Chirac's a weenie

[Rex Kickass]

That Bin Laden story is entirely an urban legend.

[TheBigHurt35]

The only reason Clinton "awakened" to the situation was to attempt to get the Lewinski situation off the front pages of the newspapers.  I wouldn't say he followed up on it in any way shape or form ...  considering that Bin Laden would have been handed to him if he was willing to accept the offer.

 

Yeah, no kidding!

 

Clinton did nothing after al Qaeda blew a five-story hole in the bottom of WTC Tower 1 in early '93 (he didn't even visit the site afterwards), so giving him "credit" for addressing terrorism is nothing short of laughable. And let's not forget how he allowed North Korea to run an underground (literally) nuke program under cover of the fake "agreement" bartered by Jimmy Carter, of all people. Clinton did a good job of balancing the budget and was instrumental in welfare reform, but he was more or less illiterate in the field of foreign policy.

 

Agreed that Reagan and Bush probably should've done more, yet both had to deal with the Soviets. However, Reagan did bomb terrorist-enabler Ghadaffi into submission.

Edited February 19, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[TheBigHurt35]

That Bin Laden story is entirely an urban legend.

 

CIA agents had loctaed bin Laden in a small campsite in Afghanistan in the late '90s, but weren't given the go-ahead to blow it up because a prince from one of the smaller countries on the Arabian Peninsula (I want to say it was Bahrain or the UAE) was also present. The White House didn't want to deal with the fallout of murdering an Arabic royal (despite the fact that he was meeting with a known international terrorist).

Edited February 19, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, no kidding!

 

Clinton did nothing after al Qaeda blew a five-story hole in the bottom of WTC Tower 1 in early '93 (he didn't even visit the site afterwards), so giving him "credit" for addressing terrorism is nothing short of laughable.  And let's not forget how he allowed North Korea to run an underground (literally) nuke program under cover of the fake "agreement" bartered by Jimmy Carter, of all people.  Clinton did a good job of balancing the budget and was instrumental in welfare reform, but he was more or less illiterate in the field of foreign policy.

 

Agreed that Reagan and Bush probably should've done more, yet both had to deal with the Soviets.  However, Reagan did bomb terrorist-enabler Ghadaffi into submission.

 

Actually most political analysts with any expertise on the Korean peninsula that I have read have said that N Korea started its Uranium Enrichment program in earnest in 2001. The "Agreed Framework" that you malign was never actually ratified or funded because the Republican Congress blocked it over and over again.

 

I'm not getting into the timeline of events between 1993-2001 in any great detail, but there was a massive investigation over how WTC bombing one happened. And it was done immediately. Our current president took nearly a year to agree to an investigation over the September 11th attacks and then stonewalled the commission for nearly a year, keeping it from doing its work on time.

[CubKilla]

That Bin Laden story is entirely an urban legend.

 

But it has been proven that Clinton knew where Bin Laden was. Drones photographed Bin Laden at an Al Queda training camp after the WTC I and embassy bombings and still Clinton did nothing. Clinton knew EXACTLY where he was.

 

Clinton only launched a few cruise missiles over Bin Laden's way after it became clear that the news was gonna report that he lied about sticking his dick in Monica Lewinsky's mouth.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yeah, no kidding!

 

Clinton did nothing after al Qaeda blew a five-story hole in the bottom of WTC Tower 1 in early '93 (he didn't even visit the site afterwards), so giving him "credit" for addressing terrorism is nothing short of laughable.  And let's not forget how he allowed North Korea to run an underground (literally) nuke program under cover of the fake "agreement" bartered by Jimmy Carter, of all people.  Clinton did a good job of balancing the budget and was instrumental in welfare reform, but he was more or less illiterate in the field of foreign policy.

 

Agreed that Reagan and Bush probably should've done more, yet both had to deal with the Soviets.  However, Reagan did bomb terrorist-enabler Ghadaffi into submission.

 

Dec. 15, 1993 Chicago Tribune & Oct. 28, 1993 New York Times both ran stories regarding the WTC bombing that never really got picked up by the mainstream media. This is an excerpt from the NYT article on it.

 

"Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building

a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,

and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting

harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after

the blast.

 

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb

and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by

an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,

Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

 

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of

hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his

talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as

being in a far better position than previously known to foil

the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers."

