All that sounds good, until you take into account that Clinton lobbed missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan on the day Lewinski was testifying to Congress, and did nothing more thereafter. That is where he showed his knowledge of the situation and his lack of interest when it no longer served him personally or politically.


http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html

 

Maybe you haven't done a very good job explaining what the difference is, or maybe there really isn't a difference and your just to partisan to consider it.

 

That's not true, Reagan and Bush had ample warning about the people they supported. We knew Hussein had gassed his own people and continued to support him. We knew the people (including Bin Laden) in Afghanistan were our enemies, we just didn't care because they were fighting the Russians, just like we didn't care about Hussein because he was fighting Iraq.

Sleep with Satan and you get burned every time.

 

It's very difficult explain what is obvious to me. Have you ever been the only one in the room that knows the correct answer to something, and everyone else is telling you that you have it wrong? It can get ugly and frustrating. Until the answer is finally revealed. That's how it is to talk to some of the people on this site. Some have obviously thought things thru and accept new information, or points of view, when it makes sense to them. Hersh for instance. Some can't hear anything that doesn't agree with them 100%. I tend to let the stuff I agree with go unanswered and jump in on the stuff I think is way off the mark. It makes me look hard headed I guess; but, those that have listened to what I have to say with an open mind know better.

I can guaranty you that if Bin Laden had tried to blow up the WTC under Bush1 or Reagan, he would have had a CIA hit team up his *** in no time flat. Delta force would have delivered his final midnight snack. Nobody would have known about it until it was over. Period. That's how it was before Slick ***** stepped in. He made a mess of things in the intelligence fields, well maybe not directly; but, the people he assigned to posts they were grossly unqualified to hold were his representatives. Therefore he carries the blame. Well actually, we do. We voted the guy in. I voted for him over Bush1. I was a kid and had been scared to death by the media of anything that had to do with the CIA. Bush had been the head of it. Stories of the CIA pumping drugs into our inner cities to fund black op's in other countries or for personal wealth of rogue agents that were little more than criminals abounded. And more... All portrayed in movies and TV shows. Hinted at in the news and exaggerated during the Iran-Contra hearings. I was a fool. I learned from it though. I'm still learning in fact. Bush is no prize bull; but, I'd vote for him over Kerry or Gore any day.

 

Do you know what it's like to have someone telling you their right when in fact their position is just an opinion?

I think the problem is you (no offense) have a values system that makes the same thing right or wrong dependent on circumstances. Situational ethics.

I don't think that way, or at least I resist the temptation to think that way because my religious beliefs say I must.

There are those who say stealing is OK under some circumstances, I don't.

In this case, you excuse the people who helped evil men because it furthered our interests. That's like saying you're blamess for selling a man a gun when you know he's going to murder someone with it, and then turn around and say someone was wrong for not going after the murderer, when doing so would have resulted in more innocent deaths.

You have your values, I have mine, I'll leave it at that.

 

Bighersh,

I hear where you coming from and I agree that neither Reagan nor Bush Sr. did not have some blame when it comes to terrorism. However, were I differ is the fact that for 8 years Clinton did little to nothing when it came to terrorism.

Two very important events happened on his watch. First the bombing of the World Trade Center that basically went unanswered. They may have been a few small things he did but not much.

However, the biggest event that happened under Clinton’s watch was the direct attack of a United States military war ship that he did absolutely nothing about, no response, no nothing but empty words.

You, like I were in the military, so I ask how would you feel if some enemy walked up to one of your buddies and shot him in the head point blank and NOBODY did a damn thing about it other then state something like ”Well damnit, chit happens…”

Clinton by his “in-actions” for 8 years gave a perception to the world, terrorist specifically, that American had became very weak and thus gave terrorist courage to step it up A LOT!

Was it good we once backed Saddam and Bin Laden? Today we know it wasn’t a bright idea but we were fighting a different war and trying to prevent a possible World War III with Russia. That doesn’t make it right or give anybody a free pass but can you honestly believe that either Reagan or Bush Sr. would have portrayed America as being weak as did Clinton for 8 years? Do you really believe that neither Reagan nor Bush Sr. wouldn’t have acted more aggressively after the first World Trade center bombing? Do you really believe that either Reagan or Bush Sr. would have stood by idle after a United States war ship had been attacked?

