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

[ProfJohn]

Craig,
post 2, I was talking mainly about the economy and taxes and spending, no deficits and such. In that narrow view where is what I said wrong?
As far as economic and taxes and all that, I am no economics Professor, but everything I have read supports the tax cuts = more revenue and better economy argument.

Post 1, On capital gains tax cuts Over on this thread I posted proof that the capital tax cuts resulted in more money than expected. After the cuts we ended up with $26 billion more than was expected if we had done nothing.

Yes, Clinton and the Dem reduced the Deficit below the insane level it was under George 41, but after getting it to the $190 billion point Clinton seems to think that he could stop there, as evidenced in his FY96 budget. I wish I could find the FY95 budget in the same form as the FY96 to present budgets, but it is not on the web in the same form. I would love to compare FY95 to 96 etc and see what trends we notice. One this is certain, look at the FY 96 and then the FY 97 and you see a HUGE cut in spending from year to year, in the order of $200 billion over 5 years.

As I said before, there is still no plan by Clinton to BALANCE the budget during his term. I do not think he ever had such a plan. Without a Republican congress I do not think we would have seen a balanced budget. The roaring economy would have caused either greatly reduced deficits, or more spending by congress, hard to tell which for certain. One this we know is that the $150 billion in less spending and some $800 billion more in revenue equaled the $500 billion in surpluses during that time.

Is there any point in going on? I stated my argument, you stated yours. I believe that Clinton alone would not have balanced the budget. I am not sure you think that Clinton and Dems would have done the same, but otherwise we aren?t going to change any minds here right?

BTW: I stated in a previous post that there is no proof Clinton told Monica to lie.
However, there was as plan in place to deny the relationship if ever asked about it, i.e. if asked we will just both lie about it.
Secondly, Monica turned in an affidavit that Clinton knew was not true, therefore he knew she was lying and took no action. Now if a lawyer or police office did that they would be in trouble, that is one of the reasons Clinton got hit with contempt charges. (From my little 5 min search of the Starr report it seems that they did a good job of teaching Monica how to lie without lying. I.E. "Monica, were you ever alone with the President?" "Well I am not sure, I might have brought him a letter or two." See, it's a lie of omission. That is why we see lots of ?I don?t recall? when politicians testify on anything, it is not the truth, but it is not a lie either.
And no matter what Clinton himself did lie so the rest is icing on the cake.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: PELarson
I also think he missed Senator Frist(R) suggesting that the Taliban be brought into the government!

Well we can rank that up there as political misstatement of the year.
I understand what Frist is saying, but he really screwed up in the way he said it.

Remember when James Watt said "I have a black and a woman and Jew etc" when what he should have said was "I have a very diverse board" the second statement is good, the first gets you kicked out.

 

[eleison]

If Bush was president for 8 years during clinton's time, 9/11 would never of happened. Being from Texas, and a cowboy, he would have done a preemptive strike on Osama; with the side benefit of using it as a precusor to invade Iraq because Sadam tried to assasinate his dad.. afetr all, Iraq is right next door.. minus well. This of course would have happen within months of him being elected... obviously, preventing 9/11..

Bush is not a thinker.. he just likes to protect the USofA the only way he knows how.. by invading and killling terrorists; how many times have people lamented about his warmongering ways... shoot first and ask questions later mentality... Send a few missles to take out Osama.. Heck no.. If he was president at the time and not Clinton, he would be sending in the marines... then after the marines done, probably drop a few 1000lbs bombs just to make sure...

Clinton was a weakingly who was only interested in getting a blowjob by an intern and trying to not get impeached..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eleison
If Bush was president for 8 years during clinton's time, 9/11 would never of happened. Being from Texas, and a cowboy, he would have done a preemptive strike on Osama; with the side benefit of using it as a precusor to invade Iraq because Sadam tried to assasinate his dad.. afetr all, Iraq is right next door.. minus well. This of course would have happen within months of him being elected... obviously, preventing 9/11..

Bush is not a thinker.. he just likes to protect the USofA the only way he knows how.. by invading and killling terrorists; how many times have people lamented about his warmongering ways... shoot first and ask questions later mentality... Send a few missles to take out Osama.. Heck no.. If he was president at the time and not Clinton, he would be sending in the marines... then after the marines done, probably drop a few 1000lbs bombs just to make sure...

Clinton was a weakingly who was only interested in getting a blowjob by an intern and trying to not get impeached..