 

So don't blame Clinton for it when it was FBI bureaucracy that decided they wouldn't stop the attack. And for all the Clinton bashing, nobody has brought up Executive Order W199I that was informally used by Clinton but signed and enforced hard by GWB. This is a scan of the document and an explanation of it -- http://www.propagandamatrix.com/W199I.gif Plus, to Clinton's credit, he did help stop Project Bojinka in 1995 [http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/dia-bojinka.htm] Bojinka was the plot by radical Islamists—led by WTC-bomber Ramzi Yousef—to 1) blow up a dozen US passenger jets in mid-flight, 2) assassinate President Clinton and the Pope, and 3) ram hijacked passenger planes into US landmarks, including the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA Headquarters, and the Sears Tower.) The plot was discovered in 1995 when authorities in the Philippines raided Yousef's apartment.

 

And the funding of Palestinian militant organizations -- if that is wrong then is it not also wrong that the US uses billions in aid for Israeli militants after they've been linked to killing children, forced removals from homes and keeping the day to day operations of a militarist occupation in place? Hell, even members of their elite commando squad are speaking out against the occupation -- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1221-06.htm From their letter: We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through carrying out the missions of an occupation army... in the past, we fought for a justified cause (but today), we have reached the boundary of oppressing another people." And when you add in that Sharon is a bloodsoaked butcher (read: slaughters at Sabra and Shatila -- The United Nations Security Council condemned the massacre with Resolution 521 [19 September 1982]. This condemnation was followed by a 16 December 1982 General Assembly resolution qualifying the massacre as an act of genocide.) then turning the "Don't fund militants who kill innocent people!" should also be reflected at the US as well if we are to expect every other country to follow the same dictates.

 

And I've been doing a lot of research for psych classes that I'm in about the mental responses to occupation/being a refugee specifically in the case of Palestine. Its interesting stuff because there are no real coping mechanisms for them -- since many cannot get to school with the checkpoints [friend of mine was in Israel and got held at a checkpoint for 12 hours...found out later that he got clearance about an hour into his wait, but the soldiers just wanted to make him wait], can't get to their farms, can't use the roads, are constantly harassed by the settlers & IDF, have their buildings destroyed in "collateral damage" -- they see militarism as the only coping mechanism to deal with their problems. Their agrarian based economy is in shambles from the militarism (i.e. the Draconian policies enumerated above like the 12 hour waits to get through a checkpoint for no reason for Joe. Q. Farmer who has nothing to do with Hamas, etc.) Add in the fact that new "security fence" (which is 98% concrete so its a "wall" -- lets use the vocab that we've all come to agree upon) cuts deeply into Gaza and is not being built upon the established Green Line after the 1967 war.

 

A lot of the tests done on Palestinians, especially children, have high rates of depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, affective psychosis, feeling alienated and intense emotional instability – believing that they are seen as a threat. Due to the consistent victimization and stress, the refugees have developed, what research calls, a learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a condition precipitated by numerous distressing and devastating events like being expelled from your previous life and becoming a refugee. As a reaction to the consistent depressing events, the afflicted person sees no way to better the situation they are in. The afflicted person takes on a defeatist attitude and sees no reason in trying to succeed. The person(s) become helpless and refuses to do anything to try to better their life because there is no way to cope with the problems being faced. So while not enthralled by the idea of being militant back -- its a sense of pride, nationalism and a much needed coping mechanism to deal with the s***ty hand that they are getting. Its interesting reading some of the testimonials.

 

And oh yeah, if anybody thinks cutting funding for Israel would cause them harm and yadda yadda -- economists have figured out that a 3% tax increase on everybody in Israel would more than pay for the necessary security measures that they would need to defend themselves.

[TheBigHurt35]

So don't blame Clinton for it when it was FBI bureaucracy that decided they wouldn't stop the attack.

 

I'm not. I'm blaming him for doing next to nothing after the attack that occurred only a month into his first term.

 

After the Oklahoma City and Centennial Park bombings, Clinton allowed Janet Reno to stifle the FBI in their attempts to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists (something that they could already do with domestic organized crime members) under the guise of "protecting civil liberties." Airport security was also allowed to remain woefully inadequate.

 

Clinton's "sanctions" against countries who did petroleum-related business with terrorist-aider Iran were a complete joke. Billy Boy put a "loophole" in that deal where he could executively decide to forego these sanctions when in it was in the country's "national interest" (a decision he made on his own). The result was that these sanctions were never implemented and countries like Russia, France, and Germany continued to do business with Iran.

