Anyone see Bush's speech last night from the convention?

[igloo]

I like X-Files too

[igloo]

x

we never finished our job there.

Is it ok to critisize bush about that or is that kerry/clinton/saddams fault?

Please explain "finish the job"....please include how NATO is involved, and how France can't send more troops to help "finish" the job.......or for that matter the world community, since Afghanistan was a no-brainer (although not to Michael Moore).....

Please also include the complex challenges of finishing off the Taliban and Al Qaeda remenants in the tribal regions on the Afghan -Pakistani border, and how that relates to the Musharaf govt and the fine line he must walk...

Please also include how the U.S. needed to make deals with the Northern Alliance and the Pashtuns for their necessary help during the initial phase of the war, and how that relates to how the U.S. is structured their today...

Please also include how the U.S went to school on the Soviet occupation, and we went to great measures to avoid those mistakes, and how that relates to how we are structured their today

Please also talk about the fact that the country is moving towards elections, woman are treated better (still a long way to go), and that children are going to schools.....

Has everything gone right...no.......Is there a long way to go........yes. Have mistakes been made.......of course. Is poppy growing a problem...yes. Is the "job" ever going to be "finished"....no.

But the bottom line is the country is better today than it was before, case closed (which you did mention). We would all like for it to progress as fast as our Hollywood minds have been trained to think, but reality is quite different.

Those who want to point to this as a failure or "nail" Bush on this need to get their cynical heads examined and join reality (not you, speaking broadly)...the glass is half-full there, not the other way around.

P.S. yes, I can blame Clinton..because action should have been taken a long time ago......something along the lines of taking action against a grave and gathering threat, and not waiting until the threat becomes imminent, because by then, it is too late as we painfully learned.....something along the lines of providing real leadership, and doing what you believe is the right thing, not what the U.N. or the polls show.....

Would that have been difficult for Clinton to do...absolutely. Europe would have went bezerk, there would be complaints that the intelligence was murky, the attack dogs from the GOP would have been on him, and the U.N. would have a useless debate on it for a year.......

But I would bet that there are many who wish he rose above that......and perhaps, just perhaps, things may be a little different today

[mrmatas2277]

Lay chaired the host committee for the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, where Bush's father won his second presidential nomination. And Lay was a sleepover guest at the White House of President George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush and Enron Oil and Gas were in business together in 1986--when Ken Lay was head of Enron. Campaign records show Lay donated three times as much money to Bush in that race as he did to ann Richards in the race for governor. Lay has been in "bed" with the bushs since the mid 80's.

this administration is actively going after them...that is NOT propaganda, but fact....

[jtk4]

i just think if we used the troops we put in iraq to help flush out most of the taliban from there it would be safer. Then we could of moved on to iraq or whatever country. There will be elections in iraq before afghanastan it has already been delayed three times and no one is to optimistic that there will be one this year. The drugs flowing out of there are becoming the funds these people will use to attack us again. The country is becoming a threat again, is what i am saying.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/

http://www.careinternational.org.uk/news/what_do_care_think/afghanistan/nato_in_afghanistan.htm

I could post about 200 more links on how it is getting worse.

Moore can suck my balls if he does not think it was a no brainer to go in there.

I still do not see how clinton would be to blame for this osama had been dug in there since the 80's. Even if we did capture osama would that of stopped 9-11, the experts say no, the mastermind is his buddy (you know the guy i forget his name right now. From india or egypt) and now he might not even be the biggest backer they have. The cells were already scattered around the world, and most coming out od saudi arabia.

Anyway we could talk what ifs, but it will not do us any good. I worry about afghanistan, the drug money and what it will be used for. These people are not like the colombians who use there money on houses and boats and shit like that. You have warlords who run that country, just the same way the taliban did in the 90's.

[jtk4]

this administration is actively going after them...that is NOT propaganda, but fact....

going after who? the guys who did not get convicted and walked out scott free. I was just saying that it was shady.

[mrmatas2277]

i just think if we used the troops we put in iraq to help flush out most of the taliban from there it would be safer. Then we could of moved on to iraq or whatever country.

i agree 110%

[mrmatas2277]

going after who? the guys who did not get convicted and walked out scott free. I was just saying that it was shady.

those in Enron and Tyco...they are going after the big wigs...and convictions are coming...i dont know what more u want, they doing a hell of a lot more than the prior administration is....