Hell, Bush can't seem to get Osama AFTER 9/11, what makes you think he would have done any better BEFORE 3000 Americans were killed?

Also, I REALLY hope your post is some sort of satire about conservatives...

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Hell, Bush can't seem to get Osama AFTER 9/11, what makes you think he would have done any better BEFORE 3000 Americans were killed?

Also, I REALLY hope your post is some sort of satire about conservatives...

Before 9/11, Osama was out in the open. He wasn't scared of the USofA. Heck, with clinton getting "kicked out of Somalia".. Osama thought that the US was a paper tiger. He was in plain sight... boasting about how weak the US was.. which was somewhat true under Clinton.

Obviously, after the USofA kicked the tar out of the taliban.. .Osama's now trying his hardest, hiding in some cave. Its a lot tougher to kill him... Not like when clinton was Pres... Osamas not in plain sight anymore... he's very scared now because Bush, the warmonger is president...

Satire??? Heck no... Bush aint the smartest pres.. he the "shoot first, ask questions later" type of person... After all bush is a warmonger.. warmongers aren't weak.. they don't get blowjobs from interns and lie to the public about it... they invade countrtries and kill their enemies...

A warmonger.. yep, that's what Bush is.. If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

 

[Craig234]

John:

And no matter what Clinton himself did lie so the rest is icing on the cake.

No, John, you don't get free bonus accusations. I can't say Foley dealt drugs to the pages too, and then defend the unsupported accusation by saying 'well, he did lie about the sex chats, so the rest is icing on the cake'. Each accusation needs to be justified or withdrawn.

BTW: I stated in a previous post that there is no proof Clinton told Monica to lie.
However, there was as plan in place to deny the relationship if ever asked about it, i.e. if asked we will just both lie about it.

Again, that was wrong, but if it was in general and not about the legal proceedings, then it was not what you accused him of. Do you have any evidence he told her to lie by denying a relationship *in the legal proceedings* as you accused him of?

Secondly, Monica turned in an affidavit that Clinton knew was not true, therefore he knew she was lying and took no action.

I don't recall this - is there any evidence he told her to lie in it? Did he approve of the affidavit before it was submitted? That would seem highly irregular.

That is why we see lots of ?I don?t recall? when politicians testify on anything, it is not the truth, but it is not a lie either.

I disagree. I think if they say they can't remember something they can remember, it's a lie. Perhaps difficult to prove, but no less a lie.

post 2, I was talking mainly about the economy and taxes and spending, no deficits and such. In that narrow view where is what I said wrong?

In describing Lincoln's evening at Ford Theatre, I was discussing how he enjoyed the play. In that narrow view, where is what I said wrong?

You were painting a rosy picture of the economy overall with examples that did not mention how they were paid for in debt - akin to citing your neighbor 's new car as evidence of his income without mentioning he took on a huge loan he can't afford. You did not mention that the macro numbers don't tell the important story of huge wealth centralization.

In other words, on average, for nearly every penny earned in the 'improving economy' in the last 25 years, none has gone to the bottom 90% or 95%, and nearl yall has gone to the very top - actually greatly reducing the share of wealth in society of most Americans. The top 5% went from half the total wealth to over 3 times as much of it.

As far as economic and taxes and all that, I am no economics Professor, but everything I have read supports the tax cuts = more revenue and better economy argument.[/q[

We've had this discussion: it only does to a point and then it harms revenue; and it matters what's done with any increased revenue. Handing it to the most wealthy to acquire a higher percentage ownership of the nation's wealth and build factories in China is not helpful.

Post 1, On capital gains tax cuts Over on this thread I posted proof that the capital tax cuts resulted in more money than expected. After the cuts we ended up with $26 billion more than was expected if we had done nothing.

Correlation is not causation. Who's to say the revenue wouldn't have been even higher without the cuts, because the increases were caused by other economic policies? Who's to say which of the many complicated things that happened in the economic policy led to what? It takes more analysis than 'they both happened'.

Clinton got impeached in 98 IIRC; does that mean that impeachment causes increased revenue because revenue increased beyond predictions in 1998?

You are also STILL continuing to make claims without justification by reading too much into predictions. Again, there's a lot more to look at on how those predictions are made how and why they're wrong historically, etc.

