How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

[Moonbeam]

When people use a word like fight as in the fight against terrorism, it seems to me that on average they are already lost. Fighting usually implies some kind of violence and war rather than rational thinking and planning or prevention.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When people use a word like fight as in the fight against terrorism, it seems to me that on average they are already lost. Fighting usually implies some kind of violence and war rather than rational thinking and planning or prevention.

Moonbeam, I've read and reread your post several times trying to glean an understanding of what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying...that a person using the phrase 'fight against terrorism' suggests that they are 'lost' and is prone to violence rather than rational thinking?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Better than Boy George. But then again, a 2 year old could fight the War on Terror better than Boy George.

Maybe they'll do what Slick Willie did to terrorists...... NOTHING. Thanks team Clinton for not killing Bin Laden when you had the chance or letting him get away with bombing the WTC the first time.

Thanks for repeating the same lie about Clinton....

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

Why didn?t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden?s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against ?over-reaction.? In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a ?failed bombing? and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to ?certify? him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Better than Boy George. But then again, a 2 year old could fight the War on Terror better than Boy George.

Maybe they'll do what Slick Willie did to terrorists...... NOTHING. Thanks team Clinton for not killing Bin Laden when you had the chance or letting him get away with bombing the WTC the first time.

Thanks for repeating the same lie about Clinton....

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

Why didn?t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden?s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against ?over-reaction.? In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a ?failed bombing? and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to ?certify? him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

It is funny how you guys chant "9-11 changed everything" but you try to hold Clinton to post-9-11 standards. Dub ignored terrorism before 9-11. He ignored the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" briefing and he cut terrorism funding. He paid even less attention to terrorism than Clinton.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When people use a word like fight as in the fight against terrorism, it seems to me that on average they are already lost. Fighting usually implies some kind of violence and war rather than rational thinking and planning or prevention.

Moonbeam, I've read and reread your post several times trying to glean an understanding of what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying...that a person using the phrase 'fight against terrorism' suggests that they are 'lost' and is prone to violence rather than rational thinking?

I'm sorry, I was rushed to finish that post by a need to do something else right away.

My point is that fighting terrorism isn't about fighting alone. Terrorism needs to be addressed systemically. Terrorism thrives in conditions that need to be changed. It feeds of ideologies that need to be countered. Terrorism looks good to people who are otherwise trapped, humiliated, and downtrodden. Terrorism is not a methodology of people who know real love.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When people use a word like fight as in the fight against terrorism, it seems to me that on average they are already lost. Fighting usually implies some kind of violence and war rather than rational thinking and planning or prevention.

Moonbeam, I've read and reread your post several times trying to glean an understanding of what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying...that a person using the phrase 'fight against terrorism' suggests that they are 'lost' and is prone to violence rather than rational thinking?

I'm sorry, I was rushed to finish that post by a need to do something else right away.

My point is that fighting terrorism isn't about fighting alone. Terrorism needs to be addressed systemically. Terrorism thrives in conditions that need to be changed. It feeds of ideologies that need to be countered. Terrorism looks good to people who are otherwise trapped, humiliated, and downtrodden. Terrorism is not a methodology of people who know real love.

Nice thought...but how do you apply this in the real world? What do you suggest?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Sort of like poverty is good for the left wing agenda?

John, learn when a 'cute' debate point is not an appropriate response.

 

[Rainsford]

I can't help but notice the implied "instead of what the Republicans are doing" tacked on to the end of the question ProfJohn asked...and I'm left wondering just what that is supposed to be. So far as I can tell, the "strategy" as described by GWB and supported by most Republicans, seems to involve the following...

1. invading unrelated countries and turning them into hotbeds of terrorist activity
2. ignoring countries that support terrorism but that happen to be our "friends"
3. ignoring countries that support terrorism but we can't invade because of point "1"
4. Giving the police and intelligence agencies broad new powers they don't need, while creating extra red-tape around the problems they DO need to solve.
5. Giving a lot of speeches standing military settings, like in front of rows of troops, or on the deck of an aircraft carrier wearing a stuffed cod-piece.

