Bush of being a "Chicken Hawk." I don't know if that's a fair label. I don't recall ever having used it to describe him.

Hypocritical, perhaps. But NOT a Chicken Hawk.

Let's put it this way. If it came down to it, I'm willing to put my life on the line.

The silly argument about "why don't you enlist" is retarded in my opinion.

Why don't some forum members go join Al-Qaeda ? That's an equally silly question.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:


He just wants to be director of armchair operations, but only after 9 or ten in the morning.

I resist the temptation to 'pile on' or rub anyone's nose in what should already be a stinging realization.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Small correction: Sudan. Sudan had the asprin factory. We also "bombed" (really, cruise missiles) Afghanistan at the same time.

Conservatives called them the "Monica Missiles" and accused Clinton of trying to "Wag the Dog" at the time.

Just shows you how deep the committment to national security over partisanship the Republican leadership has.

BlackGriffen

Ahhh .. thanks for the correction on the aspirin factory. I was under the illusion of that it was part of the mis-targeted WMD facilities in Iraq. Point remains .. I DON'T think it was "OK" simply because a Dem did it nor do I think all wars are bad if they are started by Republicans. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm a lifelong Independent ... and as such, I don't really see a huge difference between Dems and Reps when it comes to these issues. The right's constant characterization of Dems as liberals and peaceniks is disingenuous, IMO. The left's pretense that the right are a bunch of warmongers borders on hypocrisy given their past history.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Let's put it this way. If it came down to it, I'm willing to put my life on the line.

The silly argument about "why don't you enlist" is retarded in my opinion.

Why don't some forum members go join Al-Qaeda ? That's an equally silly question.

OH?

So, what would it take for things to, as you say, "come down to it?" Uh, how about having terrorists hijack not one, but FOUR commercial airliners and kill, not only everyone aboard, but thousands of Americans?

At least recognize you are not doing your share as an American.

On December 7, 1941 men all over the country sensed their duty and went to sign up to serve in the fight.

Women even signed up.

Today on the 3rd commemoration of the 9/11attacks we remember the sacrifices made by those who had no choice in the matter.

I remind you that MORE people died on 9/11 than on Dec. 7th.

If THAT'S not enough to ignite your sense of duty and patriotism, I wonder what things would have to "COME DOWN TO" to get you to put your bacon where your heart seems to be???

Ok, here are the reasons you might find the suggestion of you volunteering to serve your country, to be retarded:

Ineligible (convicted felon, too young, too old, mentally/physically unable to serve, sole surviving son - is that still a reason to be refused eligibility? etc.)

Unable (currently enrolled in college)

Unwilling (unpatriotic, cowardice, unwilling to give up one's self-centered pursuit of big bucks - remember NFL player, Pat Tilley? He turned his back on MILLIONS of dollars to do what he felt was his duty. NO ONE would have faulted him for continuing his football career, but he put his ass on the line for his country!)

Ok, which is it?

Or again, am I missing something?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
OH?

At least recognize you are not doing your share as an American.

I'm sorry, but that claim is just plain stupid. You don't anything about me. You don't know if I'm 17 or if im 58 or somewhere inbetween. Don't assume things about people on the internet that you know nothing about.

And you don't need to remind me about 9-11 or Pearl Harbour or the facts behind this. I know it all.

You might want to remind some of your cowardly, liberal friends of these facts. They are the ones who favor appeasement.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/


DEMOCRAT RANGEL WANTS TO REINSTATE DRAFT ! ! !

Where's spliffdaddy with his smackdown ?

PACHEAD,

You "CONVENIENTLY" neglected to include the reasons Dem. Representative Rangel proposed the draft.

It is important to know his intent. That's why I'm posting the whole text of the article from the link you posted.

Are you taking lessons from the President's "LIDS" workbook?

Lies-Incompetence-Deception-Secrecy

Tsk, tsk, tsk...shame on you!




WASHINGTON (CNN) --Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.

Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.

The lawmaker has said his measure could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action. The Korean War veteran has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday he sees no need for a draft. He said the military is managing to attract enough skilled recruits without one.

"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all," Rumsfeld said. "The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable."

Draft controversy

The nation had a draft in place between 1948 and 1973. It grew to become the center of controversy during the Vietnam War, 1964-1975, an undeclared war that was the most unpopular conflict America has fought.

Anger over the war led many young men to flee to Canada and elsewhere to avoid the draft, and violent protests were rampant. When the draft ended, the United States set up an all-volunteer military.

Since 1980, the Selective Service has required men 18 to 26 to register to give the government a pool of men it could draw from in case troops were needed in an emergency.

As of October 31, 14.1 million men would be eligible for a draft, said Selective Service spokesman Pat Schuback. Twenty-year-olds would be called up first, followed by others -- year by year. In the age group 20 to 26, 11 million would be eligible.