Yes, Clinton and the Dem reduced the Deficit below the insane level it was under George 41, but after getting it to the $190 billion point Clinton seems to think that he could stop there, as evidenced in his FY96 budget.

This both blows your claim that it was only the republicans that led to big deficit reductions out of the water - they were as big under the all-democrat government IIRC - and shows your continued overreliance on budget predictions to infer policy info that is not clearly justified.

For example, Clinton did some risky re-financing of debt the republicans criticized which happened to work out great - that would be unlikely to have been in the predictions and yet it's a policy he deserves credit for, not the republicans who happened to be in office at the time making you assume it was only them cutting spending.

Is there any point in going on? I stated my argument, you stated yours. I believe that Clinton alone would not have balanced the budget. I am not sure you think that Clinton and Dems would have done the same, but otherwise we aren?t going to change any minds here right?

There's a point in correcting errors - and one more, I am willing to say it's likely the republicans had a dampening effect on spending - note, for example, in another thread that while right-wing posters here blast Clinton for not doing enough on improving fuel efficiency, republicans gave him only 12% of his requested energy spending.

 

[Craig234]

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

Was Tora Bora before 9/11? In any case, what are you trying to say? Bush is NOT a cold blooded killer?? not a warmonger??? Come on... everyone knows he is... I don't have to point out all the French papers that say he is.. .nor the Americans papers. Where have you been... Heck, he's from Texas, don't you know.. They have conceal carry laws.. You can actually have a loaded gun on you and the people from Texas.. they just don't care... Heck from what I gather, everyone in texas has a gun. This is the environment that Bush came from. The shot first, ask questions later type of environment. Now what state is Clinton from???

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

Was Tora Bora before 9/11? In any case, what are you trying to say? Bush is NOT a cold blooded killer?? not a warmonger??? Come on... everyone knows he is... I don't have to point out all the French papers that say he is.. .nor the Americans papers. Where have you been... Heck, he's from Texas, don't you know.. They have conceal carry laws.. You can actually have a loaded gun on you and the people from Texas.. they just don't care... Heck from what I gather, everyone in texas has a gun. This is the environment that Bush came from. The shot first, ask questions later type of environment. Now what state is Clinton from???

Bush cut and run in Afghanistan. What did you expect?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Silly, silly, hypothetical question. Bush was elected and it happened. If Gore had been elected it would have happened. If Nader had been elected it would have happened. If Clinton had been elected to a third term 9/11 would have still happened.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

Was Tora Bora before 9/11? In any case, what are you trying to say? Bush is NOT a cold blooded killer?? not a warmonger??? Come on... everyone knows he is... I don't have to point out all the French papers that say he is.. .nor the Americans papers. Where have you been... Heck, he's from Texas, don't you know.. They have conceal carry laws.. You can actually have a loaded gun on you and the people from Texas.. they just don't care... Heck from what I gather, everyone in texas has a gun. This is the environment that Bush came from. The shot first, ask questions later type of environment. Now what state is Clinton from???

Bush cut and run in Afghanistan. What did you expect?

aren't there still Marines there??? Aren't there still some Marines fighting AND Dying there??? Doesn't seem like cut and run to me when there are still brave AMerican marines fighting and kicking taliban ass in afghanistan. As a matter of fact, when clinton was president, were there any Marines there at all? Uh.. no... he was to busy getting a blow job from some fat intern..

 

[Craig234]

Silly, silly, hypothetical question. Bush was elected and it happened. If Gore had been elected it would have happened. If Nader had been elected it would have happened. If Clinton had been elected to a third term 9/11 would have still happened.

You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

Was Tora Bora before 9/11?

You say if Bush had Osama in the crosshairs before 9/11 he'd have got him. Why would that change after 9/11 that he no longer would get him when he had him in the crosshairs?

 

[ForumMaster]

yeah probablly. clinton lay down a pretty good infrastructure to capture osama bin laden and had Gore won, he may have used to it. may not have. all i know is that i hate bush.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

Was Tora Bora before 9/11? In any case, what are you trying to say? Bush is NOT a cold blooded killer?? not a warmonger??? Come on... everyone knows he is... I don't have to point out all the French papers that say he is.. .nor the Americans papers. Where have you been... Heck, he's from Texas, don't you know.. They have conceal carry laws.. You can actually have a loaded gun on you and the people from Texas.. they just don't care... Heck from what I gather, everyone in texas has a gun. This is the environment that Bush came from. The shot first, ask questions later type of environment. Now what state is Clinton from???

