A true Patriot

[samclemens]

There's no excuse for Bush to go around FISA.

 

thats your opinion. it is the current administrations opinion that despite FISA, the Constitution grants executory powers in the President that supercede FISA. Until a court says otherwise, you may want to consider that you could be wrong, and that you quite possibly are in the minority in regards to your opinion on this issue. im just trying to get you to see both sides of the issue.

 

they are right until proven wrong. dont be so outraged, it happens all the time. its how the powers change through time. some office asserts power and they either keep it or are challenged. if no one challenges this (courts would be most credible and effective way) then it will become precedent.

[Rex Kickass]

Doesn't attacking the sitting president in that manner have that effect?  Surely he knows this.

 

I'll remind you of that in 2009.

[kapkomet]

I'll remind you of that in 2009.

You know, I never EVER have heard Republicans while the last Democrat was in office og to foreign countries and slurp them like there's no tomorrow during a time of 'war'. For example, when Clinton 'attacked' Iraq, most were very supportive.

 

The only exception about this is when he withdrew from Somalia, which IMO set the precedent for modern terrorism, because the Americans became 'cowards' at that point, and when the 'wag the dog' crap came up with the Bosina stuff. I thought that was tasteless then and I do now looking back on it.

 

Here, though, in today's times, people on the 'left' can't wait for the next opportunity to throw stones on the glass house. It's all they do. They sit back, wait for something to pick apart, scream, b****, yell, throw two year old temper tantrums about how much our president sucks and WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH, instead of offering real alternatives to our problems of today's time.

 

I'm going to say this again. I really don't like Bush, but I will defend assinine attacks and provide alternatives to what I think are endless, classless assults on the presidency.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know, I never EVER have heard Republicans while the last Democrat was in office og to foreign countries and slurp them like there's no tomorrow during a time of 'war'.  For example, when Clinton 'attacked' Iraq,  most were very supportive.

 

The only exception about this is when he withdrew from Somalia, which IMO set the precedent for modern terrorism, because the Americans became 'cowards' at that point, and when the 'wag the dog' crap came up with the Bosina stuff.  I thought that was tasteless then and I do now looking back on it.

 

Here, though, in today's times, people on the 'left' can't wait for the next opportunity to throw stones on the glass house.  It's all they do.  They sit back, wait for something to pick apart, scream, b****, yell, throw two year old temper tantrums about how much our president sucks and WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH, instead of offering real alternatives to our problems of today's time.

 

I'm going to say this again.  I really don't like Bush, but I will defend assinine attacks and provide alternatives to what I think are endless, classless assults on the presidency.

 

Modern terrorism didn't start becaue we screwed the pooch in Somalia. It started out of a combination of corrupt Middle Eastern governments, poverty, the creation of Israel and the manipulation of the region by the Soviets and the US. And with the Soviets no longer a factor in the region, the US becomes the biggest target.

 

And I think you are experiencing selective memory of the Clinton years. Gingrich and the gang were foaming at the mouth to bring down Clinton, and so were many talking heads, some even Dems. But Clinton was a lot better at bargaining and compromising with Congress than Bush is (also better than the current Dem and GOP Congressional leadership at those skills). Also, and this is coming from someone who did not vote for Clinton either time but voted for Bush in 2000, I think Bush has thus far made a lot more mistakes and gotten us involved in a lot more contentious events then Clinton ever did. That latter part isn't necessarily a negative, its just reality.

 

So I am afraid I can't agree that this is the left suddenly doing something no one else did, or that they are somehow much more petty than the right was under Clinton. I just don't buy it.

[YASNY]

The only exception about this is when he withdrew from Somalia, which IMO set the precedent for modern terrorism, because the Americans became 'cowards' at that point, and when the 'wag the dog' crap came up with the Bosina stuff.  I thought that was tasteless then and I do now looking back on it.

 

 

The perception that the US wouldn't respond started in, iirc, 1968 with the USS Pueblo incident with North Korea. Of course, the bombing of the Beirut marines barracks and the Iran hostage crisis just added to that perception.

[NorthSideSox72]

The perception that the US wouldn't respond started in, iirc, 1968 with the USS Pueblo incident with North Korea.  Of course, the bombing of the Beirut marines barracks and the Iran hostage crisis just added to that perception.

 

I don't think that these extremists are using terrorism because they think the US won't respond. In fact, I think they WANT us to respond. The reason they use terrorism is that it is the most efficient means available to them. They have no standing army, as they are not a nation-state. And those nations that would like to harm us don't have the resources to do so.

