Anyone else get the feeling that 9/11 would probably not have happened if we hadn't elected Bush?

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Oh, you mean like in 1995? when the WTC was attacked the first time? By radical Islamic terrorist operating completely within our own country?

The first WTC bombing occurred on febuary 26th 2003, he was inaugurated jan 20th 2003.

The oklahoma bombing was done bytwo people working independantly and was really beyond the ability of any police organization to prevent.

I agree with Mike again, scary. Forget both Oklahoma and the 1st NY bombing, no one had any idea they were coming.

If you wana bitch about Clinton focus on all the terror attacks that happened after the 93 NYC bombing and what actions he took in order to stop further attacks.

One of you Clinton fans list me action Clinton took to stop terrorism that actually worked, please I am dying to know if any of his actions actually did anything.

 

[Craig234]

John, you say nothing about the way that the republicans in Congress crippled Clinton's power for using the military for those entire five years. That's disengenuous.

On the budget issue, you are trying to milk one projection for all you can to prove a point - let's look at some facts you don't mention.

First, the deficit was *increasing* under his republican predecessor (until the last year):

1989 -152.5
1990 -221.2
1991 -269.4
1992 -290.4
1993 -255.1

Now, let's see how the defict was being reduced under Clinton even during his first two years with the democratic congress, before republicans took it in 1994:

1994 -203.3
1995 -164.0

Gee, sort of blows your 'it was just the republicans' claim out of the water, huh.

Next, let's see if it was republicans' spending constraint that accounted for the following reductions.

In fact, while the spending was somewhat less than the projection, much of the deficit reduction came from revenue exceeding the projection - *under Clinton's tax policies*.

For example, in 1996, the proected outlay was $1612B while the actual spending was $1560, $52B less; however, the projected revenue was $1415B and the actual revenue $1453B, or $38B more.

The trend continued as the revenue surpassed the spending reduction: By 2000, the projected outlay was $2025M, and the actual outlay was $1788, for a savings of $237B, while the projected revnue was $1710 and the actual revenue was $2025, for an additional $315B.

You didn't say a word about the revenue side, despite it growing to be the larger part of the deficit reduction.

In fact, the best test in years between democrats' and republicans' ideology on the economy had a test in 1993 - unlike the usual claims of hypotheticals of what would happen if you follow the other party's policy, we had a real test.

The democrats made a tax increase on the top 2% a priority. Republicans universally said that if it passed, the economy would see disaster. Every notable republican figure I can find a quote from said the tax cut would cause big problems, from plummeting tax revenues to a big drop in economic growth.

Finally, we could see who was right and who was wrong when the tax cut was passed - and the results completely vindicated the democrats, and proved the republicans wrong.

As one report noted,

The results of Clinton's tax increases on the rich included 22 million new jobs, low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation, over one million new millionaires in just eight years, a fast growing economy, and a federal budget turnaround from huge deficits to huge surpluses.

Not one Republican voted for Clinton's tax increase, and many warned that the economy would be wrecked, and unemployment would skyrocket, if it passed. But we can now look back and see that these Republicans were totally wrong.

John, you can deal with the facts, or you can post misleading tidbits, which I assume you do not know are misleading, until you see info like the above.

 

[Craig234]

John, stop the lying. I now call it that because of our previous exchange.

I challenged you when you said:

Bill Clinton KNEW that... telling Monica to lie was a CRIME and he did it anyway.

I told you to post evidence that Clinton told Monica to lie. You did not.

Now, you repeat the same false accusation, so it moves from mistake to lie.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: mfs378
I'm not saying they wouldn't have tried it. I'm saying the administration would have had a much better chance of stopping it if they actually cared about what they were told, instead of adopting this "we know better don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude towards the people who warned them/people who dealt with terrorism and the al queda threat.

Hint: 42 had 8 years, 43 had 8 months. This isn't rocket science.

because of course the planning of 9/11 took the eight years of clintons presidency to come to fruition, in reality the plan for 9/11 didn't begin to form until 1999/2000, and wasn't put into action until very late 2000. EDIT: it's interesting that you are so willing to criticize clinton for the 3-4 months he realistically had to stop 9/11 and to eager to forgive bush for his 8 months of apathy. The simple fact remains that more could have been done and that 8 months was far more than enough time to do something about it.