 

Clinton didn't even bother pressuring the Saudis into allowing the FBI to question the suspects in the Khobar Towers bombing (where over a hundred of our troops were murdered). Apparently the Saudis had something to hide... one of their own citizens (some guy named Osama bin Laden) was behind it. The Saudis simply asassinated the culprits so that the FBI couldn't get any damning information out of them.

 

Clinton's actions towards fighting terrorism in the '90s were woefully inadequate. One can argue that other Presidents also ignored the issue but, by the mid-90s, all the signs pointing towards 9/11 were there. More should've been done.

 

And the funding of Palestinian militant organizations -- if that is wrong then is it not also wrong that the US uses billions in aid for Israeli militants after they've been linked to killing children, forced removals from homes and keeping the day to day operations of a militarist occupation in place?

 

I actually agree with you on this one. The Israelis are certainly not without significant blame. As I've told you before, I have a Palestinian friend from Ramallah and know all-too-well the injustices committed by the Israeli army. Our government needs to take a more "fair and balanced" approach to dealing with both sides.

Edited February 19, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[TheBigHurt35]

Actually most political analysts with any expertise on the Korean peninsula that I have read have said that N Korea started its Uranium Enrichment program in earnest in 2001.

 

That's funny, then why did the Clinton Administration have to come to an "agreement" with North Korea all the way back in 1994? And why did this agreement involve "internationally-monitored containment and eventual rollback" of its nuclear capability (Washington Post, 10/19/94, p. A22) if they were 8 years away from having a weapon? Sounds to me like they were pretty damn close in '94. In late 2001, the CIA reported that North Korea had likely had one or two nuclear weapons back in the mid-1990s. Hell, they already had a functioning nuclear reactor way back in 1989!

Edited February 19, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'm not.  I'm blaming him for doing next to nothing after the attack that occurred only a month into his first term.

 

After the Oklahoma City and Centennial Park bombings, Clinton allowed Janet Reno to stifle the FBI in their attempts to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists (something that they could already do with domestic organized crime members) under the guise of "protecting civil liberties."  Airport security was also allowed to remain woefully inadequate.

 

Clinton's "sanctions" against countries who did petroleum-related business with terrorist-aider Iran were a complete joke.  Billy Boy put a "loophole" in that deal where he could executively decide to forego these sanctions when in it was in the country's "national interest" (a decision he made on his own).  The result was that these sanctions were never implemented and countries like Russia, France, and Germany continued to do business with Iran.

 

Clinton didn't even bother pressuring the Saudis into allowing the FBI to question the suspects in the Khobar Towers bombing (where over a hundred of our troops were murdered).  Apparently the Saudis had something to hide... one of their own citizens (some guy named Osama bin Laden) was behind it.  The Saudis simply asassinated the culprits so that the FBI couldn't get any damning information out of them.

 

Clinton's actions towards fighting terrorism in the '90s were woefully inadequate.  One can argue that other Presidents also ignored the issue but, by the mid-90s, all the signs pointing towards 9/11 were there.  More should've been done.

I actually agree with you on this one.  The Israelis are certainly not without significant blame.  As I've told you before, I have a Palestinian friend from Ramallah and know all-too-well the injustices committed by the Israeli army.  Our government needs to take a more "fair and balanced" approach to dealing with both sides.

 

I for one support our government of lying and murdering overlords. With Bush invading random countries that have nothing to do with our national security, call me cynical but I really believe that administrations like having that "enemy" out there so they can justify an agenda and don't really need to do anything about it -- just make it appear that they are doing something. And that cuts both ways, during the election I was fairly certain that a lot of the Democrats (Read: Liberal Hawks) were only wanting a guy with a D around his name in power to take credit for the dead tan people. It just irked me when Condie went on TV and said that she had no idea about a 9/11 style attack when the Bojinka documents were found in 1995 and the attack style was just smaller scale on 9/11.

[Rex Kickass]

That's funny, then why did the Clinton Administration have to come to an "agreement" with North Korea all the way back in 1994?  And why did this agreement involve "internationally-monitored containment and eventual rollback" of its nuclear capability (Washington Post, 10/19/94, p. A22) if they were 8 years away from having a weapon?  Sounds to me like they were pretty damn close in '94.  In late 2001, the CIA reported that North Korea had likely had one or two nuclear weapons back in the mid-1990s.  Hell, they already had a functioning nuclear reactor way back in 1989!