The average number of men registered per year during the Vietnam War era was 18.4 million. That covers the period from July 1, 1964, through June 1973.
_
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm sorry, but that claim is just plain stupid. You don't anything about me. You don't know if I'm 17 or if im 58 or somewhere inbetween. Don't assume things about people on the internet that you know nothing about.

And you don't need to remind me about 9-11 or Pearl Harbour or the facts behind this. I know it all.

You might want to remind some of your cowardly, liberal friends of these facts. They are the ones who favor appeasement.

Appeasement??? Do you mean diplomacy and negotiation?

Yeah, who wants diplomacy when one can sit at home, living large and watching OTHER brave Americans risk their lives to protect yours? You act like this is a friggin football game or a Star Wars movie!

You mistakenly believe that everyone who opposes the IRAQ WAR is soft on terrorism.

I never assumed anything about you other than what you have already made apparent.

SO, AGAIN, I'll ask are you:

Ineligible (convicted felon, too young, too old, mentally/physically unable to serve, sole surviving son - is that still a reason to be refused eligibility? etc.)

Unable (currently enrolled in college)

Unwilling (unpatriotic, cowardice, unwilling to give up one's self-centered pursuit of big bucks - remember NFL player, Pat Tilley? He turned his back on MILLIONS of dollars to do what he felt was his duty. NO ONE would have faulted him for continuing his football career, but he put his ass on the line for his country!)

Or MAYBE YOU ARE FRENCH???

[SimeyTheLimey]

Is it just me or has this thread just dissolved into personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Appeasement??? Do you mean diplomacy and negotiation?

Yeah, who wants diplomacy when one can sit at home, living large and watching OTHER brave Americans risk their lives to protect yours? You act like this is a friggin football game or a Star Wars movie!

You mistakenly believe that everyone who opposes the IRAQ WAR is soft on terrorism.

I never assumed anything about you other than what you have already made apparent.

SO, AGAIN, I'll ask are you:

Ineligible (convicted felon, too young, too old, mentally/physically unable to serve, sole surviving son - is that still a reason to be refused eligibility? etc.)

Unable (currently enrolled in college)

Unwilling (unpatriotic, cowardice, unwilling to give up one's self-centered pursuit of big bucks - remember NFL player, Pat Tilley? He turned his back on MILLIONS of dollars to do what he felt was his duty. NO ONE would have faulted him for continuing his football career, but he put his ass on the line for his country!)

Or MAYBE YOU ARE FRENCH???

As I have replied to others on this forum before, when asked about personal info. I never give out any on the net, and it is nobodys business.

Again, I say your line of questioning is just retarded, and it warrants no further reply.

Think what you want.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is it just me or has this thread just dissolved into personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?

Yes, some moron keeps attacking me, and I am done replying to him.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is it just me or has this thread just dissolved into personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?

Point taken.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You do recall why, don't you? Clinton had intelligence that they were producing chemical weapons for al-Queda.

I suppose Clinton must have mislead the nation. I mean that's the only explanation. Presidents never act in good faith based on the intelligence they receive.

Yep, it looked like Clinton fcked up on that one. Difference is that fck up didn't cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

The Afghanistan terrorist training camps, however, were perfectly legitimate targets, IIRC.

But this is off topic. You started this thread about Bush's Vietnam record. Now that story has blown up we are suddenly back on the Iraq war and people are calling others chickenhawks. What a surprise.

Sorry, Sime, every conversation goes off on tangents. And the stuff I started this thread over hasn't changed one iota - it was all based on records released by the WhiteHouse in Feb that have nothing to do with the current controversy. Everybody just refuses to address it. You, in fact, just blow it off because he still got an "honorable discharge" never considering that such could easily be part of a patter of special treatment, again, established by WhiteHouse approved records. So

BlackGriffen

[chris v]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


The Afghanistan terrorist training camps, however, were perfectly legitimate targets, IIRC.



BlackGriffen

No, no, no. When Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, they were Monica Missiles. Get it straight.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yep, it looked like Clinton fcked up on that one. Difference is that fck up didn't cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

It also didn't do crap because Clinton didn't follow up those strikes with any sustained attempt to get the thugs.

Al Qaeda still managed to continue planning and plotting 9/11, and guess what - it did cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The difference is that the American lives it cost us (many more than have been lost in the War on Terror) were those of civilians, like mothers and fathers who simply showed up for work one day.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yep, it looked like Clinton fcked up on that one. Difference is that fck up didn't cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

The Afghanistan terrorist training camps, however, were perfectly legitimate targets, IIRC.

I agree that they were legitimate targets, and so (based on the information he had) was the el-Shifa plant. A preemptive strike was justified.

Unfortunately, Clinton's execution was poor. Partly because Richard Clark made a phone call to the Pakistanis to warn them that we would be flying cruise missiles over their territory. They then turned around and in all probability warned OBL.

But bigger than that, had Clinton been willing to risk troops (and the political heat), he might have stood a better chance of getting OBL. But he didn't, because in the 90s we made a fetish of pinprick surgical strikes with stand-off weapons. The cruise missile attacks were more symbolic than serious. Thy probably emboldened Bin Laden because they made us look weak and casualty-adverse.

