Clinton Lawyers Fretted Over bin Laden's Comfort..

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Condor
Internationally, we are seen as the stupid guys because of this mentality. I've heard it over and over - Americans are soi stupid that if they ran a red light, they would write themselves a ticket and turn themselves in. No wonder on one fears attacking us.

Yes, we're seen this way by countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt that just torture suspects into confessing whether they're guilty or not.

And by neo-fascist Russia, which is trying to take away the idea of defense lawyers entirely. They will have no attorney-client privilege and will lose thier independence, existing only to give an appearance of justice.

You may say "torture is A-OK!" and "only criminables get tried!" but isn't it better to get the actual perpetrators than just whoever is handy?

You really need to differentiate between our citizens and our enamies.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If I had to guess, it may be that whole "rule of law" +/- "we're the good guys so we hold ourselves to higher standard" thing.

Obviously, GWB wanted him "Dead or Alive" . . . I guess he settled for alive.

Internationally, we are seen as the stupid guys because of this mentality. I've heard it over and over - Americans are soi stupid that if they ran a red light, they would write themselves a ticket and turn themselves in. No wonder on one fears attacking us.

Yeah, I remember when the USSR wasn't afraid, and nuked us. Then there was the Chinese invasion. We have been attacked by countless nations. We are the whipping boy.

Coming soon to the SciFi channel!

Well, libs began to outnumber the Americans during the Clinton administration and we were seen as weak and attacked. Bush is feared and we aren't being attacked. You figure it out.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If I had to guess, it may be that whole "rule of law" +/- "we're the good guys so we hold ourselves to higher standard" thing.

Obviously, GWB wanted him "Dead or Alive" . . . I guess he settled for alive.

Internationally, we are seen as the stupid guys because of this mentality. I've heard it over and over - Americans are soi stupid that if they ran a red light, they would write themselves a ticket and turn themselves in. No wonder on one fears attacking us.

I guess the whole "most powerful nation in the world" thing was some sort of fluke.

Why don't you travel a little and actually listen for a change?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Thank GOD, Bush is president now!

You mean that more than you know.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Condor
Well, libs began to outnumber the Americans during the Clinton administration and we were seen as weak and attacked. Bush is feared and we aren't being attacked. You figure it out.

Wow, its all so primal with you. Liberals are weak (who, according to you are not Americans) - Bush is strong. Empiracal evidence and rational thought are for wimps. The important thing is to look tough and scare people. Bush puffs and beats his chest and flings much more poop. You figure it out.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Condor
Well, libs began to outnumber the Americans during the Clinton administration and we were seen as weak and attacked. Bush is feared and we aren't being attacked. You figure it out.

Wow, its all so primal with you. Liberals are weak (who, according to you are not Americans) - Bush is strong. Empiracal evidence and rational thought are for wimps. The important thing is to look tough and scare people. Bush puffs and beats his chest and flings much more poop. You figure it out.

You libs need to learn to keep it simple. You always bury yourselves in tripe while the simple truth escapes you. Actually, your paragraph is very accurate. Now learn to accept it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Condor


Well, libs began to outnumber the Americans during the Clinton administration and we were seen as weak and attacked. Bush is feared and we aren't being attacked. You figure it out.

Uh....we were attacked after Bush was installed as president.

Your argument is as full of BS as Bush. But then, you can't spell BULLSH!T without BUSH.

 

[umbrella39]

Ignore the troll. His kind is becoming rapidly extinct and he can spend the rest of his life crying in his PBR wondering what could have been, recounting war stories about the few years of neocon glory that history will tell us was the darkest times our country has ever seen.

 

[outriding]

JHC people why did you not bring this up WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT !!!!! instead it was more important to focus on a bj.

Regardless this does not take away from the facts

1) the bulk of our forces have been diverted off of OBL. Hell the next target is Iran, but I am sure we will get some "hard data" to prove that Iran has links to AQ.

2) Bush during a speech said OBL is no longer our concern.

3) Terrorism is just as bad as it was before.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's funny about all these "Clinton was too soft to capture bin Laden" threads? The complaint, as far as I can tell, is that Clinton was some kind of namby-pamby wimp who didn't "do what it takes" to capture bin Laden. He took the "liberal" approach to fighting terrorism, and thus failed to capture bin Laden, or beat terrorism as a whole. The unspoken comparison is with Bush and the conservatives, who have both captured bin Laden and beaten the terrorists. Clearly their strategy is superior.

Good point. 4 years after the start of our WoT, we've neither captured OBL nor stopped the terrorists. Welcome to unending war with no signs of victory.

Same goes with the War on Drugs.

