Why is Al-Qaeda gloating over the Democrats increase in power?

[Arkie]

Al-Qaeda looks after their own interests. Why does this make them happy? They have a goal that was nearly impossible, but we can't fall asleep while they quietly plan their future.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House"
-Iraq's al Qaeda wing leader

[enjolras]

Yes.. Al-Qeada is just wringing their hands because those wuss Democrats are in power.

I bet we actually strike a deal where we send over our wives and daughters to be raped 1 by 1 (save Al-Qeada the trip and everything).

[alkemical]

vicarious •
Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor
It happens to be

Like:
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used the poison in his tea
[and / he] kissed [him / her] goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun til someone dies

Don't look me at like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother, holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky cryin,
"Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'
Neither the brave nor bold
Will write us the story so
We won't give pause until the blood is flowin'

I need to watch things die
From a good safe distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same so
Why can't we just admit it?

Blood like rain fallin' down
[Drown on grave and ground / ?? ]

Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and voyeur
Stare at the
[transmittal / transmitter]
Sing to the death rattle

La, la, la, la, la, la, la-lie (x4)

Credulous at best
Your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men.
But pull your head on out
[Your head please / ??] and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again

The universe is hostile
So impersonal
Devour to survive
So it is, so it's always been ...

We all feed on tragedy
It's like blood to a vampire

Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
Much better you than I.

[Crushaholic]

The Democrats now have a chance to prove they can be tough on terrorism in their own way. We'll see what they attempt to do...

[Arkie]

'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll

Abu Hamza was identified in June as the late Zarqawi's successor
A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.
The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had stepped down to flee the Iraqi battlefield, he added.

He told US President George W Bush to "stay on the battleground".

"I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister.

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm

[freak6]

vicarious •
Credulous at best
Your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men.
But pull your head on out
[Your head please / ??] and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again


Right In Two

Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it.
Right in two.

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
And this is what they choose...

<b>Monkey killing monkey killing monkey </b><img src="http://www.stupidpicture.com/pics/bush_monkey.jpg">
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade,
And where there's one
they're bound to divide it,
Right in two.
Right in two.

[alkemical]

Holy Wars...
Brother will kill brother
Spilling blood across the land
Killing for religion
Something I don't understand

Fools like me, who cross the sea
And come to foreign lands
Ask the sheep, for their beliefs
Do you kill on God's command?

A country that's divided
Surely will not stand
My past erased, no more disgrace
No foolish naive stand

The end is near, it's crystal clear
Part of the master plan
Don't look now to Israel
It might be your homelands

Holy wars

Upon my podium, as the
Know it all scholar
Down in my seat of judgement
Gavel's bang, uphold the law
Up on my soapbox, a leader
Out to change the world
Down in my pulpit as the holier
Than-thou-could-be-messenger of God

[Taco John]

Why is Al-Qaeda gloating over the Democrats increase in power?

Who cares what Al Qaeda thinks? I mean other than sour graped out Republicans who just lost the best chance they ever had to make a difference in America and squandered the opportunity by writing Bush a blank check that they couldn't cash with the American people. Other than that, who cares?

[BroncoInferno]

I love this. These guys on Fox News keep trying to say that the terrorists were trying to dictate our elections, that they wanted the Democrats to win. Yeah, I can see them now: "Sh*t, Webb's down 2 points to Allen...AHMED, STRAP ON YOUR BOMB!!!" Hilarious!

[Taco John]

For what it's worth... The Republicans were my hope. I've never like Bush, as I think it requires a certain level of sophistication and smarts to be an effective president, but I took solace in the fact that the Republicans were talking tax cuts, budget cuts, school vouchers, and social security privitization. I'm not going to get any of that from the Democrats. And clearly, I'm not going to get any of that from the Republicans, even when they own every branch of government.

What an impotent party. I can't understand why any true conservative is shedding a tear over such a weak group of do-nothing nobodies losing power.