[YASNY]

I don't think that these extremists are using terrorism because they think the US won't respond.  In fact, I think they WANT us to respond.  The reason they use terrorism is that it is the most efficient means available to them.  They have no standing army, as they are not a nation-state.  And those nations that would like to harm us don't have the resources to do so.

 

Okay, then let me rephrase that. That incident was the beginning of the perceived cowardice on the part of the US.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The perception that the US wouldn't respond started in, iirc, 1968 with the USS Pueblo incident with North Korea.  Of course, the bombing of the Beirut marines barracks and the Iran hostage crisis just added to that perception.

 

 

So did the bombing of the Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000.

[Texsox]

perceived cowardice.

 

That is an interesting thought. It seems like we have spent a lot of our grandchildrens tax dollars on sending troops all over the world to kill people. Putting all that on balance, anyone that perceives Americans as cowards is pretty stupid. And I don't think we can set policy for that. We took over a country and there are still people that would perceive the US as not taking action?

[NorthSideSox72]

So did the bombing of the Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000.

 

I don't believe such a perception exists. I think their perception is in fact the opposite - they expect us to respond, or they wouldn't do it.

[Texsox]

So did the bombing of the Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000.

 

And don't forget Oklahoma City

[Rex Kickass]

You know, I never EVER have heard Republicans while the last Democrat was in office og to foreign countries and slurp them like there's no tomorrow during a time of 'war'.  For example, when Clinton 'attacked' Iraq,  most were very supportive.

 

The only exception about this is when he withdrew from Somalia, which IMO set the precedent for modern terrorism, because the Americans became 'cowards' at that point, and when the 'wag the dog' crap came up with the Bosina stuff.  I thought that was tasteless then and I do now looking back on it.

 

Here, though, in today's times, people on the 'left' can't wait for the next opportunity to throw stones on the glass house.  It's all they do.  They sit back, wait for something to pick apart, scream, b****, yell, throw two year old temper tantrums about how much our president sucks and WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH, instead of offering real alternatives to our problems of today's time.

 

I'm going to say this again.  I really don't like Bush, but I will defend assinine attacks and provide alternatives to what I think are endless, classless assults on the presidency.

 

Kap, I say this with all the love but you're full of s***. Half the people in this forum who get upset about people being angry over the way Cheney handled his shooting accident are the same one who bring up Chappaquiddick every five minutes.

 

The "wag the dog" stuff by the way was Clinton trying to go after Osama Bin Laden. Not Bosnia. The Republican members of Congress just opposed it because it was Bill Clinton's doing and not theirs.

 

The truth is Bill Clinton was a pussy in 1998 when he let Congress cause him to scale back plans for limited military involvement in taking care of OBL and Saddam Hussein when the UNSCOM dust up happened. In 1999 when he went to Bosnia, he did the damn right thing - trying to stop a civil war that was being fought against religious lines. And over the objections of a Republican Congress who claim now that George Bush has the same rights that Bill Clinton supposedly didn't have.

 

I think its a little old that people here seem to think that its only the Democrats who throw stones in this forum. The big threads in this forum are regarding legitimate questions of legality over a domestic spying program, the Vice President shooting a 78 year old man in the face and what an asshat Al Gore is and what an asshat Hillary Clinton is.

 

So who's attacking whom? Oh yeah, we're all attacking everyone. That's sort of what this forum is. Political debate, the good bad and ugly. So no victim cards allowed.

[Texsox]

The truth is Bill Clinton was a pussy in 1998

 

 

[samclemens]

The "wag the dog" stuff by the way was Clinton trying to go after Osama Bin Laden. Not Bosnia. The Republican members of Congress just opposed it because it was Bill Clinton's doing and not theirs.

 

oh so when Sudan had bin laden in custody and offered him to the clinton admin. and clinton personally turned down the offer, that was the republican congress' fault?

[Balta1701]

oh so when Sudan had bin laden in custody and offered him to the clinton admin. and clinton personally turned down the offer, that was the republican congress' fault?

An event which, according to the 911 commission, never happened. And furthermore, the Sudan certainly never held him "In custody". The Sudanese government helped him find safe transit to Afghanistan after they decided it was hurting their country having him in their borders and the Saudis refused to pardon him and accept him back.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

oh so when Sudan had bin laden in custody and offered him to the clinton admin. and clinton personally turned down the offer, that was the republican congress' fault?