Unless the political will exists to force the issue and make the hard choices; combatants' lives will be lost for no real gain and the armchair generals will get the jollies second guessing.

As with any battle; go in with a clear objective and overwhelming force; keeps the casuality rate down. Changing horses in mid-race usually dumps the rider on the ground.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: outriding
JHC people why did you not bring this up WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT !!!!! instead it was more important to focus on a bj.

Regardless this does not take away from the facts

1) the bulk of our forces have been diverted off of OBL. Hell the next target is Iran, but I am sure we will get some "hard data" to prove that Iran has links to AQ.

2) Bush during a speech said OBL is no longer our concern.

3) Terrorism is just as bad as it was before.

1) Whether we had 1 soldier or 1,000,000 soldiers after OBL, when he is most likely in a country that we can't go into numbers do not matter and are purely a strawman Besides that, we already have hard evidence linking Iran to AQ. So if that's all it takes, why haven't we invaded Iran already?

2) No, that's not what Bush said.

3) And it may get worse before it gets better. But years of doing basically nothing or making pathetic responses did Jack Sh!t to make us safe. At least we're actively and aggressively doing something about the problem now.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding
JHC people why did you not bring this up WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT !!!!! instead it was more important to focus on a bj.

Regardless this does not take away from the facts

1) the bulk of our forces have been diverted off of OBL. Hell the next target is Iran, but I am sure we will get some "hard data" to prove that Iran has links to AQ.

2) Bush during a speech said OBL is no longer our concern.

3) Terrorism is just as bad as it was before.

1) Whether we had 1 soldier or 1,000,000 soldiers after OBL, when he is most likely in a country that we can't go into numbers do not matter and are purely a strawman Besides that, we already have hard evidence linking Iran to AQ. So if that's all it takes, why haven't we invaded Iran already?

2) No, that's not what Bush said.

3) And it may get worse before it gets better. But years of doing basically nothing or making pathetic responses did Jack Sh!t to make us safe. At least we're actively and aggressively doing something about the problem now.

2)

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

3) What did we find in Iraq ? NOTHING. The only thing we found was small groups that Saddam had nothing to do with. Not a good enough reason to justify a full scale invasion.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding
JHC people why did you not bring this up WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT !!!!! instead it was more important to focus on a bj.

Regardless this does not take away from the facts

1) the bulk of our forces have been diverted off of OBL. Hell the next target is Iran, but I am sure we will get some "hard data" to prove that Iran has links to AQ.

2) Bush during a speech said OBL is no longer our concern.

3) Terrorism is just as bad as it was before.

1) Whether we had 1 soldier or 1,000,000 soldiers after OBL, when he is most likely in a country that we can't go into numbers do not matter and are purely a strawman Besides that, we already have hard evidence linking Iran to AQ. So if that's all it takes, why haven't we invaded Iran already?

2) No, that's not what Bush said.

3) And it may get worse before it gets better. But years of doing basically nothing or making pathetic responses did Jack Sh!t to make us safe. At least we're actively and aggressively doing something about the problem now.

2)

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

So where does he say OBL is no longer our concern? All he said is that OBL is not "our priority" which is quite a bit different from saying he's "no longer our concern."

3) What did we find in Iraq ? NOTHING. The only thing we found was small groups that Saddam had nothing to do with. Not a good enough reason to justify a full scale invasion.

Changing the political face of Iraq and the entire ME is a damn good reason to invade, imo. Saddam supported terrorism and so does Syria, Iran, SA, and others. That has got to change and Iraq is the first step on that ladder.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Changing the political face of Iraq and the entire ME is a damn good reason to invade, imo. Saddam supported terrorism and so does Syria, Iran, SA, and others. That has got to change and Iraq is the first step on that ladder.

Hey chicken, do you want to see how your fearless leader has REALLY changed the face of the Middle East? Are you ready for this?

Draft Constitution Would Fundamentally Change Iraq

You blithering boneheaded fools. You've been had to the point of exhaustion and you still keep babbling the same garbage you've been fed since Bush first opened his lying mouth.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: classy
Correct me if I am wrong. I do believe that Bin Laden and Sadamm had the full backing and support from Reagan and Bush Sr in the 80s. They got in the position they are in because of those 2. So rather than trying to blame those who may not have been able to stop them, blame those who helped put them in the positions of power in the first place.

You are not entirely wrong, but I will offer this small bit of correction. It was President Carter and his Security Advisor, Brzezinski, who initiated the multi-billion dollar program to train Islamic militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We got the desired benefit of a collapsed Soviet Union, but may very well now be paying the price for that.