And its not like clinton never prevented any terrorist attacks, but i guess since noone died you don't really hear about those, unless you are paying close attention and have a good memory.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Oh, you mean like in 1995? when the WTC was attacked the first time? By radical Islamic terrorist operating completely within our own country?

The first WTC bombing occurred on febuary 26th 2003, he was inaugurated jan 20th 2003.

The oklahoma bombing was done bytwo people working independantly and was really beyond the ability of any police organization to prevent.

I agree with Mike again, scary. Forget both Oklahoma and the 1st NY bombing, no one had any idea they were coming.

If you wana bitch about Clinton focus on all the terror attacks that happened after the 93 NYC bombing and what actions he took in order to stop further attacks.

One of you Clinton fans list me action Clinton took to stop terrorism that actually worked, please I am dying to know if any of his actions actually did anything.

Conspirators in the 2/26 plot were arrested, tried, and convicted.

bombing plots of LAX, seatle, tunnels in new york, and others were prevented.

Assests of al qauda were siezed after the embassy attacks.

etc

 

[Lemon law]

To Prof John,

On point one---Clinton at least tried to get Ossama--opportunities were limited---As to GWB&co.---they did zero against Bin Laden pre-911---and you evidently have not read the the new Woodward book---where Tenet and black demanded an emergency meeting with Rice on 7/10/2001 to warn about AL-Quida--its now conformed the meeting took place--and Condi ignored the warning with indifference---and now a lady with an almost photograhic memory can't recall it.

On point 2---it was both Clinton and the Repubs who tamed the defecit--but it was also an improving economy---under the failed to do anything stupid after recovering from Reagan's defecit spending that did most of it.---but when GWB and co. plus the Repubs got in charge after 11/2000---all that budget hard work was toast inside of six months--squandered--and had little to do with 911---so on the recent history doctrine---its now 100% republican world record defecit spending---which you can't explain away---yes Prof John--100% republican foolishness---to take the budget from the black back deep in the red---a 100% Republican brainfart---which now continues for six unbroken years.

On point 3---I did read your links---and agree its deplorable--but congress did at least censor them--and the dems were not running on family values like the Repubs are now. Nor did the leadership know about it for five years and sweep it under the rug---and as I mentioned--the Republican leadership has voted to do nothing to punish Foley either. And when they ran for re-election--it was up to the voters in their district to return them or not.

And I do agree that Clinton really blew it on Monica Lewinsky---but they were still consenting adults---and no one died---but overall-excluding that scandal that excites you puritans to no end---Bill Clinton had the most scandal free administration in recent history in all things involving public policy--no hanky panky like Iran Contra--arms for hostages---or a long history of dirty tricks ala Nixon and Kissinger.

I seriously doubt the Monica thing will be more than a footnote in history books 50 years from now.---but I guess its still eating your craw.

I very much doubt history will be so kind to GWB UNLESS HE TOTALLY WINS IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN---but if he loses---which looks very likely---the consequences are likely to be extremely dire---already he has managed to get 50,000 or so innocent people killed---and that may be a pittance if things really fall apart---and that totally ignores the economic and political damage he has done to this country----taking a country with a balanced budget so deep into the red in just a short year.

Well you can worry about a blowjob that occured almost a decade ago---or better yet read up on Grover Cleveland---maybe you can find his sex scandal in a footnote somewhere---or dig up dirt on Kennedy---Harding---Grant--Blaine----just go for it Prof John----most of us are more worried about what is happening to day--in the present---and all you can do is either give us biased revisionist history while you refuse to discuss current events.---and voters will go to the polls and mostly VOTE CURRENT EVENTS.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And I do agree that Clinton really blew it on Monica Lewinsky---but they were still consenting adults---and no one died---but overall-excluding that scandal that excites you puritans to no end---Bill Clinton had the most scandal free administration in recent history in all things involving public policy--no hanky panky like Iran Contra--arms for hostages---or a long history of dirty tricks ala Nixon and Kissinger.

LOL, do you really believe that? Read and weep.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, stop the lying. I now call it that because of our previous exchange.

I challenged you when you said:

Bill Clinton KNEW that... telling Monica to lie was a CRIME and he did it anyway.

I told you to post evidence that Clinton told Monica to lie. You did not.

Now, you repeat the same false accusation, so it moves from mistake to lie.

Ok let me address this. (I don't know what previous exchange you are talking about)

Finding proof of Clinton telling her to lie is a tough one because he never seemed to use the word "lie" but he certainly suggested it. (Hey Craig if anyone asked if I sent you PMs just deny it, if we both deny it no one will ever know, right? See, didn't tell you to "lie" but what I said had the same effect.