Bush cut and run in Afghanistan. What did you expect?

aren't there still Marines there??? Aren't there still some Marines fighting AND Dying there??? Doesn't seem like cut and run to me when there are still brave AMerican marines fighting and kicking taliban ass in afghanistan. As a matter of fact, when clinton was president, were there any Marines there at all? Uh.. no... he was to busy getting a blow job from some fat intern..

They'd be neither fighting or dying had Bush NOT cut and run.

 

[Wheezer]

I wanna know wtf is wrong with people in general. I mean my god, instead of going thrcough the whole bwc (bitching, whining and complaining) process lets pull our collective heads out of our asses and do something.

Fact: 9-11 happened, I am sure that if we look carefully there is enough blame to spread around from Carter all the way to the GWB administration. Who cares...it happend and no amount of finger pointing is going to bring those 3000 people back.

Fact: Our borders are open floodgates to any Tom, Dick and Martinez that wants to waltz on in here and do whatever they want, that is a MAJOR ongoing problem.

Fact: Politics, pork spending and keeping a job is of more importance than actually doing something that protects the people for fear of pissing off a percentenge of the voters...that is an issue for BOTH parties.

Fact: Terrorism is here to stay. If it is not Al-Qaeda, it is going to be someone else. If you cannot change the mind of your enemy then protect yourself from his attack. We can't change the minds of those that want to do us harm for whatever reason, religious, political or money so lets try and keep ourselves safe.

Fact: we need to work together for a common goal. To keep innocent people from dying.

Pissing around trying to figure out how best to do it so that political correctness and hurting someones feelings are taken into consideration is a waste of time, get the fvcking job done and worry about hurt feelings later.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: randym431

I don?t think even calling these terrorist, terrorist, does them justice. That word puts them in a class of someone who hijacks a plane to have demands met, or some one who straps on a bomb and sets it off in a crowd. These guys are far more dangerous.

That is a good point. Because, witting or unwitting, they are agents of antagonistic goverments. Iran has a very powerful part in all the conflicts raging in the M.E. and they are providing financing, weapons, and training, tp participants, just as we are.

 

[Craig234]

Question, Dapunisher, what is stopping us from simply dominating and establishing hegemony in the middle east - and is it evil for people to resist foreign dominance (by us)?

Second question, were we on the side of right or evil when we overthrew Iran's democracy and installed a tyrant with a brutal police force of our making, in order to have a puppet who would keep the oil flowing to us for low prices?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234

If Osama was ever in the crosshairs before 9/11, and if Bush was pres then, Osama would have been elmimated by now..

Like at Tora Bora?

Was Tora Bora before 9/11? In any case, what are you trying to say? Bush is NOT a cold blooded killer?? not a warmonger??? Come on... everyone knows he is... I don't have to point out all the French papers that say he is.. .nor the Americans papers. Where have you been... Heck, he's from Texas, don't you know.. They have conceal carry laws.. You can actually have a loaded gun on you and the people from Texas.. they just don't care... Heck from what I gather, everyone in texas has a gun. This is the environment that Bush came from. The shot first, ask questions later type of environment. Now what state is Clinton from???

Im from AZ where we have open carry laws...are we war mongers too? :roll:

edit: Arkansas is a conceal carry state as well

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Silly, silly, hypothetical question. Bush was elected and it happened. If Gore had been elected it would have happened. If Nader had been elected it would have happened. If Clinton had been elected to a third term 9/11 would have still happened.

You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

Was Tora Bora before 9/11?

You say if Bush had Osama in the crosshairs before 9/11 he'd have got him. Why would that change after 9/11 that he no longer would get him when he had him in the crosshairs?

You are misinformed, sir. All credible evidence shows the 9/11 attacks were 5 years in the making. And as a side note you say "They'd have done more to try"...what makes you so sure of this? Clinton surely didnt. As he said in his interview we barely knew who Al Queda even WAS before 9/11.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Question, Dapunisher, what is stopping us from simply dominating and establishing hegemony in the middle east - and is it evil for people to resist foreign dominance (by us)?Loaded question IMO. Why do I think that? Because any response is predicated upon my POV accepting the descritpion of events as the basic reality of the situation.

