Tech: Clinton couldn't act, no matter how much warning he had. It goes against the liberal prime directive. 'Acting' is wrong, and 'Reacting' is only right if you can preserve more moral purity that those you act against.

Getting Clinton to impose the kind of insane security or strict anti-wasp immigration crackdowns it would have taken to prevent 9/11 would have been completely against Democratic thinking. They would rather suffer than regret.

I can see their perspective, but I have read Hamlet way too many times to believe that eternal indecision is somehow morally superior. They don't act out of pacifism, rather they freeze up because they can't stomach the responsibility of being wrong. Not the kind of people I want for military, or even civil leaders.


[Message Edited]

I don't blame Clinton nor Bush. The fact is that nothing on that scale happened before. I also presume that there were and still are many cia reports of probable terrorist attacks. Look how many times the white house has warned (using that stupid yellow orange red thing) of immenent attacks. And how many came true. The cia reports might have existed but to guess to make such extreme measures before to prevent the attack would have been unthinkable.

They don't act out of pacifism, they don't act because they can't stomach the responsibility of being wrong. Not the kind of people I want for leaders.

If they are wrong, they suffer in the approval polls. I remember Clinton was always obsessed about where his approval rating was and made decision based on what might bring his approval up. I prefer leaders that do what they feel is right.

"I prefer leaders that do what they feel is right."

Or at the very least what is necessary, even if it is unpalatable. I don't have any confidence that any of the Democratic hopefuls have the guts to make a lose-lose decision.

I don't have any confidence that any of the Democratic hopefuls have the guts to make a lose-lose decision.

To win the Democratic Party nomination, the hopefuls have to appeal to the left. Supporting any kind of military action especially the military action in Iraq is seen as not leftist enough. The hopeful that wins the nomination then must appeal to the center to win votes from those in the middle and maybe some that lean towards the right. Ever seen the SNL sketch where George Bush Senior is teaching George W how to "dance to the right" for the primaries then "dance toward the center" for the national election?



[Message Edited]

, yep. I really, really miss Will Ferrell 's GB.

SNL has been going down as their funniest actors leave. I hardly watch SNL anymore.

Clinton did nothing to fight terror all the eight years he was in office.

Clinton appeared (to those of us in the real world) to be well versed in International Issues.
During his tenure I believe he (or if you like, his administration) was instrumental in moving the Israel-Palastine conflict close to a reasonable conclusion, it could be said Clinton had an influence in mediation and eventual moves toward ending the Irish 'Troubles'..... in fact, aside from his human failing(s), the reason the former President is vilified might be his interest in the International scene as opposed to his perceived failings in Domestic issues.
The great 'War on Terror' would be a total non-issue within the USA if the WTC operation had not taken place.
In truth, Clinton's predecessors appear to have been more than happy to fund terrorist activities provided these groups served US interests.
Of course, not being one of the 'chosen' and having only been a serving member of a 'minor' nation's armed forces for more years than I care to admit is not relevant .... the uninformed opinions of some redneck civilian in 'God's Own Country' are worth far more than the thoughts of a citizen of such a backward country as Australia.
Capturing Sadam Hussein is a great boost to morale of the Iraqi people and a forward step toward rebuilding their country , but it is not the end game.
In 'MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION' it will be almost impossible to locate Bin Laden, let alone 'capture' him.
The man is intelligent, well organised, a leader of men and has unlimited funding .... a large part of said funding coming from the 'Allies' in the Middle East.
Hussein is or was, nothing more than a thug, albiet a ruthless and (until recently) very powerful thug.
Bin Laden is far more capable and dangerous than Hussein in every way, in an 'operational' sense , and unlike Hussein he will not be taken alive, if at all.

All that aside, the bodybags will keep on coming .....



[Message Edited]

" the uninformed opinions of some redneck civilian "

Rather needless, I think. I've yet to see conservative opinion here that isn't held by many people with many diverse backgrounds. Not unlike gun control or capital punishment, I guess it helps to paint a caricature to prop up an opinion.

RE: Clinton,

If mainstream liberalism is allowed to say "George Bush can't even find Saddam Hussein" one day and "George Bush doesn't deserve the credit for finding Saddam Hussein" the next, then one shouldn't be surprised to find that Bill Clinton's indirect contribution to World Peace open to interpretation. He did do a lot to legitimatize folks like Arafat, who could as easily be on a most-wanted list.

boggling...

Bin Laden is far more capable and dangerous than Hussein in every way, in an 'operational' sense

disagree with that. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on the other hand is.

He did do a lot to legitimatize folks like Arafat, who could as easily be on a most-wanted list.