Now, I will argue that I think one of the biggest mistakes ever made by America when it comes to terrorism is when Reagan pulled the military out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing.

I don’t necessarily fault Clinton for his affair with Lewinski for the weakness he portrayed to terrorist during his 8 years but I do fault him for allowing the perception that since he had an affair with Lewinski that he may have clouded his judgment on what he should have done.

What I mean by that is he may have still made the same decisions even if Lewinski never came along. However, we will never know because due to his actions and his own choices to have an affair and it getting out we will never know and for that he is 100% at fault.

In the end, in my opinion, Clinton set the atmosphere for the 9/11 attacks by the precedence he set during his 8 years which was basically terrorist could do about anything they wanted and America would not hold them accountable, even if they attacked a United States war ship and killed American military personal…

 

No, it's like training a soldier, then going after him when he goes off the reservation. We have a responsibility for Iraq and the Taliban; but, not as the bad guy. Nobody knew that the Afghani rebels (Osama Bin Laden) would take the help we gave them, against the USSR, and turn it against us. You make it sound as though previous administrations knowingly and intentionally created enemies of the state. That's what is wrong with your position. It's moronic. Not righteous. You want to attack my values when you have no clue what they are. Fine. That's your prerogative you pompous ***.

 

As I have stated before the root cause to terrorism is as follows:

We support Israel.
Israel is located in the Middle East.
Terrorist do NOT believe Israel should be in the Middle East.

There really is nothing more to it then that. Every other excuse is only window dressing for the above.

So I ask again, first, what have the Jews done to **** so many people off? Why are there many Americans who worry about people being slaughtered in Africa but would have no problem if all the Jews in Israel got slaughtered and not blink an eye at it?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't know i was talking to an adolescent child. Oh well, that's what they make ignore lists for.

 

The answer to that starts about 3000 years ago(roughly). According to their own writings they angered God enough that He took the promised land away from them. The true roots of this conflict have to do a lot with the politics of their religious leaders and their attempts to discount people within their own tribes.

The split that resulted in Israel and Judeah was due to the politics of the high preists and there respective camps.

In Biblical times, the Jews were a patriarchal hierarchy, at some point, absent commandment of God and most likely as a means to discount certain members of the tribes they didn't like, they changed to a matriarchal society.

Look at Ishmael, by Jewish law of the time, he is a member of the tribe of Abraham, a "Jew" if you will. When Abrahams wife had a child of her own, she made Abraham cast out Ishmael and his mother out of jealousy and arrogance. God promised Ishmael that he would take care of him and the jews as far as I can tell didn't like that. Just as they didn't like the Messiah that God gave them (so they killed him), they apparently have refused to recognize the covenant that God made with Ishmael, or recognize of any his resultant bloodline, in fact changing to a matriarchal hierarchy conveniently erases Ishamels bloodline in the eyes of the Jews.

I'm not saying it's right to hate the Jews, God doesn't want us to hate anyone but generally they've been treated as they have treated others in the past.

The problem is, if you treat people badly long enough, even if you change your ways, you're still going to find most people hold a grudge.

 

I seem to recall that the majority of those responsible for the first bombing were arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I might be wrong as to the number, but it's not like it was ignored either.

As for the Cole, what was he supposed to do? Start lobbing missiles at everyone and hope we get the right one and that the rest of the world will ignore the fact that the US decides to be judge, jury and executioner at will?


BTW, there was another US naval vessel attacked in the middle east and the government did nothing about it, 34 killed, 173 wounded. By every account of those on board, it was an intentional act of war.

The people and country responsible were never punished, never admitted their guilt and the US government allowed them to get away with it.

 

More insults. Isn't that precious?

 

Your statement shows a real lack of understanding of Cold War politics and situations. The main underlaying process during the Cold War was, we were against the Soviets and they were against us. We both did everything we could to stop the other side, short of directly shooting at each other. Look at Korea, and Vietnam, both were "passively" supported by the Soviets, just like we "passively" supported the Mujadheen (which became the Northern Alliance not the Taliban) in Afghanistan.