Perhaps your blame should be extended just a bit past your somewhat narrow field-of-view.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: classy
Correct me if I am wrong. I do believe that Bin Laden and Sadamm had the full backing and support from Reagan and Bush Sr in the 80s. They got in the position they are in because of those 2. So rather than trying to blame those who may not have been able to stop them, blame those who helped put them in the positions of power in the first place.

You are not entirely wrong, but I will offer this small bit of correction. It was President Carter and his Security Advisor, Brzezinski, who initiated the multi-billion dollar program to train Islamic militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We got the desired benefit of a collapsed Soviet Union, but may very well now be paying the price for that.

Perhaps your blame should be extended just a bit past your somewhat narrow field-of-view.

I'd really like to see your proof.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: classy
Correct me if I am wrong. I do believe that Bin Laden and Sadamm had the full backing and support from Reagan and Bush Sr in the 80s. They got in the position they are in because of those 2. So rather than trying to blame those who may not have been able to stop them, blame those who helped put them in the positions of power in the first place.

You are not entirely wrong, but I will offer this small bit of correction. It was President Carter and his Security Advisor, Brzezinski, who initiated the multi-billion dollar program to train Islamic militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We got the desired benefit of a collapsed Soviet Union, but may very well now be paying the price for that.

Perhaps your blame should be extended just a bit past your somewhat narrow field-of-view.

I'd really like to see your proof.

Proof? That Carter and Brzezinski started the program? Do they not teach history anymore?

Wikipedia - Carter

In order to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski started a $40 billion program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In retrospect, this contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but is also often tied to the resulting instability of post-Soviet Afghani governments, which led to the rise of Islamic theocracy in the region. Some even tie the program to the 1996 coup that established the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and to the creation of violent Islamic terrorist groups. At the time, and continuing into the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush presidencies, Islamic fundamentalism as a political force was not well understood.

That's from the Wiki on Carter, but I'm sure you can find a lot more with a few google searches on Brzezinski and "Afghan trap."

Here's his Wiki page

January 18, 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin started before the Soviet invasion, and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict on par with America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap." Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant islamic groups.

And here is the interview about CIA Intervention:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You blithering boneheaded fools. You've been had to the point of exhaustion and you still keep babbling the same garbage you've been fed since Bush first opened his lying mouth.

::yawn::

Did you say something? :roll:

 

[BBond]

Well, that's proof alright.

Why don't you Google Reagan Afghanistan Taliban and see what else you can come up with?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You blithering boneheaded fools. You've been had to the point of exhaustion and you still keep babbling the same garbage you've been fed since Bush first opened his lying mouth.

::yawn::

Did you say something? :roll:

I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with your comment on "changing the face of the Middle East," now does it?

How do you feel about the new Islamic State of Iraq/Iran, chicken? Was it worth all of the lives and dollars?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BBond
Well, that's proof alright.

Why don't you Google Reagan Afghanistan Taliban and see what else you can come up with?

Umm, I'm quite familiar with that, actually. Then again, I never said Reagan wasn't involved - I merely commented that Carter's administration was fundamental in getting the whole ball rolling, so to speak.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You blithering boneheaded fools. You've been had to the point of exhaustion and you still keep babbling the same garbage you've been fed since Bush first opened his lying mouth.

::yawn::

Did you say something? :roll:

I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with your comment on "changing the face of the Middle East," now does it?

How do you feel about the new Islamic State of Iraq/Iran, chicken? Was it worth all of the lives and dollars?

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/breaking-news.html

Regarding Islam and the constitution: it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued.

But when you rely solely on left-wing pundits to get your information, as you seem to always do, all you're going to see is their truth, not the other side.

As far as Iranian and Iraqi Shiites, got there any facts to back up that speculation? It's my understanding that Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites do not get along at all and that there is still a lot of animosity between the Iraqis and Iranians in general.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So where does he say OBL is no longer our concern? All he said is that OBL is not "our priority" which is quite a bit different from saying he's "no longer our concern."

OBL / AQ > Iraq + Saddam

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So where does he say OBL is no longer our concern? All he said is that OBL is not "our priority" which is quite a bit different from saying he's "no longer our concern."

OBL / AQ > Iraq + Saddam

Quelling radical Islam + changing the ME > OBL / AQ

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So where does he say OBL is no longer our concern? All he said is that OBL is not "our priority" which is quite a bit different from saying he's "no longer our concern."

OBL / AQ > Iraq + Saddam

Quelling radical Islam + changing the ME > OBL / AQ

So why are we in Iraq again?

Radical Islam in Iraq



Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.

Your equation is not entirely true.

All AQ is Radical Islamists but not all Radical Islamists are AQ.

It is called divide and conquer. AQ has been the most active at targeting the US. Since they are and you say radical Islam should be targeted why are we in Iraq then ?