[jtk4]

those in Enron and Tyco...they are going after the big wigs...and convictions are coming...i dont know what more u want, they doing a hell of a lot more than the prior administration is....

When the pres has ties with people who defraud millions of dollars, that is shady be association.

Now the fact that there was blackouts in cali and instead of the pres setting rates in which to help the state he lets enron his buddy bludgeon the state for 100's of millions of dollars. Makes enron rich and puts california budget so fucked that the fucking terminator is the governor now.

[mrmatas2277]

Now the fact that there was blackouts in cali and instead of the pres setting rates in which to help the state he lets enron his buddy bludgeon the state for 100's of millions of dollars. Makes enron rich and puts california budget so fucked that the fucking terminator is the governor now.

and the governor of Cali. had nothing do with that? the reason that Arnold is in charge is b/c that man was also getting his fair share of kick backs from Enron....

[jtk4]

no he was pretty much begging for price regulations, kick backs are not worth the job you know. Bush said no, enron bent california over and stuck it in their ass.

[igloo]

i agree 110%

mrmatas and jtk4,

There are legitimate reasons as to why that is not as simple as you think, and why special ops team working in small groups is being used...

It is also why I posted this:

Please also include the complex challenges of finishing off the Taliban and Al Qaeda remenants in the tribal regions on the Afghan -Pakistani border, and how that relates to the Musharaf govt and the fine line he must walk...

Please also include how the U.S. needed to make deals with the Northern Alliance and the Pashtuns for their necessary help during the initial phase of the war, and how that relates to how the U.S. is structured their today...

Please also include how the U.S went to school on the Soviet occupation, and we went to great measures to avoid those mistakes, and how that relates to how we are structured their today

Guys....on the surface, it would seem to be simple....pour 200,000 troops into Afghanistan, and that would have to be more effective than what we have been doing..but that is not the case, and it has to do with some of the reasons I posed above....

[igloo]

I still do not see how clinton would be to blame for this osama had been dug in there since the 80's. Even if we did capture osama would that of stopped 9-11, the experts say no, the mastermind is his buddy (you know the guy i forget his name right now. From india or egypt) and now he might not even be the biggest backer they have. The cells were already scattered around the world, and most coming out od saudi arabia.

Bin Laden was not dug in there since the 80's.....he spent most of his time after the Soviet withdrawal in the Sudan (which the Clinton administration completely botched when the Sudan offered intelligence on his growing network and his capture)...........Clinton wanted no part of this, and neither did the Saudis......so , Bin laden went back to Afghansistan in the late 90's (96 I believe to be exact).....I completely oversimplified this for the sake of a messageboard, but in short, you get the picture

If we captured Bin Laden in 96, or 08, or even 2000 , perhaps 9/11 would have been stopped....If Clinton worked the Sudan channel more effectively, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened....

HOWEVER, if we hit his terrorist camps, FOR REAL, instead of ineffective cruise missile attacks, perhaps 9/11 would have been stopped....if Clinton pre-emptively hit a grave and gathering threat BEFORE it became imminent, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened (you would have thought the 93 WTC bombing, the bojinka plot, the Khobar towers, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole would have given them the hint).......i

If Clinton hit them FOR REAL before his camps churned out tens of thousands of terrorists, perhaps 9/11 and other attacks would not have happened......if Clinton hit the camps, FOR REAL, trained cells would not be scattered all across the world.....

BOTTON LINE: The Clinton approach was a complete and utter failure, and failed to confront a growing and gathering threat. To repeat, yes this is my opinion. But is also the opinion and professional conclusion of terrorism experts and investigative journalists who have provided volumes of research on the subject.

When the 9/11 commision said that the capture of Bin laden would not have stopped 9/11, they were referring to a capture close to 9/11....it was way too late then.......that is the point....we had a window of opportunity during the Clinton years to confront a growing threat, BEFORE Al Qaeda grew into the organization it had eventually become, and before it could spread its ideology, and we were a complete failure....

A brutal lesson .......

And to be fair, it would have been tough politically for Clinton to launch a pre-emptive strike......like I said: Europe would have went bezerk, there would be complaints that the intelligence was murky, the attack dogs from the GOP would have been on him, and the U.N. would have a useless debate on it for a year.......

But I would bet that there are many who wish he rose above that, and demonstrated leadership in facing something that he now claims he took seriously......and perhaps, just perhaps, things may be a little different today

P.S. Zawahiri is his right hand man and true operational leader....he was the leader of the Egyptia Islamic Jihad that joined forces with bin laden........they had a common mentor that they eventually assassinated because they wanted to take their organization to the next level..

[jtk4]

There is no way anyone would of seen 93 WTC bombing, the bojinka plot, the Khobar towers, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole and even came out with anything close to 9-11. They would of been laughed out of the room. People knew something was going to happen, but nothing of that magnitude. His goal at that point was mostly to drive the us out of the saudi peninsula. Clinton signed orders with the cia to destroy bin laden in 1996. i am sure there is a shit load of black-ops shit that went down that we do not even know about. They will probably come out with a movie in 15 years.

Also just because he was not physically in afghanaistan does not mean he did not have a secure place to there. Al quada was set up there, do you think everyone left with him?

Second if cinton tried to invade, the republicans would of been all over him, and i swear to god would try to get him removed from office right then and there. They tried to impeach him for getting a blow job imagine if he invaded a country on even shoddier evidence then the wmd-iraq info.

Shit if want to blame someone blame reagan, we left that place when the russians left, the taliban took over and that is the end of that. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran—the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized.

So like i said we have done a shitty job from the mid 70's to today.

We are all fucked-death death death and all that goes with it. No wonder i like doing drugs. Thats for you babbo

[JonStephen]

i agree 110%

likewise

[igloo]

Son,

I enjoy our back and forths--but you have to read what I have been saying...you keep ignoring facts or completey miss the point ...my responses in bold below

There is no way anyone would of seen 93 WTC bombing, the bojinka plot, the Khobar towers, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole and even came out with anything close to 9-11. They would of been laughed out of the room. People knew something was going to happen, but nothing of that magnitude. His goal at that point was mostly to drive the us out of the saudi peninsula.

You are completely missing the point here....what was completely missed here was an escalation of attacks against the U.S., increased training of ten of thousands of terrorists, and a base of operations that was A GATHERING AND GROWING THREAT.....this is what should have been recognized and dealt with BEFORE it was too late...a lesson we learned....a complete failure by the Clinton administration ....

To repeat, this is just not some opinion of some schmucks on clubplanet, but professional and objective analysis....

And yes, ONE of his goals was to drive us out of Saudi Arabia, but the tactics changed dramatically on how he did that, stated in his famous decree of declaring war on the U.S...as well as his whole strategic position...I could go on for hours on this

Remarkable to how people try and give Clinton pass for 8 years of failure, yet have tortured Bush about "what he knew" and how his team should have know something "big" was coming in his seven months......absolutey remarkable

Clinton signed orders with the cia to destroy bin laden in 1996. i am sure there is a shit load of black-ops shit that went down that we do not even know about. They will probably come out with a movie in 15 years.

Clinton did sign order...but his execution was all half-baked that only emboldened Al Qaeda and reinforced bin laden's message......this is fact, and there is plenty of research out there on the subject

Also just because he was not physically in afghanaistan does not mean he did not have a secure place to there. Al quada was set up there, do you think everyone left with him?

No, you stated he was there since the 80's, so I assumed you meant literally....of course, he still had contacts there ....however, his time in the Sudan CAN NOT BE DIMINISHED, and this missed opportunity by Clinton because he was more concerned with politics than Bin Laden was a gross error with obvious enormous repurcussions...

BTW--I suggest you read about bin Laden's time iduring the Soviet occupation...the media has created more myth than fact.....bin Laden's organization and real strength blossomed in the Sudan, and then up another notch when he joined forces with Zawahiri....

Second if cinton tried to invade, the republicans would of been all over him, and i swear to god would try to get him removed from office right then and there. They tried to impeach him for getting a blow job imagine if he invaded a country on even shoddier evidence then the wmd-iraq info.

I will say this for the third time on this thread, not sure why you keep ignoring it:

And to be fair, it would have been tough politically for Clinton to launch a pre-emptive strike......like I said: Europe would have went bezerk, there would be complaints that the intelligence was murky, the attack dogs from the GOP would have been on him, and the U.N. would have a useless debate on it for a year.......

But I would bet that there are many who wish he rose above that, and demonstrated leadership in facing something that he now claims he took seriously......and perhaps, just perhaps, things may be a little different today

Shit if want to blame someone blame reagan, we left that place when the russians left, the taliban took over and that is the end of that. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran—the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized.

Earlier in a post of my mine, I already pointed blame at Reagan and the first Bush.......gotta stop ignoring what I say

So like i said we have done a shitty job from the mid 70's to today.

We are all fucked-death death death and all that goes with it. No wonder i like doing drugs. Thats for you babbo

[jtk4]

Yeah i was agreeing with you on points that is why i repeat what you said just in different words, makes me feel smart

Like i said in reagean funded him, bush pissed him off, clinton didn't kill him, bush jr got the wrath. Would capturing him stopped 9-11?Who know. I have a feeling someone else would have stepped in. Also if we captured him i have a feeling alot more shit would have went down.Kinda like kicking a bees nest then running away. Clinton signed the orders to kil him, what more could he do go rambo style on him. With the info he got he blew up the chemical factories and (empty) training camps in sudan, and got a ration of shit for that. I believe at this time we were still dealing with bosnia, so its not like we were just sitiing around pulling our prick.

But back to afghanistan i think that that place is harbouring terrorists, and making money through drugs to fund them. We should of stayed, gone full force kiled the fucking warlords and then kept "peacekeeping" force there. Shit what do we have there 20,000 us tropps maybe 5,000 nato. (i bet there is 100-200 ops around too) It would be easier for them if we wiped out the warlords.

We must do this with Iraq, we can not leave it like we did afghanistan, or in the same condition.

[jtk4]

Two other things, I do not think he would of gotton congress to aprove invading afghanistan, and when he did attack those camps in 1998 he was accused as using that to deflect attention away from monica. He was in a no win situation. If it was not for 9-11 do you think bush would of been able to have his policy of invading countries that harbour terrorists. I do not think so.

If clinton tried this he was looking at a potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia -- was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by 9-11.

To blame clinton for not going into afghanistan is silly because he would not of had the support of anyone, congress, europe, the people. What was he supposed to do?

If 9-11 did not happen would bush have gone into afghanistan? Doubt it. Would we have ben able to go into Iraq? Doubt it.

Also to make the connection of a dingy filled with explosives in the middle east and flying planes into building in new york would of been a leap at best.

I cut and pasted these

He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart

[igloo]

Clinton signed the orders to kil him, what more could he do go rambo style on him. With the info he got he blew up the chemical factories and (empty) training camps in sudan, and got a ration of shit for that. I believe at this time we were still dealing with bosnia, so its not like we were just sitiing around pulling our prick.

But back to afghanistan i think that that place is harbouring terrorists, and making money through drugs to fund them. We should of stayed, gone full force kiled the fucking warlords and then kept "peacekeeping" force there. Shit what do we have there 20,000 us tropps maybe 5,000 nato. (i bet there is 100-200 ops around too) It would be easier for them if we wiped out the warlords.

We must do this with Iraq, we can not leave it like we did afghanistan, or in the same condition.

On Clinton, that is my point. He should have risen above the politics and done what he believed was the right thing, irrespective of teh shit he was getting (sort of like someone we know )

Also, yes Afghanistan is still fucked up. The place has been the graveyard of empires. But is it getting better, and it is progressing. We could not just "kill" warlords because those were the very same people we used against the Taliban. And it was the absolute right military plan. This is indisputable.

And our military blueprint is exactly correct (based on a lot of what I read from military strategists, terrorism experts, Afghanistan experts, etc). That is why I pointed out the considerations that needed to be addressed (lesson from the Soviets, deal with the NA and Pashtuns, Pakistan and Musharaf).

I agree with Iraq.......of course we need to see it through.

[jtk4]

can you invade a country without the vote of congress? That has to be voted on right?

What steps would he have to take to bypass congress to give the order to go? How long would that of taken? I just do not see it happening.

[igloo]

See below in bold

Two other things, I do not think he would of gotton congress to aprove invading afghanistan, and when he did attack those camps in 1998 he was accused as using that to deflect attention away from monica. He was in a no win situation.

I agree, but my point is, just imagine if Clinton demonstrated genuine leadership said "fuck politics" , I am doing what I believe must be done to confront a grave and gathering danger, before it is too late.......I, Bil Clinton, am going to be the unilaterlist cowboy, like I was in Bosnia .....you do get what I am getting at, right?

If it was not for 9-11 do you think bush would of been able to have his policy of invading countries that harbour terrorists. I do not think so.

If 9/11 did not happen, I do not know if Bush would have done anything different than Clinton. Probably not. But that still does not get Clinton off the hook.

If clinton tried this he was looking at a potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia -- was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by 9-11.