Now maybe it's just me, but all that doesn't seem like a very big improvement over the Bill Clinton years of doing virtually nothing. Sure, it LOOKS a lot more impressive, and a lot of folks are dying, but it terms of making progress, I think there is HUGE room for improvement. And whatever you might say about Bill Clinton, he didn't take an entire country and turn it into the terrorist factory Iraq has become. To repeat a common refrain from the righties, I'd like to see the Republican's good ideas before they say much about the ideas Obama and Hillary might or might not have.

 

[OrByte]

There is no plan from the right.

We are simply supposed to cower to their ultimate war knowledge and prowess. And we are obligated to support the war because our troops are dying, and we will be insulting and dishonoring their efforts if we instigate debate, oppose the war, and question authority.

I hate the fact that I am so unamerican

 

[Moonbeam]

What war on terror. We haven't been attacked now in years. Bush got all the terrorists to move to Iraq where the Iraqis can fight them as soon as the Democrats get us our of there.

 

[First]

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

They'd actually start a real war on terror, and not the misguided and poorly planned one in Iraq. Iraq is the biggest U.S.-led disaster in our proud history, so it would be hard, and I mean really really hard, to flub up more than this administration has. As thinking Americans have known for years, Iraq is at the bottom of the totem pole of terrorism in the Middle East. All U.S. resources should be concentrated in Afghanistan, the Pakistan border, and Saudi Arabia, and Dems (and now quite a few Republicans) have been overwhelming more adamant about increasing troop presence and resources in those areas than the administration, particularly bums like Cheney and Rumsfeld

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

They'd actually start a real war on terror, and not the misguided and poorly planned one in Iraq. Iraq is the biggest U.S.-led disaster in our proud history, so it would be hard, and I mean really really hard, to flub up more than this administration has. As thinking Americans have known for years, Iraq is at the bottom of the totem pole of terrorism in the Middle East. All U.S. resources should be concentrated in Afghanistan, the Pakistan border, and Saudi Arabia, and Dems (and now quite a few Republicans) have been overwhelming more adamant about increasing troop presence and resources in those areas than the administration, particularly bums like Cheney and Rumsfeld

Why should we send more troops, I thought sending more troops was not the answer.
Or is it only send troops to where the Dems think they should be sent?

I have heard that Obama thinks we should have been involved in Dafur and Rwanda, but not Iraq. But Obama can't really explain why we should go to the first two places, but not the last. It seems obvious that Obama is really clueless on foreign affairs, and I think the longer the race goes on the more obvious that will become. At least Hillary has her 8 years with Bill. Dick Morris, who was in the White House, points out that Bill was not really involved in foreign affairs for the first two years in office. We can't afford to give the next President two years of on the job training. So either we elect someone with experience, or someone with a strong VP with experience.

BTW this is what makes Condi such a great VP choice, black female with foreign policy experience.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

They'd actually start a real war on terror, and not the misguided and poorly planned one in Iraq. Iraq is the biggest U.S.-led disaster in our proud history, so it would be hard, and I mean really really hard, to flub up more than this administration has. As thinking Americans have known for years, Iraq is at the bottom of the totem pole of terrorism in the Middle East. All U.S. resources should be concentrated in Afghanistan, the Pakistan border, and Saudi Arabia, and Dems (and now quite a few Republicans) have been overwhelming more adamant about increasing troop presence and resources in those areas than the administration, particularly bums like Cheney and Rumsfeld

Why should we send more troops, I thought sending more troops was not the answer.
Or is it only send troops to where the Dems think they should be sent?