BUT no mater what we know Clinton LIED under oath, which is against the law, so whether he asked her to lie or not is sort of a side issue. And he lied to the American people several times by denying the relationship.

Here is part of a Clinton statement at the outbreak of this mess: "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false."

From the Starr report:

In her handwritten statement to this Office, Ms. Lewinsky wrote that "the President told Ms. L to deny a relationship, if ever asked about it. He also said something to the effect of if the two people who are involved say it didn't happen -- it didn't happen."(89) According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President sometimes asked if she had told anyone about their sexual relationship or about the gifts they had exchanged; she (falsely) assured him that she had not.(90) She told him that "I would always deny it, I would always protect him," and he responded approvingly.(91) The two of them had, in her words, "a mutual understanding" that they would "keep this private, so that meant deny it and . . . take whatever appropriate steps needed to be taken."(92) When she and the President both were subpoenaed to testify in the Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky anticipated that "as we had on every other occasion and every other instance of this relationship, we would deny it."(93)

We do know that Lewinsky signed and submitteed an afifavid through Veron Jones that Clinton would have known to be false.
From the Starr report, the cover up plans by Bill and Monica.
"Sources say Lewinsky is prepared to say the president and Jordan urged her to be "evasive," which legal experts say may not meet the test for encouraging perjury and obstructing justice" CNN link

Ps. I don't think we need to hash out the whole Clinton Monica thing again right? Those of us on the right think Clinton should have left office for lying under oath, which he was held in contempt for, and the left doesn't think he should have left office. Do we at least agree on that?

 

[Lemon law]

Mostly a wasted read----if you feel froggie---file criminal charges---but almost all of this is tired hack jobs from the likes of the swift boat veterans for the truth. Ken Starr spent millions of dollars and years on whitewater---and found nothing he could use against the Clintons---Reagan had to pardon people already convicted.

None of it even approaches the facts that came out on Iran contra---arms for hostages---and huge numbers of people died as a result.

But flash news update to Prof John---earth to Prof John----this is 2006---Bill Clinton is not running for office---this election is about the current congress.--and also somewhat of a referendum on GWB.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Conspirators in the 2/26 plot were arrested, tried, and convicted.

bombing plots of LAX, seatle, tunnels in new york, and others were prevented.

Assests of al qauda were siezed after the embassy attacks.

etc

1. Don't know what 2/26 plot you are talking about, info please.
2. They were stopped mainly because of the actions of a boarder guard who had the guys car searched which tipped them off.
3. Key word would be after the attacks. I guess you could make the argument that these guys were never able to carry out another attack, but lots of others were willing to take their place.

I think my point is that there was never any concrete action to stop the tide of terror attacks.
Now after 9-11 Bush certainly took action which stopped the tide of attacks by al-Qaeda.

If Bush had stopped at Afghanistan then the incredible success we had there would be Bush's key achievement in the war on terror. Sadly we followed that with Iraq which at this point is a total mess and the future is uncertain at best.

However, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan can anyone name one major terror attack against an American since 9-11? Five years and counting, much better than the once ever two years of the 90's.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And I do agree that Clinton really blew it on Monica Lewinsky---but they were still consenting adults---and no one died---but overall-excluding that scandal that excites you puritans to no end---Bill Clinton had the most scandal free administration in recent history in all things involving public policy--no hanky panky like Iran Contra--arms for hostages---or a long history of dirty tricks ala Nixon and Kissinger.

LOL, do you really believe that? Read and weep.

what an amazing link...

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig,
My whole point on the budget is that Clinton showed no plan to reduce spending or eliminate the yearly budget deficits before the Republicans took over.

As I proved here page 173 Clinton was planning on having budget deficits of $190+ plus for every year between 1996 and 2000. This was after his tax increase and the budget plan included those tax increases in it. (of course the amount of revenue we actually got was WAY more than the CBO ever dreamed of.)
Yes, you are right that much of the budget surpluses come from the extra money.
However, we have no clue if Clinton and the Democrats would have just spent more money if the Republicans did not take over.
We DO know that before they took over Clinton had no real plan to cut spending and the deficit, below the $196 billion figure.

Now nobody has shown me a plan by Clinton to balance the budget before the Republican took over congress. I do not think such a plan is out there. I believe that Clinton thought that $190+ billion deficits were ok and nothing to worry about, much like some Republicans seem to think that we can run deficits now.

Ps. unless you can show me proof Clinton wanted to balance the budget pre 1994 or have some point that I missed I don't see a continued discussion about this as accomplishing much

Pss. You are right that most of the surplus was a result of rising revenue, but we also had the capital gains tax cuts of 1997 that also helped the economy and added additional revenue.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Conspirators in the 2/26 plot were arrested, tried, and convicted.

bombing plots of LAX, seatle, tunnels in new york, and others were prevented.

Assests of al qauda were siezed after the embassy attacks.

etc

1. Don't know what 2/26 plot you are talking about, info please.
2. They were stopped mainly because of the actions of a boarder guard who had the guys car searched which tipped them off.
3. Key word would be after the attacks. I guess you could make the argument that these guys were never able to carry out another attack, but lots of others were willing to take their place.

I think my point is that there was never any concrete action to stop the tide of terror attacks.
Now after 9-11 Bush certainly took action which stopped the tide of attacks by al-Qaeda.

If Bush had stopped at Afghanistan then the incredible success we had there would be Bush's key achievement in the war on terror. Sadly we followed that with Iraq which at this point is a total mess and the future is uncertain at best.

However, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan can anyone name one major terror attack against an American since 9-11? Five years and counting, much better than the once ever two years of the 90's.

1 2/26/93
2 there was a very public advisement the terrosist where planning something and they knew roughly what it would be and where to look. And they did, in fact, catch them.
3 considering that less then a dozen people died, I don't know how you could have responded i any other way then to arrest to try the perps and increase your survailance of these groups, both of which were done.

As for terrorist attacks against americans, I think I can search the news and see about 2 or 3 a day, its just that they are against the troops so that ok since its happening there and not here. Afghanistan is a disaster, the taliban control most of the country and drug exports have gone through the roof. Bush failed to secure the vistory he achieved in afghanistan, and then went on to provide an enormous justification for increased terrorism and an excellent destraction from the WoT itself.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig,
My whole point on the budget is that Clinton showed no plan to reduce spending or eliminate the yearly budget deficits before the Republicans took over.

As I proved here page 173 Clinton was planning on having budget deficits of $190+ plus for every year between 1996 and 2000. This was after his tax increase and the budget plan included those tax increases in it. (of course the amount of revenue we actually got was WAY more than the CBO ever dreamed of.)
Yes, you are right that much of the budget surpluses come from the extra money.
However, we have no clue if Clinton and the Democrats would have just spent more money if the Republicans did not take over.
We DO know that before they took over Clinton had no real plan to cut spending and the deficit, below the $196 billion figure.

Now nobody has shown me a plan by Clinton to balance the budget before the Republican took over congress. I do not think such a plan is out there. I believe that Clinton thought that $190+ billion deficits were ok and nothing to worry about, much like some Republicans seem to think that we can run deficits now.

Ps. unless you can show me proof Clinton wanted to balance the budget pre 1994 or have some point that I missed I don't see a continued discussion about this as accomplishing much

Pss. You are right that most of the surplus was a result of rising revenue, but we also had the capital gains tax cuts of 1997 that also helped the economy and added additional revenue.

Its fairly common knowledge that he wanted to reform welfare among other things, and this was passed in 95.

*a position that dated bac to the 80's.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And I do agree that Clinton really blew it on Monica Lewinsky---but they were still consenting adults---and no one died---but overall-excluding that scandal that excites you puritans to no end---Bill Clinton had the most scandal free administration in recent history in all things involving public policy--no hanky panky like Iran Contra--arms for hostages---or a long history of dirty tricks ala Nixon and Kissinger.

LOL, do you really believe that? Read and weep.

what an amazing link...

yeah, I never realized what a scandalous presidency Clinton had. he was pretty good at covering it up. He should be consulting Denny right now about the Foley thing :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

John, that's helpful evidence that Clinton told Lewinsky to lie about their relationship - before it was a legal issue. That's wrong, but it's not what you accused him of. After they were subpoenaed, your own source says Monica 'assumed' they would both lie about the relationship - not that he told her to.

In your example of PMs, you are asking me to lie when you ask me to deny it. If Clinton told Monica to deny they had any relationship in the legal proceedings, then I'd say you have proven your claim that he told her to lie in the legal proceedings.

As for the rehashing of the issue - choose that position before posting the attack on Clinton. Once you post it, a response is appropriate if the charge appears false or needs evidence.