Second question, were we on the side of right or evil when we overthrew Iran's democracy and installed a tyrant with a brutal police force of our making, in order to have a puppet who would keep the oil flowing to us for low prices?Another loaded question IMO. It requires that I accept the description of events as the reality, then gives me a good or evil/A or B lists of options to choose from. I think the complexity of the world events in question can't be so easily summarized, and that there is *perhaps always will be* data you and I aren't given access to, that would have great influence on our thinking.

I appologize if it seems I'm being evasive and/or dodging the questions, but it would require a very lenghty post to explain my perspective, or even begin to provide insight into how tractable my thinking on politics and world events is. I try to be dynamic, and willing to adjust my perspective of any given issue as new data is presented for consideration. So many here are so completely entrenched in their own brand of dogma and perspective, that even when evidence, data, facts, whatever, is presented, they are unable to even give it due consideration, and fall back on what is basically just a conditioned response to anything that does not jive with their "worldview".

BTW, Just trying to get a feel for where I'm at on the political spectrum since I don't post here much? Because none of the questions have anything to do with the topic. I'm all over the place, and sometimes I am not even on the same "side" of an issue I started out on.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

You seem to forget that such statements are nothing but opinion. Or do you have some facts to back up such statements? Clinton had 8 years to "try" and, frankly, we're all better off that Gore never got the chance to sit in the Oval Office.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

You seem to forget that such statements are nothing but opinion. Or do you have some facts to back up such statements? Clinton had 8 years to "try" and, frankly, we're all better off that Gore never got the chance to sit in the Oval Office.

As you said, just another opinion. Personally, I believe we'd have been in better conditions with Gore in office, but that's MY opinion. Chimpy McFlightsuit has screwed up more than he's gotten right in the past 5+ years, and isn't likely to do any better in his remaining time.

This is one of those topics where no one really can give a definitive answer. Yes, it appears that the Bush administration dropped the ball when they took office, considering the vast amount of information on Osama Bin Forgotten and some of the plans that the intelligence community believed were in place, they were given. HOWEVER, might the 9-11 attacks still have happened under Gore? Probably, especially since the Repukes maintained control of both houses, and would have hamstrung any efforts he could have made in finding OBF or preventing the attacks...much as they did during Clinton's terms. Every time Clinton TRIED to do something, it was decried as "Wag the Dog" by the Repukes, and he was accused of trying to divert attention from the "Monica scandal"...Talk about a waste of ~$70 million and taking almost everyone away from actually running the country...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

You seem to forget that such statements are nothing but opinion. Or do you have some facts to back up such statements? Clinton had 8 years to "try" and, frankly, we're all better off that Gore never got the chance to sit in the Oval Office.

No, it's not nothing but opinion, and I do have facts to back up the statement that a Gore administration would have done more than Bush did.

Fact: The Bush adminstration ignored warnings from the Clinton administration that Al Queda was the #1 threat that would take up their time. They de-emphasized the anti-terrorism efforts by demoting Richard Clarke, refusing his requests for some meetings, held virtually no anti-terrorism meetings we know of, had terrorism listed nowhere on the Justice Department's top 10 priorities, were not doing much of anything publically or privately at high levels, the investigations show, on Al Queda.

Following the Aug PDB, the 9/11 commission said there was no meeting between the president and his top advisors on the threat.

Fact: The Clinton administration did not have the same information on the Al Queda threat for his 8 years that the Bush administration had in 2001, after the December 2000 finding that they were behind the USS Cole attack. There was a gradual buildup of the information on the threat bin Laden posed - and an obstructionist republican congress.

Fact: Al Gore held view much closer to Clinton's. Clinton said that had Al Gore won, he would have been able to work with him to launch the war plan on Al Queda he'd had developed in 2000, but since Bush won, he did not hand Bush a war, remembering how Bush 41 had handed Clinton a Somalia invasion just before leaving office, and instead handed him the war plan.

Al Gore did not have the very different priorities Bush did, to do things like reducing the role of Clarke and ignoring the Al Queda issue.

When you compare the facts of the virtually nothing Bush did, and the way that Clinton/Gore were approaching the issue by late 2000 - and not throwing out phony arguments about how little they did in 1993 - when you look at the very different levels of attention Clinton/Gore gave to these issues, such as daily meetings during crises - it's clear that Gore would have done more than Bush did.

I have a lot of sympathy president on how hard these things are to prevent, and I'm surprised that almost any are prevented. I'm not suggesting that Gore would even likely have been able to do so - though the record does show we'd gotten close a couple times to some of the people involved. But I am saying it's clear, unless you are unable to see it because of your partisanship, Gore would have done more than Bush did.