 

 

I guess it was also their fault that when the CIA had a fix on his location and was ready to pull the trigger they were told no by Clinton Administration lawyers.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

An event which, according to the 911 commission, never happened.  And furthermore, the Sudan certainly never held him "In custody".  The Sudanese government helped him find safe transit to Afghanistan after they decided it was hurting their country having him in their borders and the Saudis refused to pardon him and accept him back.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...A61251-2001Oct2

 

 

This is actually how it went down.

 

 

Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unmolested.

 

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.

 

Three Clinton officials said they hoped -- one described it as "a fantasy" -- that Saudi King Fahd would accept bin Laden and order his swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.

 

You guys love to point out how Bush let the Afghan warlords chase Bin Laden in 2002 but here we have Clinton trying to outsource the problem to the Saudis in 1996. HAH!

 

Why not just kill the bastard and be done with it!?

 

This is why people trust Republicans to handle security affairs more than Democrats. While they dithered around splitting hairs over legal technicalities Bush would have simply scooped him up and eliminated him.........either that or whacked him with a Predator Drone.

Edited February 17, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Balta1701]

I guess it was also their fault that when the CIA had a fix on his location and was ready to pull the trigger they were told no by Clinton Administration lawyers.

And it was the Clinton Administration's fault that the Bush Administration ignored people who were screaming in 2001 that something was about to happen.

 

Look, we've been over this a dozen times already. Should the Clintons have done more? Yes, in hindsight absolutely. Whether or not the Republicans would have let him with the wag the dog things running around, in hindsight Clinton 100% absolutely should have done more. Should Bush have done more? 100% absolutely. The Clintons didn't target Bin Laden in 99-00 when they had the chance, the Bush administration ignored the final reports about the Cole bombing which were available in Feb. 01 and showed Al Qaeda did it beyond any doubt. The Clintons didn't make enough of an effort to go into Afghanistan militarily and break up Al Qaeda in 98-00, and the Bush Administration did nothing in response to reports of Al Qaeda cells in the U.S. in 2001. And so on and so on and so on.

 

Both administrations dropped the ball, and it led to 9/11. Had either done their job the right way, it might have been avoided, or it might not have. Had both done their job, it's fairly likely IMO that it would have been.

[Texsox]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...A61251-2001Oct2

 

This is why people trust Republicans to handle security affairs more than Democrats.  While they dithered around splitting hairs over legal technicalities Bush would have simply scooped him up and eliminated him.........either that or whacked him with a Predator Drone.

 

I guess you don't have a problem with the President authorizing illegal activities that would violate US and International Law?

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I guess you don't have a problem with the President authorizing illegal activities that would violate US and International Law?

 

 

 

We've been doing targeted killings of terrorists ever since 9/11. I guess the prerequisite for doing some necessary dirty work is losing 3000 of your own citizens in a single attack huh?

[Texsox]

We've been doing targeted killings of terrorists ever since 9/11.  I guess the prerequisite for doing some necessary dirty work is losing 3000 of your own citizens in a single attack huh?

 

Then change the laws. Do it above board, and legally. The GOP has control, introduce a bill that we will assasinate terrorists on site. Let the world know we will not follow International Laws. We will operate the same as the terrorists, so we can stop terrorism.

[Cknolls]

I guess you don't have a problem with the President authorizing illegal activities that would violate US and International Law?

 

 

 

SHHHHHHH. they may be listening to soxtalk.

[Balta1701]

SHHHHHHH.  they may be listening to soxtalk.

Dude, with me here, they've probably monitored every post here in the last 10 months.

[kapkomet]

An event which, according to the 911 commission, never happened.  And furthermore, the Sudan certainly never held him "In custody".  The Sudanese government helped him find safe transit to Afghanistan after they decided it was hurting their country having him in their borders and the Saudis refused to pardon him and accept him back.

You keep bringing that up. That is bulls*** on the 911 commission's part. It's been well collaborated, and they avoided it. It may not have been 'in custody' but they had him and we could have had him.

 

On your other post saying it is the entire government's fault, I agree.

[Balta1701]

You keep bringing that up.  That is bulls*** on the 911 commission's part.  It's been well collaborated, and they avoided it.  It may not have been 'in custody' but they had him and we could have had him.

Avoided it? They said the exact opposite.

 

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy.  Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States.  Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.  We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

 

...

 

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the

interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.

 

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

 

However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin

Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. No

handover took place.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Balta1701