Since you say you don't recall the previous exchange, I withdraw the description of 'lie'.

Do you have any evidence he told her to lie in the legal proceedings?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And I do agree that Clinton really blew it on Monica Lewinsky---but they were still consenting adults---and no one died---but overall-excluding that scandal that excites you puritans to no end---Bill Clinton had the most scandal free administration in recent history in all things involving public policy--no hanky panky like Iran Contra--arms for hostages---or a long history of dirty tricks ala Nixon and Kissinger.

LOL, do you really believe that? Read and weep.

what an amazing link...

yeah, I never realized what a scandalous presidency Clinton had. he was pretty good at covering it up. He should be consulting Denny right now about the Foley thing :laugh:

I forgot that sarcasm isn't easily registered on the interent without :roll:

Among other things, the "vandal gate" was a bush admin ploy, it was later revealed that it was infact Bush transitioners that removed the "w" keys to slander the clinton admin. That site is a complete joke.

 

[Lemon law]

To Prof John,

Where do you get the notion Afganistan is a sucess---opium production up 59%---the Tailban coming back---once again you are out of touch with current events and have not read the national intelligence estimate.

Why AL-Quida has not attacked has nothing to do with the zero we have done to harden our infrastructure---I suspect AL-Quida is not attacking because GWB is doing their work.
Weakening the USA internationally, militarily, and financially--plus the recruiting boom.---why change a good thing?---and get a more rational policy in place.

But thats speculation---but probably as valid as your speculation---time alone will tell.

 

[ProfJohn]

Little recent history on tax cuts, spending and the economy, I think we can agree with what I say here?

80?s Reagan and Dems cut taxes and increase spending and the economy goes UP UP UP
90?s Bush and Dems increase taxes and increase spending and the economy goes down
90?s Clinton and Reps increase taxes, but cut spending and the economy goes UP UP UP
00?s Bush cuts taxes and increases spending and the economy goes UP

So when you cut taxes the economy improves, has happened in every case where we have cut taxed dating back to JFK.
However, if you increase taxes and spending the economy will slow down, but increasing taxes and cutting spending keeps the economy going good.

The constant here seems to be the amount of money in the private sector. Tax cuts mean more money for the people to spend. If you take more money from them in terms of tax cuts then you need to offset that by cutting back on spending.

It?s a complicated as heck issue, so many things at play in the economy.
One thing we have never seen is tax cuts and spending cuts, I?d like to see that happen in order to see the economic effect.

BTW: if we keep tax rates where they are and control spending we can balance the budget in a few years, that is what I want to see happen. The government gets enough of our money, they don?t need to return to the 20% of GDP we saw at the end of the 90?s.

Next topic please

 

[Craig234]

John, on the economics -

First, you are trying to make claims that may or may not be right when you talk of Clinton's 'plans' versus what the budget predictions were. Can you say for sure that he didn't expect his budget to balance the budget more than the prediction was allowed to say - just as Bush had outrageously inaccurate predictions in some budgets?

In fact, in the document you linked, in Clinton's own summary, he discussed deficit reduction as part of his budgeting.

You also make the claim with zero evidence that the capital gains tax cuts increased revenue - maybe; they also reduced some revenue, however much the also added, and it's *possible* that their purpose was for economic engineering, not revenue increases. You need more evidence to back up your claim.

Unfortunately, you don't even acknowledge the fact that he was reducing the deficit by a lot during the *democratic* congress years, in contradiction to your claims previously.

 

[Craig234]

John, your economic comments are just preposterous by not even mentioning the deficits under republicans in your 'history' - it's like discussing new cars you get without saying whether they were paid for or bought on credit. It matters. Borrow a trillion dollars and you can make some economic numbers look good in the short term, so what?

You also fail to even mention the historic, radical redisribution of wealth that has happened under mostly republicans in the last 25 years. It's a total distortion as a result.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

Where do you get the notion Afganistan is a sucess---opium production up 59%---the Tailban coming back---once again you are out of touch with current events and have not read the national intelligence estimate.

Why AL-Quida has not attacked has nothing to do with the zero we have done to harden our infrastructure---I suspect AL-Quida is not attacking because GWB is doing their work.
Weakening the USA internationally, militarily, and financially--plus the recruiting boom.---why change a good thing?---and get a more rational policy in place.

But thats speculation---but probably as valid as your speculation---time alone will tell.