Now for opinion: it's to the great loss of the nation that Bush rather than Gore took office in 2000.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

You seem to forget that such statements are nothing but opinion. Or do you have some facts to back up such statements? Clinton had 8 years to "try" and, frankly, we're all better off that Gore never got the chance to sit in the Oval Office.

As you said, just another opinion. Personally, I believe we'd have been in better conditions with Gore in office, but that's MY opinion. Chimpy McFlightsuit has screwed up more than he's gotten right in the past 5+ years, and isn't likely to do any better in his remaining time.

This is one of those topics where no one really can give a definitive answer. Yes, it appears that the Bush administration dropped the ball when they took office, considering the vast amount of information on Osama Bin Forgotten and some of the plans that the intelligence community believed were in place, they were given. HOWEVER, might the 9-11 attacks still have happened under Gore? Probably, especially since the Repukes maintained control of both houses, and would have hamstrung any efforts he could have made in finding OBF or preventing the attacks...much as they did during Clinton's terms. Every time Clinton TRIED to do something, it was decried as "Wag the Dog" by the Repukes, and he was accused of trying to divert attention from the "Monica scandal"...Talk about a waste of ~$70 million and taking almost everyone away from actually running the country...

Well, to be fair, Bin Laden wasnt even put on the 10 most wanted list until June of 99, so Dems and Repubs alike were most focused on their presidential candidates than anything else. And, we had NO intelligence about 9/11 at that time. And, even to this day, he is only wanted as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal indictment against convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, but has not been formally indicted for his role in the September 11, 2001 attacks. He is wanted for other crimes against the USA, but 9/11 isnt one of them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
You say more than you can prove. It's possible that Gore or Clinton would have prevented it and it's possible they wouldn't have. They'd have done more to try.

You seem to forget that such statements are nothing but opinion. Or do you have some facts to back up such statements? Clinton had 8 years to "try" and, frankly, we're all better off that Gore never got the chance to sit in the Oval Office.

No, it's not nothing but opinion, and I do have facts to back up the statement that a Gore administration would have done more than Bush did.

Fact: The Bush adminstration ignored warnings from the Clinton administration that Al Queda was the #1 threat that would take up their time. They de-emphasized the anti-terrorism efforts by demoting Richard Clarke, refusing his requests for some meetings, held virtually no anti-terrorism meetings we know of, had terrorism listed nowhere on the Justice Department's top 10 priorities, were not doing much of anything publically or privately at high levels, the investigations show, on Al Queda.

Following the Aug PDB, the 9/11 commission said there was no meeting between the president and his top advisors on the threat.

Fact: The Clinton administration did not have the same information on the Al Queda threat for his 8 years that the Bush administration had in 2001, after the December 2000 finding that they were behind the USS Cole attack. There was a gradual buildup of the information on the threat bin Laden posed - and an obstructionist republican congress.

Fact: Al Gore held view much closer to Clinton's. Clinton said that had Al Gore won, he would have been able to work with him to launch the war plan on Al Queda he'd had developed in 2000, but since Bush won, he did not hand Bush a war, remembering how Bush 41 had handed Clinton a Somalia invasion just before leaving office, and instead handed him the war plan.

Al Gore did not have the very different priorities Bush did, to do things like reducing the role of Clarke and ignoring the Al Queda issue.

When you compare the facts of the virtually nothing Bush did, and the way that Clinton/Gore were approaching the issue by late 2000 - and not throwing out phony arguments about how little they did in 1993 - when you look at the very different levels of attention Clinton/Gore gave to these issues, such as daily meetings during crises - it's clear that Gore would have done more than Bush did.

I have a lot of sympathy president on how hard these things are to prevent, and I'm surprised that almost any are prevented. I'm not suggesting that Gore would even likely have been able to do so - though the record does show we'd gotten close a couple times to some of the people involved. But I am saying it's clear, unless you are unable to see it because of your partisanship, Gore would have done more than Bush did.

Now for opinion: it's to the great loss of the nation that Bush rather than Gore took office in 2000.

Your assesment of Clinton and Bin Laden is false. It is widely known he had ample opportunity to bring him in, but didnt. Hereis just ONE example, by a man who actually set the whole deal up (from the LA Times):

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm