Whatta GREAT analysis (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/20_frat.html)!!!!!! :hitout:


"It's a lot easier than thinking."

Geez, Pure undadulterated crap,

Bush was pursuing terrorism pre-9/11. Richard Clarke even said so, one of the things Bush said was to "stop swatting at flies" and get them. If you wish to look at someone not terribly interested in terrorism, look at Bill Clinton. The WTC was bombed, Bill did nothing, the Black Hawk down thing happened, Bill pulled out of Somalia, the USS Cole was bombed, nothing happened.

Clinton DID make some noises, in the late 90s, about Saddam being a Very Bad Man and he did fire some missles at deserted training camps in Iraq. Then there was that bombing of an aspirin factory over in the Sudan (happened on the eve of his impeachment, interesting timing, that) but nothing substantial happened.

Nearly a decade of inaction over terrorism, and Bush had 8 months to try to reconstruct the nearly a decade of inaction on terrorism. Is it any wonder Bin Laden felt that the time was ripe to hit the U.S. directly?

The economy. Yes, it did hiccup in 2000 just as Clinton was leaving and 9/11 certainly did NOT help, but the economy is doing quite well, thank you very much. Unemployment is at record lows, interest rates are rock bottom, home ownership is at an all time high. Doesn't sound like a bad economy to me.

Far from the voting publc being a bunch of frat boys wishing for another beating, Bush has, since 9/11, toppled two terrorist regimes, put Bin Laden on the run, captured Hussein and captured or killed most of the Al-Qeda leadership. I think the voting public felt that Bush was doing a good enough job, overall, to go for another four years.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bush has, since 9/11, toppled two terrorist regimes,

??

Which two?

Originally posted by Freethinker
??

Which two? Al-Qaeda and the Kerry Faithful :D

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Geez, Pure undadulterated crap,

Bush was pursuing terrorism pre-9/11.

Yeah.....sure.....except when you weren't paying-attention (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html), right?? :@@:

Aug. 2002

"Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back."

"Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bush was pursuing terrorism pre-9/11. Richard Clarke even said so
Liar

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
one of the things Bush said was to "stop swatting at flies" and get them. If you wish to look at someone not terribly interested in terrorism, look at Bill Clinton. The WTC was bombed, Bill did nothing, the Black Hawk down thing happened, Bill pulled out of Somalia, the USS Cole was bombed, nothing happened.
In 1993 at the first attack on the World Trade Center, no one blamed the first Bush for these bombings, and not “doing enough” But yet we can now blame Clinton for not doing “enough” to stop 9/11.

But you know what Clinton did in 1993 (on the first attacks on the WTC)? He put Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah who were behind these attacks, behind bars. Clinton also stopped the terrorist bomb plot against the US embassy in Tirana, Albania.

Also, Clinton was only in office a month or so…and then we were hit. Bush was in office many months before 9/11. If you want to blame Clinton for 9/11 (laughable)…then you must blame Bush Senior for the first WTC bombing.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Nearly a decade of inaction over terrorism, and Bush had 8 months to try to reconstruct the nearly a decade of inaction on terrorism. Is it any wonder Bin Laden felt that the time was ripe to hit the U.S. directly?

Clinton in 1993 tripled the counter terrorism budged for the FBI.

His first antiterrorism bill, he put in place, had tons of antiterrorism legislation. His second one did as well. He also did simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should respond to a terrorist attack.

“By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism then any president before him,” Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post.

In 1996 Clinton wanted more antiterrorism money, and the Republicans in the senate fought against him. They controlled Congress, and Hatch (a big Republican) always objected, and shot down his bills with the Republican’s voting party lines. So it was the Republicans who were to blame for a lot of this “terrorism” you see now.

A year before the horrific Oklahoma City bombing, Republicans rejected Clinton’s proposed expansions of intelligence agencies wiretap authority in order to fight terrorism.

But, Clinton did what he could, and he struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Thom hawk missiles in retaliation to terrorist strikes against our embassies in Kenya.

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to America, Clinton declined because we had no evidence to support his capture.

But immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issues the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, because we then had evidence to capture or kill him.

This brings me to, if you are going to blame Clinton, why didn’t we blame the first Bush in office for the 93' attacks?

The Republicans were the ones who cut and stopped Clinton from doing what he wanted to do in anti-terrorism funding.

But regardless of this, he still stopped a lot of terrorism.

Clinton did get info in regards to Osama Bin Laden and attacks. Which is why he passed it along to the Bush Administration to do something (explain more later)

Former senior Clinton aide told Time, “we would be handing [The Bush Administration] a war then they took office”

And my final point, is when the Republicans say, “Oh Clinton didn’t do enough when he got that warning of Osama Bin Laden”

Actually, Clinton officials met with Condoleeza Rice and other Bush appointees, and gave then warnings on terrorism and Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his cronies ignored them, and did nothing but cut terrorism, and ignore even more warnings.

From Al Franken:
"Clinton’s administration was praised by two former Reagan counter terrorism officials. "

“Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington post, “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger”

Bremer said that Clinton, “correctly focused on bin Laden” and “by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any President before him,” Barton Gellman reported. He also said Clinton was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Far from the voting publc being a bunch of frat boys wishing for another beating, Bush has, since 9/11, toppled two terrorist regimes, put Bin Laden on the run, captured Hussein and captured or killed most of the Al-Qeda leadership. I think the voting public felt that Bush was doing a good enough job, overall, to go for another four years.
Bullshit. The 2003 Terrorist Report, showed a 21-year high in terrorism around the world. You are incorrect. Terrorism has increased, and it’s not declining as shown with that report. The prisoner abuse has lead to recruitment, and we are focused in a country that has almost no ties to terrorism. We aren’t fighting terrorism, as well as we could be.

Now, lets see what Bush did before 9/11….
He cut terrorism funding…

“This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.” John Dimsdale, “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004. See also, 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment grants: http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/
cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D
/FY03ASHCROFT.PDF

He ignored warnings of Osama Bin Laden

The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/
04/10/whitehouse.pdf

“The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.

Don’t tell me he did a lot against terrorism, before 9/11. Bush didn’t do anything, ignored warnings and cut funding.

YAWN

Overdose,

Bin Laden was offered to the United States by the Sudenese govt on 3 occasions. You've said that Clinton didn't take the offer becasue "there wasn't enough evidence to hold him." In a way you are right. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforecement problem, not as a military problem. Which was a grave mistake on Clinton's part.

As far as the '93 WTC attack, keep in mind that while those who were responsible for the attack were arrested, nothing was done to try and dismantle the Al-Qeda network. Which was another mistake by the Clinton Administration. Other attacks (such as the USS Cole and the attacks in Somalia) were NOT met with any kind of military respone. Again, terrorism was dealt with as a law enforcementproblem, not as a National Security problem. Another Clinton error that led up to 9/11.

You've mentioned the amount of money that the FBI recieved, but the rules put in place by Jamie Gorelic which did NOT allow for the FBI, CIA and other government organizations to share info on terrorists.

I've forgotten about Sandy Berger. A Clinton NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who walked into the National Archives,"accidently" stuffed highly classified terrorism documents down his pants, then went home and "inadvertently" destroyed them. This was during the 9/11 hearings. This is highly unusual behavior for a former National Security Advisor to do, especially if, as you've claimed, the Clinton Administration was doing such a bang up job hunting down the terrorists. Care to explain?

As far as Richard Clarke is concerned, it's strange for a man who supposedly believed that Bush was doing nothing to have such a glowing resignation
letter (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html).

Again, Clinton did almost nothing during numerous terrorism attacks. An aspirin factory was bombed in the Sudan, cruise missle were fired at empty terrorist camps in Iraq (which the left has claimed that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism) law enforcement ran around trying to get evidence and subpoenas while Bin Laden slipped through the Clinton Administration's fingers, Gorelick slammed the lid on national security agencies from sharing info, nothing was done about the USS Cole attack and we cut and ran from Somalia after the Black Hawk down incident. Care to try and claim again that the Clinton Administration was doing momentous work in the Anti Terror field?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bin Laden was offered to the United States by the Sudenese govt on 3 occasions. You've said that Clinton didn't take the offer becasue "there wasn't enough evidence to hold him." In a way you are right. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforecement problem, not as a military problem. Which was a grave mistake on Clinton's part.
Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim (9/11 Panel) .

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf

They didn’t offer Osama Bin Laden, and we also, didn’t have enough evidence or way of obtaining Osama Bin Laden.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
As far as the '93 WTC attack, keep in mind that while those who were responsible for the attack were arrested, nothing was done to try and dismantle the Al-Qeda network. Which was another mistake by the Clinton Administration. Other attacks (such as the USS Cole and the attacks in Somalia) were NOT met with any kind of military respone. Again, terrorism was dealt with as a law enforcementproblem, not as a National Security problem. Another Clinton error that led up to 9/11.
Actually, he wanted to go after terrorism. But the Republicans in congress vetoed any actions, courses or bills he wanted to pass. The republicans forget they controlled everything at that time, besides the Presidency. You have to get things passed in the House, and the Senate in order to get many things accomplished. So blame your own party, not Clinton.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
As far as Richard Clarke is concerned, it's strange for a man who supposedly believed that Bush was doing nothing to have such a glowing resignation
letter (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html).
Ummm, it really dosen’t matter. I have proof of Bush ignoring Osama Bin Laden warnings and cutting terrorism funding. It’s proven he didn’t do enough. Clinton officals met with the Bush Administration to pass down Bin Laden information, but Bush didn’t listen and declined to meet. That’s your parties fault, not the Democrats.

First you say Bin Laden was offered to the United States

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to America, Clinton declined because we had no evidence to support his capture

Then you say he wasn't


Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim (9/11 Panel) .

http://www.9-11commission.gov/heari...statement_5.pdf

They didn’t offer Osama Bin Laden, and we also, didn’t have enough evidence or way of obtaining Osama Bin Laden.

Which is it? Is it one of those "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it" things?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Which is it? Is it one of those "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it" things?

Ooops, I was mistaken. He wasn't offered, I forgot about that evidence by the 9/11 Panel...that recently came out. Sorry, but you are incorrect about him being offered.

Oh and as for the flip flop claims...I suggest you get a little more creative. I've debunked almost all of the so called flip flops you all love to put on John Kerry. Even though the race is over, you still bring up pointless trash the right wing has. Good job!

Originally posted by Overdose
[i]
Actually, he wanted to go after terrorism. But the Republicans in congress vetoed any actions, courses or bills he wanted to pass.



Such as.....?

Originally posted by Travh20
YAWN
Yaaaaawwwwwnnnnn..........

"He would laugh uproariously as though there was something funny about this. To me, that was pretty memorable, because here he is, a number of years out of college, talking about this to people he doesn't know," Archibald said. "He just struck me as a guy who really had an idea of himself as very much a child of privilege, that he wasn't operating by the same rules. (http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=42&num=5089)"

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Overdose,

Bin Laden was offered to the United States by the Sudenese govt on 3 occasions.
Bullshit.

This is merely reheated-rhetoric, with zero basis in fact; a RattSludgism, if you would!!

overdose, you have not "debunked" a damn thing! will you stop saying that? I hate to break it to you, but opinions dont debunk other opinions, sorry. I know mommy and daddy tell you you are special, but you have to realize in the real world you are just another face in the crowd. no better then anyone else. that goes for your opinions as well.

:Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bush has, since 9/11, toppled two terrorist regimes



??

Which two?


Originally posted by HaVoK
Al-Qaeda and the Kerry Faithful :D

I see.

The Americans who supported Kerry are "terrorists", and we no longer have to fear al-Qaeda, because they've been toppled.

Makes about as much sense as anything else i've heard issuing from the mouth of a die-hard Conservtive.

yes, whoever supported Kerry should be rounded up and shipped to Iraq to find and clear mine fields using the old Polish mine detection method. That being line up, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and start stompin'!!

Freethinker,

UH, that would be Afghanistan, which was freed from the Taliban, and Iraq which was freed from Saddam Hussein. I know it's been on the news once or twice.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, whoever supported Kerry should be rounded up and shipped to Iraq.....


I would not disagree with that.....being that Kerry --like Bush-- was a warmonger who thought we needed to be fighting Iraq.

But let's not leave the other war supporters out of it; the people like you who supported Bush.

Shouldn't it be YOU conservative types who are anxious to get over there, being that you're so gung-ho to wage war there , bombing a country that was no threat to us??

Hey!...Iraq awaits you, red-blooded Conservatives.

Looking at what is going on in Iraq, I am surprised that rightwingers everywhere aren't packing up and heading over there.

After all, it's got everything you all want: lots of guns, less or no government, no pesky regulations, few laws. You can grab whatever you want, treat people any way you want, destroy the environment at will, and just run buck wild. It is a Conservative paradise.

So how come I don't see Trav and those who think like him heading in droves for Iraq? After all, you righties constantly remind us that more guns = less crime, right?

You should be perfectly safe.

Or, Freethinker, we could take the course that France, Germany and the U.N. has taken. Let's see, take bribes from various dictators in exchange for oil, not give a damn about what the Saddams of the world do to their own people, because its way over there and won't affect us (and not stir trouble from those who will hit back read Al Queda, Hamas), routinely comdemn Israel on a regular basis for not cooperate with such peacemakers like Arafat, and generally grow fat and happy.

I don't think that is a good idea.

If it comes to a draft, I may well join the service, though I am a bit old to go.