The Taliban is gone and al-Qaeda's safe haven is gone. Before 9-11 Osama walked around Afghanistan as if he owned it, now he hides in a cave.
The Taliban coming back seems to be more story than reality, they seem to have no real chance of taking over the country again, at this point, and every time they stand up to us they get their asses kicked. The question is how long will the keep fighting and who is willing to stick with it longer.

As far as why they haven't attacked us... everything in your post it utter BS, they would attack us if they could. They have been saying so for the past 3 years. How many warnings have they issued that something big is going to happen?

BTW: I read the NIE, it is tough, but I don't think it said we are hopeless or are worse off than pre 9-11.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Little recent history on tax cuts, spending and the economy, I think we can agree with what I say here?

80?s Reagan and Dems cut taxes and increase spending and the economy goes UP UP UP
90?s Bush and Dems increase taxes and increase spending and the economy goes down
90?s Clinton and Reps increase taxes, but cut spending and the economy goes UP UP UP
00?s Bush cuts taxes and increases spending and the economy goes UP

80's: reagan and co cut taxes as fed fixes inflation, economy tanks then taxes are raised, inflation is gone and economy goes up
90's Economy goes to hell and bush raises taxes to cover spending with much thanks to reagans nifty debt.
90's Clinton raises taxes and spending drops mildly. Economy booms due to changes in total factor productivity (computers and internet ftw).
00's bush cuts taxes and massive wealth re-distribution occurs.

The same amount of money goes to the government regardless of how much or how little you tax, you have to pay for what you spend. The only difference is the way you get the money. There is nothing I know of that shows that a tax cut leads to increased or decreased growth, however I do know that all the theories I know of state that if you cut taxes, you get an immediate (<3 months) decrease in gdp since people have to work less to attain the same amount of money and choose instead to spend some extra time pursuing leasure.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

Where do you get the notion Afganistan is a sucess---opium production up 59%---the Tailban coming back---once again you are out of touch with current events and have not read the national intelligence estimate.

Why AL-Quida has not attacked has nothing to do with the zero we have done to harden our infrastructure---I suspect AL-Quida is not attacking because GWB is doing their work.
Weakening the USA internationally, militarily, and financially--plus the recruiting boom.---why change a good thing?---and get a more rational policy in place.

But thats speculation---but probably as valid as your speculation---time alone will tell.

The Taliban is gone and al-Qaeda's safe haven is gone. Before 9-11 Osama walked around Afghanistan as if he owned it, now he hides in a cave.
The Taliban coming back seems to be more story than reality, they seem to have no real chance of taking over the country again, at this point, and every time they stand up to us they get their asses kicked. The question is how long will the keep fighting and who is willing to stick with it longer.

As far as why they haven't attacked us... everything in your post it utter BS, they would attack us if they could. They have been saying so for the past 3 years. How many warnings have they issued that something big is going to happen?

BTW: I read the NIE, it is tough, but I don't think it said we are hopeless or are worse off than pre 9-11.

You must have missed the part where karzai is little more than the mayor of kabul and Frist wants to include the taliban in on the governemnt.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

Where do you get the notion Afganistan is a sucess---opium production up 59%---the Tailban coming back---once again you are out of touch with current events and have not read the national intelligence estimate.

Why AL-Quida has not attacked has nothing to do with the zero we have done to harden our infrastructure---I suspect AL-Quida is not attacking because GWB is doing their work.
Weakening the USA internationally, militarily, and financially--plus the recruiting boom.---why change a good thing?---and get a more rational policy in place.

But thats speculation---but probably as valid as your speculation---time alone will tell.

The Taliban is gone and al-Qaeda's safe haven is gone. Before 9-11 Osama walked around Afghanistan as if he owned it, now he hides in a cave.
The Taliban coming back seems to be more story than reality, they seem to have no real chance of taking over the country again, at this point, and every time they stand up to us they get their asses kicked. The question is how long will the keep fighting and who is willing to stick with it longer.

As far as why they haven't attacked us... everything in your post it utter BS, they would attack us if they could. They have been saying so for the past 3 years. How many warnings have they issued that something big is going to happen?

BTW: I read the NIE, it is tough, but I don't think it said we are hopeless or are worse off than pre 9-11.

You must have missed the part where karzai is little more than the mayor of kabul and Frist wants to include the taliban in on the governemnt.

I also think he missed Senator Frist(R) suggesting that the Taliban be brought into the government!