War use for campaigning

[Ender]

OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.

The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?

Oh, that's right it was ... Weapons of Mass Destruction, wasn't it? That's right the Presidents man in Baghdad, David Kay reported that Saddam Hussein's regime had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles still in place.

But at least we don't have to blame this on relying on the United Nations. And isn't it wonderful that it is only costing you and I (American Taxpayers) one billion dollars a week. What a bargian.

Yea! US!

"Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought. "

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

"it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly." -David Kay

Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive – it was to enforce already-violated resolutions. -Davd Kay

 

[loki09789]

Alrighty then... does anyone have a HISTORICAL reference that they could compare or contrast to the present campaigning by the POTUS, or is this going to be a BASH BUSH/ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS WWE style smack down for all eternity?

My two cents on the tangent as of now,

I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified. Why? Because

1. Afg. and Al-Q was the nest of terrorist training/operation that BANKED the 9/11 attack - as well as all the other Trade Center attacks that went unstopped by past adminstrations (one unsuccessful one involving Improvised explosives from Extinguishers that a NYC cop stopped before it started, and the second was the manure bomb in the parking ramp...).

2. SHussein had 10 years of jerking around inspectors, the UN and the US that he got away with, the operation was based on intelligence information which, like police work, is a best guess science and GOD FORBID that someone take a stand, be successful, but not have all the ducks line up after all the data comes in. Hind sight 20/20. Operations are planned/executed on best guess data.

3. SHussein, during the first Gulf War, burned the oil fields posing a serious ecological as well as economical threat to the oil market. Prior to that, he practiced ethnic cleansing and human experimentation inhumanities on the Kurds (who are not choir boys, but no one is). Say what you want about the barrells that come out of the Mid East, but Mid East oil is like the NY stock exchange, it drives the market... look at the post 9/11 markets. Imagine what the post Mid East oil market would be, again, if the oil fields were not secured and protected.

4. Save the locals and win political/press/humanitarian support, save the oil - in conjunction with that - and you protect the quality of life and market recovery for the region... Besides which the market rates on crude oil will also impact any petroleum based products like synthetic rubbers and other products that I don't even know about, but have a huge impact on my life, and yours in terms of medical, safety and other areas.

All this criticism and arm chairing is interesting/entertaining, but unless we are all active voters or running for an office to make a difference, it is nothing more than Pub-politics that pisH people off.

 

[loki09789]

Here's an analogy that might explain where I am coming from:

We are all critical and upset at how a stand up guy, not squeaky clean, but stand up who comes to the aid of a rape victim suddenly has to defend his action against a known criminal when he stabs him with a knife, breaks his arm and maybe gets a concussion in the struggle. Yes, we might say that the response was excessive, if we want to focus on the guy, but are we forgetting the original bad guy?

SHussein is one evil MF, who was threatening the market safety, ecology and humanity of his region and the world with his actions. He took advantage of a sliding power structure, killed/stole and swindled his way to a position of power. Is the world better off with him out of power? Are there/will there be others who could be just as evil, yes. Do we tolerate them or take them to task?

 

[sma_book]

Which is precisely the point. Clinton ran a "risk-adverse" administration. He never took action when he should have. 3 times helicopters were loaded and readied, field plans were made, the location of Osama Bin Laden was known, and yet Clinton did nothing. Because of his inaction 9/11 happened. This is why I think it is appropriate that the footage is used, to remind people that things things don't get taken care of, consequences happen.

Please source this assertion. I am unfamiliar with the '3 times' you refer too, and I do think I am pretty well read on the subject. I would like to educate myself, if there are gaps in my knowledge.

Barton Gellmen, a contributor to the Washington Post reported "by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him. .... first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

When Clinton launched the missle strikes at Afghanistan after the embassy bombings, Newt Gingrich said, "The president did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorist".

Those are some of the sources I am using. I have also read that as the Clinton term was winding down, and in response to the Al Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole, Clinton asked Richard Clarke, his appointed antiterrorism coordinator to develop a plan to destroy Al Qaeda. Clarke assembled this plan, and delivered it to NSC Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000. This was approximately one month before GW Bush was to take office. Rather than start a war, and hand it off to Bush. Sandy Berger met with Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley to review and discuss the plan. And That is what went nowhere.