I will have to agree with your last sentence. If we hadn't helped save Russia during WWII, then we wouldn't be in this predicament. Russia for a long time during the Cold War was a sponsor of terrorism and the supported countries designated terrorist states. But then, gee we would have lost WWII, if Germany didn't have to split their army between two fronts. So holding Bush I and Reagan responsible for Bin Laden because 20 years after they supported him he blows something up is about as ignorant has holding Roosevelt responsible because he helped Russia.

 

World War II:

There are some, including General Patton, who did think we were stupid to support Russia. Actually, if Hitler hadn't gone back on his word, there is a good chance Russia may have come to his aid against us; but he screwed himself when he got overzealous and attacked Russia after the overwhelming success of Blitzkreig against everyone else. If we had listened to Patton, there would have been no cold war. But, Patton was wrong- Russia was our ally at the time, so turning and attacking Russia would have been imprudent.

From 1939 - 1944 Germany's military might, and technological prowess was nothing to sneeze at; but, neither was our military might, even though from an Army stand point, technologically, we were outclassed (Tanks). Please remember, our forces were split too (Europe and Japan). If we had focused on one, then the other- I think we would have whipped Germany, even without Russia's help. It just may have taken twice as long, and probaby cost twice as many US lives. Maybe... The A-Bomb might have ended the entire war, before we ever sat foot in the pacific theater.
________________________________

Present day:

I don't say what I say to suggest our past leaders had a crystal ball, and knew Saddam and Bin Laden would one day become our enemies. But, they did know Saddam was a ruthless man who executed all of the parliamentry figures who opposed him when he came to power. As for Bin Laden, I don't know enough about our govermental dealings with him to make an educated comment, other than in hindsight, we can see supporting him was a bad idea. This is why I am vehemently against the export of our top line fighters (F-15, F-16, F-18, and soon the F-22 & F-35) You don't sell your schyt to anyone; let them build their own, or buy MiG's from Russia. At the onset of the Gulf War (I), we thought our fighters were goign to have to tangle with F-14's Iraq had. At the time, I knew we'd given some to Iran (Shah), I didn't know Iraq had a few too. They shuffled into Iran to keep them safe, from what I recall.

USS Stark: Yeah, Iraq blew the schyt out of that ship, with an Exocet anti-ship missle. The Stark limped home, listing badly, but that was deemed a mistake, and no action was taken against Iraq. What I thought was cool about statements made about that, is when they said the excet missle that nearly destroyed the Stark, woudl have bounced off the Missouri, due to the thickness of her hull... I guess it's true; they don't build'em like they used to.

WTC 1993. Action was taken. We got the guys that did that, and in doing so we found out about the plans those guys made to blow up jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean in October 1995. I heard that on an A&E documentary, which differed slightly from what was stated on The Path to 9/11 which suggested it was to happen in March 1995. I've mentioned that on here before because even though many years had passed, my pucker factor increased because I was flying over the Pacific in Oct. 1995, to San Francisco- one of the targeted flight destinations. We didn't go to war, or anything like that, but we did get the guys responsible.

USS Cole: Did anyone ever claim responsibility for that? I remember initially, they said some Yemeni terrorist group was suspected. Wasn't that a suicide bombing? Some say, the retaliation of this, launching an attack against the suspected terrorist training camp is what may have prompted 9/11.

From a loosely theorized statement I recall on TV shortly after 9/11, that retalitory missle attack (Or a missle attack) spinning off from the Cole, resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden's son, who died on the 11th of that month. This is why the person who made that statement, believes we were attacked on the 11th, rather than the 10th, 12th, 9th, etc..

It's all back seat driving, Monday Morning QB'ing on all our parts. We all have different opinions, which is par of what makes this country great. We can agree to disagree, and we can argue and end up with a better result in some cases.

Sept. 11, 2001:
A very tragic day in American History. Equal to, or worse than Pearl Harbor in my book.
If a country had attacked America, I'd have released the bombs from the B-52 myself, if they'd let me, over the country that did this. but it was a terrorist group. They managed to hijack (at least) 4 planes, simultaneously- who knows how many more may have been planned. My question is, with 5,000,000,000 in the world, how in the world did they track down Zacharius Moussawi within hours of the last plane crashing, and link him to 9/11? I hate to think this way, but, I think at some level, someone knew something was about to go down. that's one hellacious process of elimination.
I'm proud to be an American!

 

9-11 was already in the planning stages when the USS Cole was attacked in Oct 00.