Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #4137

Subject: "Explain" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
M2
Charter member
10072 posts
Thu Sep-11-03 11:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "Explain"
In response to In response to 19


          


How having a GOP Administration in office would've prevented 9/11?

Particularly when the terrorist attacks that happened during Reagan and Bush Sr's administration were in some cases worse than what happened during Clinton's?

Or better yet, since it was Reagan's policies towards afghanistan that gave Bin Ladin and his cronies a good deal of the training that they turned and used against us?

Couldn't you say that Bush Sr. and Reagan not doing more to fight terrorism, gave terrorists the balls to try 9/11?

Couldn't you also say that Bush Sr. and Regan's policies were what angered people to the point where they attempted terroist attacks on our soil?

The Bush Administration is run by experienced people - they've been there before, you mean to tell me that there was NOTHING they could've done to prevent 9/11 - even though they were in office for 21 months beforehand and are experienced people?

If we're going to fair and objective about this - you have to say that the reason Iraq was taken down so easily, didn't scramble a single fighter jet and possessed not a single weapon of mass destruction, is due to Clinton era policies, as well as the times he attacked Iraq (which he did several times) whenever Iraqi Pilots violated the no-fly zone or there were issues with the inspectors.

People seem to forget how many times Clinton attacked Iraq.

Also - Clinton launched cruise missile strikes on places he suspected Bin Ladin was located in, right after the embassy attacks and was unsuccessful and was even at times accussed by the GOP of looking to take attention away from his own problems.

Considering the attack in lockerbie Scotland, the attack on the Marines in Beirut (Which just led to the US leaving the area) the hostage crisis and numerous other attacks on US Foreign Interests, shouldn't Reagan and Bush Sr. have done something?

My reserve Unit was attached to a unit in Korea, so the Korean Situation of 93' was very present in my mind back then - Clinton (IMO) defused it better than Bush is, all Bush has done is denote them as the enemy, and act Tough - which doesn't really help the situation.

As it is - 9/11 happened, we're still in danger from similar attacks, we've attacked two nations that were not a threat to us(I say this even though I supported the Afghanistan war - but in retrospect, what did we gain?) lost countless American lives in the process, eroded our own civil liberties in the name of freedom and have made American an even more hated country - which can only lead to more people willing to attack us.

So, what exactly have we gained with Bush in office?

From the looks of things - 9/11 would've happened with or without Clinton in office, we could've had another four years of Bush Sr. and be in our second term of Bush Jr. (and some other GOP candidate) and we 9/11 still would've happened.

The first attack (obviously planned during the Bush Sr. administration) failed, so they planned a bigger one, whomever the president was, wouldn't have changed that.

As it is - if it was such a huge issue or powder keg, the GOP should've used their power in congress to push for policies that would've prevented it AND or used it as a campaign issue.

Blaming this on one president/administration - instead of our government as a whole, in terms of foreign policy and national defense strategy, is stupid.

The intelligence community doesn't say "Clinton is in office" let's stop looking for threats.

Finally - here is a quick anecdote -


In the reserves one of my units biggest concerns was attacks on US soil, particularly since many of our leadership came from the intelligence & special operations communities, but the conversation would end like this:

"But the US is too big a Land Mass, and we have the right to bear arms, there will never be a major attack on US Soil" Let's worry about X, Y, Z overseas.

That's why we got attacked - that attitude right there, which is independent of who is in office.



Peace,









M2


The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

  

Printer-friendly copy


ABC News smuggles depleted uranium past U.S. borders [View all] , dhalgren718, Wed Sep-10-03 01:53 PM
 
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: ABC News smuggles depleted uranium past U.S. border
Sep 10th 2003
1
RE: ABC News smuggles depleted uranium past U.S. border
Sep 10th 2003
2
No, foxxxy...
Sep 10th 2003
3
who is more idealistic?
Sep 10th 2003
8
      We're BOTH idiots...
Sep 11th 2003
12
           ill drink to that!
Sep 11th 2003
20
but...
Sep 10th 2003
7
      yea
Sep 10th 2003
9
           ugh.
Sep 11th 2003
10
well
Sep 10th 2003
4
if this happened while Clinton was in office...
Sep 10th 2003
5
RE: if this happened while Clinton was in office...
Sep 11th 2003
11
RE: if this happened while Clinton was in office...
Sep 11th 2003
13
      RE: if this happened while Clinton was in office...
Sep 11th 2003
15
           RE: if this happened while Clinton was in office...
Sep 11th 2003
21
and how many times...
Sep 11th 2003
14
      Clinton didn't launch
Sep 11th 2003
23
           RE: Clinton didn't launch
Sep 11th 2003
24
           you're right...
Sep 12th 2003
30
                True ...
Sep 12th 2003
31
ha.
Sep 10th 2003
6
but if security is no better
Sep 11th 2003
16
RE: haOkay.
Sep 11th 2003
17
RE: haOkay.
Sep 11th 2003
19
      WTC 1
Sep 11th 2003
22
     
RE: ha.
Sep 11th 2003
18
You can't use Depleted Uranium to make Nuclear Weapons
Sep 11th 2003
25
RE: You can't use Depleted Uranium to make Nuclear Weap
Sep 11th 2003
26
      Depleted Uranium isn't radioactive
Sep 11th 2003
28
           RE: Depleted Uranium isn't radioactive
Sep 11th 2003
29

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #4137 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com