So, help me find the battle plans you speak of. 3 times you say, we had the helicopter loaded, and we knew where the target was. I look forward to finding out more about this. - Mike

 

[sma_book]

"Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought. "

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

"it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly." -David Kay

Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive – it was to enforce already-violated resolutions. -Davd Kay

Here again, I would love the source. Just a couple of comments.

Regardless of Gov. Dean's statement. I do believe there was question as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. If we dismiss as outright silly, the proposition that Hussein had unmanned drone aircraft that were capable of flying from Iraq, over Europe or Africa, across the Atlantic Ocean to deliever chemical weapons to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then the ability of his missles reaching the Continental US is also ridiculous.

Could Iraq have posed a danger to Isreal (our ally), maybe. But I think that Isreal's armed forces far outwiegh anything Hussein could have assembled, especially in light of 11 years of sanctions, and a constant patrol of Northern and Southern no-fly zones (not that he had any aircraft that could fly by 2002).

As for David Kay's statements .... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript .... This is from his statement to Senate Armed Services committee on January 28, 2004. After he had stepped down from heading the Iraqi Survey Group.

"I do believe we have to understand why reality turned out to be different than expectations and estimates."


Here's another ...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094415/

 

[OULobo]

Al-Qaida offically endorses the Senator from France, John Kerry.....hehehe

As opposed to a hawk from TX who hid there during his possible time at war.

Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.

The military does what they are told, not what they want to.

Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.

Right, that would've been great, another war in a country where half the people don't want us there and the other half won't help.



The issue that is killing Bush right now is that he gambled it all on WMD and he lost. He knows he can't justify the war on grounds of a dictator in power or human rights violations, because the same thing is going on in Korea and other locals and he hasn't done squat except try to ignore the problem. If Bush is such a brave president who has no problem going to war, why doesn't he start marching for that most coveted parallel, because it's not a sure thing and he knows he'll lose too many US citizen to get re-elected; Oh yeah and Kim didn't try to have Daddy offed.

 

[sma_book]

I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.

What I find interesting is that you are linking the invasion of Iraq with the attacks in Afghanistan. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with each other.

Afghanistan, as a nation has suffered horribly through wars for the last 25 years. Because of the destruction caused by these wars, a power vacuum was created that allowed 'The Taliban' to take control of the country. 'The Taliban' did bring order to the community, but they were mostly thugs with guns; much like the way the mafia brings order to the community.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban, got together and worked out a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some have gone so far as to say that the Taliban was just a front company for Al Qaeda (I suppose that is irrelevant now). Al Qaeda orchestrated the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and 9/11. And quite possibly, this could only have been done with the assistance of the Taliban.

As such, the United States launched a campaign to destroy the functioning government of the Taliban, and eliminate the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. This effort was relatively successful. Up to this point, you will find me a huge supporter of the operations of the Bush Adminstration.

Next, we installed Harmed Karzai has the new leader of Afghanistan. And then, the United States Walked Away.

Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.

Afghanistan - Fundamental Religious State. Sponsoring Terrorism.
Iraq - Secular State (not - religious). Authoritarian rule - no Terrorism.

The only terrorist organization in Iraq prior to last years invasion was 'Jemaah Islamiya'. And they were not part of Hussein's regime. The existed in the Northern Parts of Iraq (Kurdish controlled areas) and oddly, were protected from Hussein's regime by the Nothern No Fly Zone of the United States and Great Britian. Imagine that.

Also, Hind-Sight may be 20/20, but so are horse blinders. There was plenty of evidence before the invasion of Iraq, but many won't review it. And many choose to stay blind to it.

 

[michaeledward]

By the way ... the three posts by 'sma_book' are actually by 'michaeledward'. I was reviewing the web page from my wife's computer ... Ooops!.

 

[MisterMike]

What I find interesting is that you are linking the invasion of Iraq with the attacks in Afghanistan. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with each other.