Don't think I am blaming Clinton alone for this. It was something that infected both parties before 9/11. It just happened that he was president at the time. I also blame the Republican congress. You are right to say that their criticism was irresponsible. I agree with you. I just don't see why that justifies emulating them when now we should have learned from their mistake.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It also didn't do crap because Clinton didn't follow up those strikes with any sustained attempt to get the thugs.

Al Qaeda still managed to continue planning and plotting 9/11, and guess what - it did cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The difference is that the American lives it cost us (many more than have been lost in the War on Terror) were those of civilians, like mothers and fathers who simply showed up for work one day.

Yeah, just lobbing a few missiles somewhere, then forgetting about it, aint gonna do sqaut, something we have seen proof of multiple times.

[spacefreak]

More news regarding the memos...

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree that they were legitimate targets, and so (based on the information he had) was the el-Shifa plant. A preemptive strike was justified...

If I'm not mistaken the Clinton admin never conceded their intel was bad with regards to that strike. Soil samples taken from the site (after the strike) indicated that VX gas was being produced there. In fact it was Richard Clarke who defended the attack. Furthermore in a January 23, 1999 story published in the Washington Post Clarke saw El-Shifa as a link between Iraq and Bin Laden (contra his later claims). Here's a link to the story. It requires a payment to view but OpinionJournal.com excerpted the relevant portions:

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree that they were legitimate targets, and so (based on the information he had) was the el-Shifa plant. A preemptive strike was justified.

Unfortunately, Clinton's execution was poor. Partly because Richard Clark made a phone call to the Pakistanis to warn them that we would be flying cruise missiles over their territory. They then turned around and in all probability warned OBL.

But bigger than that, had Clinton been willing to risk troops (and the political heat), he might have stood a better chance of getting OBL. But he didn't, because in the 90s we made a fetish of pinprick surgical strikes with stand-off weapons. The cruise missile attacks were more symbolic than serious. Thy probably emboldened Bin Laden because they made us look weak and casualty-adverse.

Don't think I am blaming Clinton alone for this. It was something that infected both parties before 9/11. It just happened that he was president at the time. I also blame the Republican congress. You are right to say that their criticism was irresponsible. I agree with you. I just don't see why that justifies emulating them when now we should have learned from their mistake.

Not much here to disagree with - overall it's a darn good post.

The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that opposing the Iraq operation is the same as opposing the use of any troops at all. On the contrary, I support more troops in Afghanistan, and now that we're already in there, getting enough troops into Iraq to do the job right. Preferably, we could get allies in on Iraq, but that's not assured. I have serious questions concerning whether a U.S. force of any size will be able to perform a peacekeeping mission as opposed to escalating the guerrilla war. Turning it over to the international community - even if it requires incentives like reconstruction contracts and even partial financing of expeditions - may end up being our only recourse.

Hell, I seriously questioned Clinton's use of only air power for Kosovo - I agreed with the critics who claimed it would take boots on the ground. Oddly enough, the critics were right that the air strikes weren't sufficient because, IIRC,the Serbs were more bent by the sanctions than the military actions.

Classic foreign intel failure on Clinton's watch - bombing the Chinese embassy (that is, assuming it wasn't done accidentally-on purpose for reasons never revealed).

That said, I just don't trust Bush to not to foul things up again. His famous lack of curiosity implies to me that he just takes the information the people around him feed him without critical examination on his part. Whether the failures leading up to Iraq where intel or misleading on Bush's part (I'm pretty sure that both were involved to some extent - bad intel was dressed up a bit to sell the war), ultimately the decision was his.

As Truman was so famous for saying, "The buck stops here." As far as I'm concerned, that's where it stops for this president, too, no matter how much he tries to blame it on subordinates. In fact, seeing as how him and his subordinates are a package deal, it doesn't even matter if he shares the blame literally - we're voting for an administration, not just the president.

Ooops, that's way off topic. This thread is about character issues on Bush's part (yes, I know I started it, but the intent on my part was tit-for-tat after the long swiftvets thing).

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
(yes, I know I started it, but the intent on my part was tit-for-tat after the long swiftvets thing).

That was probably Dan Rather's intent too.

[roger_ramjet]

1972 Email Casts Doubt on Bush Guard Service

[PacHead]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
1972 Email Casts Doubt on Bush Guard Service

LOL

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
1972 Email Casts Doubt on Bush Guard Service

Funny stuff. Onion-esque.

[chris v]

Proportional spacing, curly quotes:

[ebuddy]

How much did that typewriter cost at the time, $10,000.00?

[chris v]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How much did that typewriter cost at the time, $10,000.00?

Sure, just about the same price as the toilet seats and hammers. Like money was ever a stumbling block for the military?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by chris v:
Proportional spacing, curly quotes:

Occam's Razor