I have heard that Obama thinks we should have been involved in Dafur and Rwanda, but not Iraq. But Obama can't really explain why we should go to the first two places, but not the last. It seems obvious that Obama is really clueless on foreign affairs, and I think the longer the race goes on the more obvious that will become. At least Hillary has her 8 years with Bill. Dick Morris, who was in the White House, points out that Bill was not really involved in foreign affairs for the first two years in office. We can't afford to give the next President two years of on the job training. So either we elect someone with experience, or someone with a strong VP with experience.

BTW this is what makes Condi such a great VP choice, black female with foreign policy experience.

Experience fvcking up. Is that what we want?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Experience fvcking up. Is that what we want?

Can you blame the Iraq war on Condi since she was national security advisor at the time?
Plus if the Dem nomine is Hillary then they are going to have a hard time trying to fix blame for Iraq on Condi when Hillary supported and voted for the war as well.

 

[Pens1566]

For the billionth time, the vote wasn't for war. There was a bit in there about letting the inspectors do their job for more than a few weeks.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Why should we send more troops, I thought sending more troops was not the answer.
Or is it only send troops to where the Dems think they should be sent?

Sending more troops to Iraq is different than sending more troops to Afghanistan. Notice how much more support around the world there is for military action in and around the mid-east countries I mentioned. It's because no one in their right mind really believes Iraq is nearly as important in the war on terror as Afghanistan et al.

I have heard that Obama thinks we should have been involved in Dafur and Rwanda, but not Iraq. But Obama can't really explain why we should go to the first two places, but not the last. It seems obvious that Obama is really clueless on foreign affairs, and I think the longer the race goes on the more obvious that will become. At least Hillary has her 8 years with Bill. Dick Morris, who was in the White House, points out that Bill was not really involved in foreign affairs for the first two years in office. We can't afford to give the next President two years of on the job training. So either we elect someone with experience, or someone with a strong VP with experience.

Your memory is highly selective. Obama was one of the few against the war in Iraq, giving plenty of reasons for it years ago. Clinton was one of the better presidents in U.S. history, so his on-the-job training when he was elected as a young 43 year old didn't do the country much harm in the long run. Saying Obama doesn't know anything about "foreign affairs" is a statement that simply cannot be supported.

BTW this is what makes Condi such a great VP choice, black female with foreign policy experience.

Condi is half-way decent but unfortunately her power is/was limited with nuts like Cheney and Rumsfeld. I mean we literally have former CIA agents claiming the intelligence community called Cheney and Rumsfeld "the crazies" for their far-reaching military/foreign policy paranoia well before the Bush administration was in power. Their history is well known.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Can you blame the Iraq war on Condi since she was national security advisor at the time?
Plus if the Dem nomine is Hillary then they are going to have a hard time trying to fix blame for Iraq on Condi when Hillary supported and voted for the war as well.

I'll blame Hillary for putting too much trust in the administration, but to me it ends there. We already know for a fact that Rumsfeld and Feith cooked up pre-war intelligence on Iraq, setting up a secret department within the Pentagon to do it. We already know all the U.S. intelligence agencies that mattered (CIA, NSA) came up with no evidence to support the administration's conclusions of a 9/11-Iraq link, Niger-Iraq link, or WMDs. MI6 and Mossad both never collected any intelligence to support the administration's highly misleading conclusions on those 3 important factors going into the war. The obvious conclusion is that the Bush administration misled people like Hillary to vote for the war by cooking up/slanting intelligence.

Not that Hillary is much of a politician; she does certainly talk out of both sides of her mouth at times (though to be fair most politicians do). I disagree with many of her policies (socialized health care for one), and would be more inclined to vote for a Republican like McCain before Hillary. '

But again, if you're at all intellectually honest, it's really not hard to see any of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lets vote for one of them and find out.

 

[theeedude]

Better than any republican, that's for sure. The ones running are all on record supporting Bush, so how can we trust them with running our country if is their judgement?