Next, we installed Harmed Karzai has the new leader of Afghanistan. And then, the United States Walked Away.

I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.

I also do not think we have walked away since we've had troops/special ops on the ground since 9/12. The news today even says we are very close to Osama, due to our continued work in Afghanistan.

I DON'T think the U.S. military needs to stay in these countries to help police, build schools, mosques, or anything not to do with killing the enemy and securing the nation. Once we're sure there's no WMD's left or militants crossing the boarders, it's time to leave.

If you really wanted to be cold about it, we could have left the day we found Sadam.

 

[michaeledward]

I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.

Respectfully, Iraq has been shown to not have been a threat. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were no delivery systems for Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were no links to terrorist organizations.

Recently, the arguement has turned to Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people (in 1988). He killed many of his own citizens. He was a brutal dictator. But these actions do not threaten the interests of the United States.

I also do not think we have walked away since we've had troops/special ops on the ground since 9/12. The news today even says we are very close to Osama, due to our continued work in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm
"The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget."

I DON'T think the U.S. military needs to stay in these countries to help police, build schools, mosques, or anything not to do with killing the enemy and securing the nation. Once we're sure there's no WMD's left or militants crossing the boarders, it's time to leave.

The president apparently felt different than you. From the same article.

"President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country.... But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country."

 

[loki09789]

Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.

The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.

Please don't confuse your inferrences with my implications


The shock talk show " Oh, yeah. It doesn't" type of language could be misconstrude as either juvenile, or an attempt at auditioning/copying the talk radio/political commentor stylings of Rush and Reilly... hard to take anything you say seriously with this kind of tone - even if you are making valid points.

 

[michaeledward]

Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.

The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.

Please don't confuse your inferrences with my implications


The shock talk show " Oh, yeah. It doesn't" type of language could be misconstrude as either juvenile, or an attempt at auditioning/copying the talk radio/political commentor stylings of Rush and Reilly... hard to take anything you say seriously with this kind of tone - even if you are making valid points.

Fair enough.

However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.'

And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are. Of course, all of the confusion over these implications are not difficult to understand, as the Administration has worked very hard to combine Afghanistan and Iraq in the minds of the citizenry.

Kinda nice that this brings us back to the topic of the Administration using images (and ideas, in this case) to make their case for re-election. With the skill of a magician, the administration has mis-directed us into linking these two military campaigns as part of the 'War-On-Terrorism'.

Also, speaking only for myself, I offer no critisicm toward the Afghanistan operation, save two; A) as previously posted, I feel we abandond the people of Afghanistan after deposing the Taliban & Al Qaeda B) like Bill Maher, I think that fighting this war in proxy (through the Northern Allience) was wrong. It certainly was worth putting out troops on the ground.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

"However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.'

And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are"

Again, reading into my posts as opposed to seeking clarification as well as lumping my comments in with others....

As far as the comment about the 'enemy' statement:

Argue here all you want, but unless you are a voted/hired policy maker/enforcer this is still just pounding sand. Vote, seek an office, do what ever but being snide with each other, and nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions just point to a desire to keep an argument going and not addressing the point of my thread... looking for historical comparisons. Lay down the verbal swords and maybe, within your own sphere of control, you won't look as petty as you are making your chosen 'enemy' politician appear within their sphere of control.

 

[michaeledward]

"However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.'

And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are"

Again, reading into my posts as opposed to seeking clarification as well as lumping my comments in with others....

Come on now, let's review you said

I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.

There would be no reason to seek 'clarification' to that statement. It really is pretty clear about what you were saying. In fact, you went on to enumerate 4 reasons why you thought the 'military operation' was justified. When I commented on this, you clarified what you meant. Which I can absolutely understand. Your clarification looked like this:

The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.

To which, I responded 'Fair Enough'. I am acknowledging two things with this; first, your clarification; second, that perhaps I should not have used sarcasm.


Also, as far as 'lumping your comments in with others' .. well, these message boards do allow for multiple people participating in coversations. So it is quite possible to take two seperate peoples statements, and link them; for instance:

I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.

and

I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.