I tend to disagree with you, there are too many who have not been transformed by 9/11. Too many who just want to keep the status quo, stick their heads back in the sand, and not come to grips with the reality of a post 9/11 world.

To blame clinton for not going into afghanistan is silly because he would not of had the support of anyone, congress, europe, the people. What was he supposed to do?

Again, show leadership. Rise above it. I know you are fucking with me here because I have stated this already. I will repeat again for the fuck of it:

And to be fair, it would have been tough politically for Clinton to launch a pre-emptive strike......like I said: Europe would have went bezerk, there would be complaints that the intelligence was murky, the attack dogs from the GOP would have been on him, and the U.N. would have a useless debate on it for a year.......

But I would bet that there are many who wish he rose above that, and demonstrated leadership in facing something that he now claims he took seriously......and perhaps, just perhaps, things may be a little different today

If 9-11 did not happen would bush have gone into afghanistan? Doubt it. Would we have ben able to go into Iraq? Doubt it.

I am not sure if Bush would have went into Afghanistan if 9/11 did not happen. I doubt it. However, if AL Qaeda hit us somewhere else, another embassy bombing or warship strike, I am fairly confident Bush would have done more than dump some cruise missiles into empty camps.

Would he have been able to go into Iraq if 9/11 did not happen?....think about that for a moment, and the challenges he faced going into Iraq in a POST 9/11 world, where we already learned the lesson of not confronting dangers .......

Also to make the connection of a dingy filled with explosives in the middle east and flying planes into building in new york would of been a leap at best.

I agree with you. But then why the "Bush knew" campaign advanced by Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, moveon.org, etc. Hmmmmmm.......

I cut and pasted these

He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart

These that you cut and paste prove exactly my point. He took half-measures that were too baked in political miscalculation. There is excellent reading on what went down with the Sudan offer--Clinton choked. Indisputable information from credible sources. Do some research on how many times missions or I should say ideas were aborted because of risk averse thinking and politics by Clinton, his NSA, Albright, and others as well (including Republicans).

Just to repeat, I have done extensive reading on the subject from terrorism experts, investigative journalists, former administration officials, etc. The Clinton Administration failed. Yes, he took some measures. Yes, he raised the level of us "fighting" back. Yes, he recognized Al Qaeda was a threat. (he also recognized Saddam Hussein was a threat since he made regime change official policy-but that's another debate). But overall, his entire approach, despite escalating attacks against US interests, growing intelligence warnings, a formal declaration of war by Al Qaeda, etc....Clinton took half measures that not only did not confront a growing threat, but instead emboldened it.

To be clear, I blame Clinton big time. But I also blame Congress, The Pentagon, CIA, the press (yes, the press), GOP and DNC, I blame all.

We had our heads in the sand for too long. Period.

[jtk4]

yeah but if he did not have support, what would you expect him to do? rise above it or something.

What i was talking about could he have, without support of congress, legaly invaded afghanistan. I am asking now because i am not all that sure of political law. Does the president have that power? And if he did not would congress (were the dems in control or repub in 1998) aproved. Chances aer they would not of, no matter what clinton said, so why go in front of congress and give a speech you know will not get you what you want. Just wondering.

[igloo]

yeah but if he did not have support, what would you expect him to do? rise above it or something.

What i was talking about could he have, without support of congress, legaly invaded afghanistan. I am asking now because i am not all that sure of political law. Does the president have that power? And if he did not would congress (were the dems in control or repub in 1998) aproved. Chances aer they would not of, no matter what clinton said, so why go in front of congress and give a speech you know will not get you what you want. Just wondering.

Not sure if he had the legal right.......I do believe that the attacks on the USS Cole and our embassies are no different than an attack on our soil, legally.....I believe. If that is the case, I believe he can act. I think.

One thing I just thought of with respects to how we are structured in Afghanistan and troop level strength.

There is something that I believe we completely fucked up there, and actually Kerry mentioned it last week, and it did not seem to get much play. As that was Tora Bora.

I agree with kerry, and I said it at that time when Tora Bora wen t down. We completely botched that effort. When we had bin Laden pinned down there (if that was true), we should have used our own troops, and more of them, to finish the job instead of deferring to the AFghans. I know there was reasons as to why, and why Pakistani troops needed to be "counted on" to close their side of the border. But for me, the risk-reward was tilted too much to rely on anyone but ourselves. None of us were there, and reports are conflicting, but it would seem on the surface that was a grave error.