 

There are multiple ways to acquire a nuclear weapon. For the most part North Korea was not seriously in weapons production mode for the bulk of the rest of the Clinton administration. Part of our deal was to build nuclear reactors that could not be used for uranium enrichment, helping North Korea fill its peaceful uses for nuclear energy without allowing it to develop weaponry. However, because of a Republican Congress blocking implementation of the agreed framework, it never came to pass. The agreement with North Korea came in 1994 because the Korean peninsula was on the brink of war.

 

If you want to blame the Clinton administration for doing nothing, you could. But at least the Clinton administration sought to actively engage the North Koreans and warm relations enough to slow the building of nuclear weaponry and reduce the chance of any offensive action on their part. The Bush administration has been actively ignoring the situation for nearly 3 years now and North Korea has now declared itself a nuclear state.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not.  I'm blaming him for doing next to nothing after the attack that occurred only a month into his first term.

 

After the Oklahoma City and Centennial Park bombings, Clinton allowed Janet Reno to stifle the FBI in their attempts to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists (something that they could already do with domestic organized crime members) under the guise of "protecting civil liberties."  Airport security was also allowed to remain woefully inadequate.

 

Clinton's "sanctions" against countries who did petroleum-related business with terrorist-aider Iran were a complete joke.  Billy Boy put a "loophole" in that deal where he could executively decide to forego these sanctions when in it was in the country's "national interest" (a decision he made on his own).  The result was that these sanctions were never implemented and countries like Russia, France, and Germany continued to do business with Iran.

 

Clinton didn't even bother pressuring the Saudis into allowing the FBI to question the suspects in the Khobar Towers bombing (where over a hundred of our troops were murdered).  Apparently the Saudis had something to hide... one of their own citizens (some guy named Osama bin Laden) was behind it.  The Saudis simply asassinated the culprits so that the FBI couldn't get any damning information out of them.

 

Clinton's actions towards fighting terrorism in the '90s were woefully inadequate.  One can argue that other Presidents also ignored the issue but, by the mid-90s, all the signs pointing towards 9/11 were there.  More should've been done.

I actually agree with you on this one.  The Israelis are certainly not without significant blame.  As I've told you before, I have a Palestinian friend from Ramallah and know all-too-well the injustices committed by the Israeli army.  Our government needs to take a more "fair and balanced" approach to dealing with both sides.

 

Airport security remains woefully inadequate. 95% of air cargo flown out of our nation's airports remain uninspected. 95% of sea cargo enters our ports uninspected. Unfortunately what you forget about is in order for common sense measures to be taken to prevent crisis like 9/11, funding is necessary. The Republicans saw no reason to support Clinton's actions against terrorism in 1998 or 1999. The same party that refused to support increased funding for counter terror measures as late as September 10, 2001 when Don Rumsfeld said that a presidential veto would come down on a defense appropriations bill helping to create a missile shield program if money to increase counterterror operations were tacked on. There's plenty of blame to pass around. Maybe the worst of it comes around to a party that tried to handcuff a President's foreign policy because they were too busy trying to get him impeached for a blowjob.

[TheBigHurt35]

For the most part North Korea was not seriously in weapons production mode for the bulk of the rest of the Clinton administration.

 

The CIA has estimated that North Korea had at least one nuclear weapon back in the mid-90's. Forgive me, but I'll trust their intelligence reports over your opinion.

 

If you want to blame the Clinton administration for doing nothing, you could. But at least the Clinton administration sought to actively engage the North Koreans and warm relations enough to slow the building of nuclear weaponry and reduce the chance of any offensive action on their part. The Bush administration has been actively ignoring the situation for nearly 3 years now and North Korea has now declared itself a nuclear state.

 

No, the Clinton Administration made some sort of non-enforceable loose agreement with the North Koreans and essentially looked the other way while their clandestine nuke program proliferated.

 

North Korea admitted in October of '02 that they had "been secretly developing nuclear weapons for years in violation of international agreements" (Washington Post, 10/17/02, p. A01). In other words, it happened right under Clinton's nose. In 1998, U.S. intelligence reported "a huge secret underground complex in North Korea" and estimated that "about 15,000 North Koreans are at work on a vast, secret underground nuclear facility" (New York Times, 8/17/98, p. A1). What did Clinton do about this? Nothing.