These two thought appear to be very similar, and coming from the same point of view. When discussing an issue (the connectedness of Iraq & Afghanistan) it is not a far reach to treat both of the comments as from the same ideology, if indeed, not the same person.

As far as the comment about the 'enemy' statement:

I never made a comment about an 'enemy'. You aren't 'lumping my comments in with others', are you?

Argue here all you want, but unless you are a voted/hired policy maker/enforcer this is still just pounding sand. Vote, seek an office, do what ever but being snide with each other, and nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions just point to a desire to keep an argument going and not addressing the point of my thread... looking for historical comparisons. Lay down the verbal swords and maybe, within your own sphere of control, you won't look as petty as you are making your chosen 'enemy' politician appear within their sphere of control.

Well, I do vote. And the thoughts on these discussion boards are not just 'pounding sand'. Hopefully, as opinions are shared and argued and pis$ed over, they are also working into our thought patterns. They will be brought into the voting booth.


I also do not think that pointing out inconsistancies is 'nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions'. Some may not be pleased when it is pointed out that the Invasion of Iraq has failed to result in its stated goals. But it is not 'nit picking' to state that Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism; therefore it is disingenuous to arge that it is part of the 'War-on-Terror'.

If I wanted to 'nit-pick', I would point out the word you are looking for is 'grammatical'.

Look, if I screw up, I'll do my best to admit it. In fact, if you look back, when loki called me to task for my sarcasm ... I believe my statement was 'Fair enough', by which, I meant that loki is correct, my language was quite a bit hyperbolic.

And while you feel the point of your comments was to bring up historical comparison, but there was quite a bit in your post that can be viewed as not part of that question. Those other parts of your post, as to why the military was justified in using force in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was what I saw and responded to.

Cheers - Mike

 

[loki09789]

the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )

The military operation in Afg And/Or the military operation in Iraq would be the way I was intending it to be read. That better for clarity? Also, my list of reasons were specific to each operation. If it was about Afg, it started with Afg, if it was about SHussein/Iraq it was specifically referenced to that. I used one list to make it faster to give reasons for two separate operations. The only link was organizational for the sake of speed, not politically linked. Though, operationally I would think that because of closeness, there are some logistical support operations that do support both arenas.

So much for not nit picking.... grammatical is the correct usage. Oh well. I speedballed the typing, did you understand the contextual meaning?

The 'enemy' comment was intended for the author of it, that is why I separated my comment with space and started it with a reference to it... I was not saying you were the author of it. Are you using a questioning format to be snide again, attempting to reverse my statement back on me about lumping? If so, it negates your Fair Enough comment pretty handily.

When children speak with the same tone and word choice as you are using here, they are reprimanded for being disrespectful. When politicians in a debate/discussion format use this type of language they are not well recieved because they 'lack composure' as part of their image.... It would be easier to listen/read your topical discussion if it wasn't so.... well I have already said it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here again, I would love the source. Just a couple of comments.

Regardless of Gov. Dean's statement. I do believe there was question as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. If we dismiss as outright silly, the proposition that Hussein had unmanned drone aircraft that were capable of flying from Iraq, over Europe or Africa, across the Atlantic Ocean to deliever chemical weapons to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then the ability of his missles reaching the Continental US is also ridiculous.

Could Iraq have posed a danger to Isreal (our ally), maybe. But I think that Isreal's armed forces far outwiegh anything Hussein could have assembled, especially in light of 11 years of sanctions, and a constant patrol of Northern and Southern no-fly zones (not that he had any aircraft that could fly by 2002).

As for David Kay's statements .... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript .... This is from his statement to Senate Armed Services committee on January 28, 2004. After he had stepped down from heading the Iraqi Survey Group.

"I do believe we have to understand why reality turned out to be different than expectations and estimates."


Here's another ...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094415/

It's probably Hannity or Limbaugh. Now there is a Source!

 

[michaeledward]

the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )
The military operation in Afg And/Or the military operation in Iraq would be the way I was intending it to be read.

Yes. I understood what you meant the first time you explained your intended meaning.