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer
Sorry for your losses but there are millions of people, like you, that have lost loved ones. You are not the only one, so spare me the sympathy card. Furthermore, we brought this terror home by siding with dictators and terrorizing others directly (current Iraq War) or indirectly (extraordinary rendition or simply turning a blind eye when are allies commit terror). So, making it official that there are alot of pissed-of people out there that want their vengeance won't make the terror go away. By refusing to acknowledge our past errors and focusing only on our pain, we will further inflame the situation, like your hero George Bush has done.

Narmer, the goal of the terrorists isn't to avenge some past grievance; the goal is to convert the entire world to Islam. All you have to do is read the comments of the terror leaders themselves and that becomes evident really fast.

We can pull out troops out tomorrow and bring them all home and it won't end the war on terror.

Let me quote Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of the group behind the Bali Bombing (BTW do we have troops in Bali?)
In answer to one reporter's question as to what the West and the United States can do to make the world safer, Bashir replied, "They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."
What part of the bolded line don't you understand?

First you generalize all terrorists to islamic militants and then you generalize all their causes to one, an Islamic caliphate. I hope you're more intelligent than that.

Well tell me, which terrorists are you talking about in the post I am responding too?
The only people attacking us are Islamic terrorists.

Someone what we see in Iraq is insurgents, but every major terrorist attack against us in the past 10 years or so was carried out by Islamic jihadists.

The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't that long ago you know.

 

[Fern]

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

I haven't heard much, if anything substantive reported on their plans/policies.

I do recall reading something about Obama's troop w/d ideas. Seems Edwards is one is the one putting out more info on his campaign/policies ATM.

It's very early in '08 election process, the press doen't seem to be treating seriously, or else the candidates have not yet formulated a policy that they can articulate beyond something that's mostly anti-Bush retoric
------------------------

Reminds, WTF was this last Sunday's big AP article on polygamy and Mitt Romney? The guy's not a polygamist, yet they had a rather large article going back over his ancestors' (great great grandfather etc) and their marriages. Same for his wife's family. Then they had a bunch of info about Mormon history on polygamy etc.

Absolutely zip on Romney's policies, acomplishments/failures of governship etc.

I got the impression that the press/media has it out for him and Mormons. The wanna tie him as closely as they can to polygamy & the Mormon Church (LDS). They want voters to think "polygamy & Mormon" whenever they hear his name etc. You hardly ever anything about such stuff when Orin Hatch is in the news.

Fern

 

[QuantumPion]

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

This question has never been honestly answered by any democrat because they know their current anti-war rhetoric is weapons-grade-bolognium. All they talk about is how they would do it "smarter, better" and that Bush is an idiot and that anyone could do the war better then him. They never say what it is they would actually do besides something inane like "get Osama", as if US forces weren't putting forth their best effort trying to find him already.

 

[hysperion]

As a member of the armed forces who has served overseas in Iraq I can tell you the Iraqi's are mainly an uneducated near idiotic populace and the best thing we could do would be to pull out of the country, let them have their civil war, and support the winner. If we didn't like the deal we got from the winner we could just rinse and repeat the whole process of removing the leadership. It took us what? 2-3 months or less to remove Saddam? The US Military is not designed to be a police/occupying force and the current state of this war is a waste of resources.

However, the overall them of the war is necessary because the US currency is backed by oil and if we allow the arabs to switch to Euros our economy will suffer...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
For the billionth time, the vote wasn't for war. There was a bit in there about letting the inspectors do their job for more than a few weeks.

They knew what they were voting for, stop trying to explain away the vote.

If what you said was true then why isn't Hillary repeating your line to explain away her vote?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

How would Hillary and Obama fight the war on terror?

This question has never been honestly answered by any democrat because they know their current anti-war rhetoric is weapons-grade-bolognium. All they talk about is how they would do it "smarter, better" and that Bush is an idiot and that anyone could do the war better then him.

I must be hallucinating because I seem to remember that the democrats have been talking about different strategies for Iraq for many months now.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
They never say what it is they would actually do besides something inane like "get Osama", as if US forces weren't putting forth their best effort trying to find him already.

Lol.