 

So much for the effectiveness of Bill's "warm relations" with the rogue regime of Kim Jung Il. Like al Qaeda, Clinton brushed the North Korean situation under the rug for the next president to deal with.

Edited February 20, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[TheBigHurt35]

Maybe the worst of it comes around to a party that tried to handcuff a President's foreign policy because they were too busy trying to get him impeached for a blowjob.

 

No, I think the worst of it is that the Republican-controlled Congress allowed Clinton to pass a "sanctions" bill to stop countries from purchasing petroleum from Iran and that Clinton didn't even bother to enforce the provisions of his own bill. He had bipartisan support to put sanctions on Iran and then allowed that terror state to keep on raking in money from oil sales.

 

Like I've said before, Clinton did a good job addressig many domestic issues (balancing the budget, welfare reform, etc.), but was the worst foreign policy president that we've had a in a long time.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, the sanctions bill of which you speak did not attack countries at all but rather companies. And it was unrelated to oil but rather weapons system related development. Clinton vetoed the sanctions because it was passed at the same time as the administration was negotiating with the Russian government to take care of the problem without damaging Russian-U.S. relations, somewhat important in a grander scheme of getting Russia to aid in moderating and pacifying an increasingly hostile Iranian government.

 

Iranian oil was never really on the table - as I'm sure Vice President Dick Cheney would tell you. American companies were generally forbidden from doing business in Iran to begin with. Have been since the Reagan administration. However, some multinationals did do business with Iran through wholly owned subsidiaries based in other countries. While at the helm of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company did just that - with multimillion dollar deals through Halliburton's wholly owned French subsidiary.

 

I would argue that the worst foreign policy president that we've had in a long time would be the one we currently have. At least Bill Clinton recognized problems.

[TheBigHurt35]

Actually, the sanctions bill of which you speak did not attack countries at all but rather companies. And it was unrelated to oil but rather weapons system related development.

 

You are incorrect. These sanctions very much were related to oil. This legislation (introduced by Alfonse D'Amato) was an extension of the oil embargo against Iran, which was ineffective because most of Europe didn't recognize it. You are correct, however, in that the purpose of limiting Iran's petroleum industry was to limit their funding for weapons systems.

 

These companies do most of their business in their own nations (Total S.A. in France, Gazprom in Russia, and Petronas in Malaysia) and with others who also did not recognize America's oil embargo. Therefore, these sanctions would have, by far, the greatest effect on these economies. That would explain why most of Europe (Germany, in particular) went ballistic when the legislation was introduced. Fortunately for Europe and Asia, Clinton's watered-down version of this bill and his refusal to enforce the sanctions (through his ridiculous "national security" waiver) ensured that these "sanctions" would never be enforced. In 1997, Washington Post reported that the three aforementioned oil companies invested $2 billion in an oil field off the coast of Iran and Clinton did nothing about it. The following year, he waived all sanctions against these oil companies. It was nothing short of political grandstanding on Clinton's part to give voters the impressions that he was "tough on terrorism."

 

BTW, I find it interesting that liberals claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq simply to procure oil. At their pre-war height, Iraq only produced 2.6% of the world's oil supply. An oil-driven invasion makes little sense, given the cost of going to war with nation known to have used chemical and biological weapons in the past. Invading an African oil-producing country (such as Nigeria) would've cost a hell of a lot less.

 

I think it's obvious that our European and Asian counterparts are significantly more oil-hungry, given that...

 

a. We were the only ones willing to boycott Iranian oil sales.

 

b. Other nations (such as France and Russia) fought against the aforementioned sanctions and actively encouraged Iranian oil development.

 

c. The French and Russians pressed to lift UN-imposed oil production caps in Iraq in the mid/late '90s, while we opposed it. Clearly, they have a much stronger interest in Iraqi oil than we do.

 

I would argue that the worst foreign policy president that we've had in a long time would be the one we currently have. At least Bill Clinton recognized problems.

 

Oh, I have no doubt that Clinton recognized the problems. Unfortunately, he was completely inept when it came time to actually deal with them.

Edited February 21, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Rex Kickass]

Well then, which sanctions are you talking about? Because it seems that there were a lot of different sanctions passed by congress in the mid to late 90s.

[TheBigHurt35]

Well then, which sanctions are you talking about? Because it seems that there were a lot of different sanctions passed by congress in the mid to late 90s.

 

The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996