So much for not nit picking.... grammatical is the correct usage. Oh well. I speedballed the typing, did you understand the contextual meaning?

Yes. I understood the contextual meaning. Please see:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Irony

The 'enemy' comment was intended for the author of it, that is why I separated my comment with space and started it with a reference to it... I was not saying you were the author of it. Are you using a questioning format to be snide again, attempting to reverse my statement back on me about lumping? If so, it negates your Fair Enough comment pretty handily.

As I mentioned in my post, it is clear that discussion boards have many participants and responses, obviously overlap at times. Again, see:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Irony

When children speak with the same tone and word choice as you are using here, they are reprimanded for being disrespectful. When politicians in a debate/discussion format use this type of language they are not well recieved because they 'lack composure' as part of their image.... It would be easier to listen/read your topical discussion if it wasn't so.... well I have already said it.

While it is difficult express emotions through a message board, I do not believe it is impossible. Yes, some of my comments earlier in this thread were snide and perhaps childish. I believe I have apologized for those comments before, if not, I do so now. Some other comments earlier in this thread are ironic. And others still are meant to be funny, or at least, introduce a bit of levity.

We can get to the point where we are all pis$ed at each other. Or, we can recognize that we disagree on subjects and move past those disagreements. For example, MisterMike and I, don't agree on much. Through our discussions on this board, I think I can respect him for the courage of his convictions. I don't 'Not Like Him' because of his beliefs ... even if it seems that way in this thread. (In fact, I really liked the comment he made about leaving Iraq as soon as we captured Hussein).

I hope you have a good evening. - Mike

 

[Ender]

The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist.


Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

[michaeledward]

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist.

Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Thank you for posting your source.

Very quickly, it seems that Mr. Miniter's work appears mostly in newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. NewsCorp, of course, also owns 'The Fair and Balanced Fox News Channel' (not to be confused with Fox Entertainment, which is also owned by NewsCorp).

I will read a bit further about and from Mr. Miniter, but at the moment, it doesn't look like he sees two sides to the coin (like many employed by NewsCorp).

Also, I don't think we need a point by point discussion of your 16 assertions, but I would like to point out one thing related to point 16, the USS Cole.

The Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. Clinton did order Clarke, the chief of counterterrorism in his adminstration to develop a plan to attack the Al Qaeda network. Clarke worked on this plan, and delivered it to National Security Advisor Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000. One month later, January 20, 2001 was the Bush Administrations Inauguration. Beginning a large scale counter-terrorism operation, and then handing to your successor might be seen in a bad light. It is widely acknowledged that Sandy Berger delivered the Clarke plan to Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings during the transition period.

So, while the statement may be true that no 'retalitory strike' was launched, it is disingenuous, a much larger scale retalitory operation was planned, but due to timing, it was not executed by either the Clinton Administration (1 month left) or the Bush administration (8 months prior to 9/11).

Thanks - Mike

 

[loki09789]

"We can get to the point where we are all pis$ed at each other. Or, we can recognize that we disagree on subjects and move past those disagreements. For example, MisterMike and I, don't agree on much. Through our discussions on this board, I think I can respect him for the courage of his convictions. I don't 'Not Like Him' because of his beliefs ... even if it seems that way in this thread. (In fact, I really liked the comment he made about leaving Iraq as soon as we captured Hussein)."

I am not pished at you or anyone here, only disgusted with the tone and language of some of these posts, including your previous ones - and thank you for taking charge of that. I find it interesting that when the subject of politics and religion come up, people have a hard time separating themselves from the topic - which leads to very personal and sometimes hostile reactions. It is natural though because the topic of politics and relig. are really individual values that are being expressed and it is very intimate (in an emotional sense).

I would say that the respect you speak of comes through in the tone and approach that we use with each other. The weakness of the written forum is that attempts at levity are not as clear sometimes. Ultimately, though you, as the messenger, are responsible for the message portion of the communication process because they leave emotional as well as informational impressions on the reciever. If the emotional impression is in any way percieved as threatening, the information will be either ignored or viewed very negatively.