Baker, a start has to be made somewhere with someone who is, shall we say 'acceptable' to all concerned.
Arafat could have been on a 'most wanted list' indeed, but said 'list' only came into use after the WTC operation .... and I have never come across anything to indicate Yassa Arafat being regarded as a 'threat' to the United States.
My thoughts on Clinton are just that, MY thoughts.
As for 'rednecks' .... first thing that came to mind, certainly I've come across many individuals who fit the template.
And I should add, both within the US Military and in civilian life.
Or would you class characters like Timothy McVee(??) as reasonable and well meaning 'conservatives'?
The main terrorist threat to the US is internal, never mind extreme elements such as Bin Laden's group, there appears to be more than enough home-grown groups with vested interests to cause havoc on multiple levels.
Must be an Aussie thing, but if we had a PM in office like Bill Clinton who had a 'Monica Moment' (or three) his popularity rating would soar and re-election would be a certainty.
I find US politics a bit strange, OK, ALL politics and politicians are 'strange', however, I find the concept of buying a 'Presidency' is at odds with the oft quoted 'Anyone can grow up to become President of the United States etc'.

disagree with that. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on the other hand is

Moshi .... he was one of the "US Sponsored Good Guys!"
I would agree he is a dangerous opponent on a tactical level .... but not on the grand scale.
His manifesto is for a fundamentalist state and that state is to be Afghanistan.
If he is to be a major player he would have to be capable of unifying all the fundamentalist nations (or rather, factions!) in the region against the West .... not going to happen.
Again .... IMHO.

Be it you're left, right, middle, up, or down, one cannot deny that this event is justice giving itself a nice little Christmas present.
Stolen quote from someone I saw on TV yesterday.

[Message Edited]

indeed

Or would you class characters like Timothy McVee(??) as reasonable and well meaning 'conservatives'?

I would not. Would you classify the Unibomber as a reasonable well meaning liberal?

No .... but neither came from the so-called terrorist nations, I may stand corrected, but I always believed these people were upstanding American citizens.
Then again, today's terrorist is tomorrow's patriot.
1776 and all that stuff.
Did the 'UniBomber' really exist is this another popular urban myth?
TC, you're the one banging on about the good guys and the bad guys, left and right, Democrats and Republicans, who is right and who wrong, who takes on the problems of the world and who does nothing etc ..... 'kay?
My observations are just that, "my observations" .... as one who has had more than enough life-threatening experiences in the real world than some other people.>
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is that!



[Message Edited]

Please don't get TC going again!

I concur. Lets get back on topic (If there is one)

Hanoi dean and the Dimmowits must be on suicide watch at this point.

The economy is soaring at a blistering 8.2%... That means no more economy drum.

No more Saddam drum, he has been captured.

If Saddam is any model to go by then Osama’s hole must be just as bad. I don’t think it will take the US military to long to “smoke” Osama “out of his hole” Even if it takes longer than expected to catch or kill Osama, he hasn’t attacked us lately, actually this has been the longest period of Al Qaida dormancy regarding attacks on America or American interest, I think Dubyas likeness should be carved into Mount Rushmore at this point.

As for the WMD it took a while to find Saddam but that didn’t mean that he didn’t exist.

"Or would you class characters like Timothy McVee(??) as reasonable and well meaning 'conservatives'?"

Nope, nor would I assume you were juxtaposing your opinions with his. For future reference Rednecks are flatlanders that spend a lot of time on a tractor. I would proudly accept the label 'Hillbilly'. Timothy McVeigh's type are spread throughout the world and would be best termed 'White Trash'.

"Then again, today's terrorist is tomorrow's patriot. 1776 and all that stuff."

Blowing up a Disco in Israel is no more 'rebellion' than blowing up one in Bali. To equate 1776 to what Arafat perpetrates legitimizes the killing of innocents, and gives them a more palatable job description. The US supported MILITARY action against the Soviet MILITARY in Afghanistan. The cause isn't in question, it is the tactics. Anyway, anyone as 'in-the-know' as you, Wombat, should know that these terrorist organizations ceased giving a damn about their supposed causes decades ago, they are billion dollar businesses now.

It sickens me that people can make these sweeping comparisons with no regard to the fact that people can and will use them to perpetrate terror on innocent people. People *hear* that sort of thing, and it strengthens their will to commit acts that have no similarity to the American revolution.

The revolutionary war isn't one of my pet eras, so feel free to correct me if terrorism was widely accepted among Washington and the rest. I do recall the British being comfortable with killing civilians, or at least paying Native Americans to do so.

oh LOOK! SmirkY!!



AR-15 thats reaching a bit ain't it?

these terrorist organizations ceased giving a damn about their supposed causes decades ago

Without a doubt BakerStreet, something always gets lost in the mix as with all fanatical movements.

Even the most benign movement when mixed with fanatic ideology gets you to a point that never represents the place started out for...

terrorism has been arround for ages. It is just now that the terrorists have been able to get the force to destroy large numbers easily.

Causes are easily forgotten while a mission isn't. They remember their mission but not the cause. And with the cause goes the reason and rational.

ps. bush really shouldn't be on mount rushmore. Maybe Eisenhower.