[Mile High Shack]

For what it's worth... The Republicans were my hope. I've never like Bush, as I think it requires a certain level of sophistication and smarts to be an effective president, but I took solace in the fact that the Republicans were talking tax cuts, budget cuts, school vouchers, and social security privitization. I'm not going to get any of that from the Democrats. And clearly, I'm not going to get any of that from the Republicans, even when they own every branch of government.

What an impotent party. I can't understand why any true conservative is shedding a tear over such a weak group of do-nothing nobodies lost power.

bolded and quoted for truth!!!:~ohyah!:

[bronco militia]

I love this. These guys on Fox News keep trying to say that the terrorists were trying to dictate our elections, that they wanted the Democrats to win. Yeah, I can see them now: "Sh*t, Webb's down 2 points to Allen...AHMED, STRAP ON YOUR BOMB!!!" Hilarious!



JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

[bronco militia]

of course, this isn't anything new....Terrorist have been saying this at least since 2004

[epicSocialism4tw]

What an impotent party. I can't understand why any true conservative is shedding a tear over such a weak group of do-nothing nobodies losing power.

No doubt. That group had a better opportunity than most generations of American leadership to make government more efficient and effective. Instead, they sat on their hands and declined to make decisions to protect their constituents, both in the short term and the long term.

[BroncoInferno]

Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, Militia. I'm sure they'd tell the media exactly what they want to happen.

[-Slap-]

Al-Qaeda looks after their own interests. Why does this make them happy? They have a goal that was nearly impossible, but we can't fall asleep while they quietly plan their future.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House"
-Iraq's al Qaeda wing leader

You're joking, right?

This Republican administration has done more to bolster the ranks of Al Queda than their most wildeyed supporters ever dreamed possible. They couldn't have created more terrorists if they had been deliberately trying.

[bronco militia]

Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, Militia. I'm sure they'd tell the media exactlywhat they want to happen.

I'm not sure I follow...

my link was pre-election....this is nothing new really

[alkemical]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

Maybe the statements came from "this" al-Q

[BroncoInferno]

I'm not sure I follow...

my link was pre-election....this is nothing new really

Think about it...they tell western journalists exactly what they want to happen--knowing the reporters would get the news out and people would be compelled to do the opposite? My guess is their toungues were planted firmly in cheek...

"Christ, Sadhir, McCaskill is behind 3....load up the truck for a suicide run!"

Hilarious!

[BroncoInferno]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

Maybe the statements came from "this" al-Q

Hilarious!

[bronco militia]

Think about...they tell western journalists exactly what they want to happen--knowing the reporters would get the news out and people would be compelled to do the opposite? My guess is their toungues were planted firmly in cheek...

"Christ, Sadhir, McCaskill is behind 3....load up the truck for a suicide run!"

Hilarious!

you give these clowns way to much credit...one disparaging political cartoon and these idiots are ready to commit suicide for their god

[BroncoInferno]

you give these clowns way to much credit...

You give them too little...

[OrangeDoofus]

I don't know why al-Qaeda is celebrating. Pelosi has made it perfectly clear that she cares more about the Double Everyone's Taxes Bill than about the Give Al Qaeda Free Visas Bill.

Of course, everyone knows that the top priority will be the Outlaw Heterosexual Marriage Bill.

[Barry Ramey]

Seems like a bomb going off in Spain just before their elections dramatically changed things in that country. Bottom line is most terrorists believe our countrty is weak and it's not our troops they think are weak. They think the American people are too weak to win a war, so just keep chipping away, just like in Vietnam and eventually you'll have people turning on each other. And that's exactly what's been happening. There are many that think al quaeda is happy republicans lost because now they just want to have talks and hold hands and sing songs around campfires now that democrats have power. Yeah, that's it. It's not because they think the democrats will wave the white flag and give up. Nah.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't know why al-Qaeda is celebrating. Pelosi has made it perfectly clear that she cares more about the Double Everyone's Taxes Bill than about the Give Al Qaeda Free Visas Bill.

Of course, everyone knows that the top priority will be the Outlaw Heterosexual Marriage Bill.
Damn straight!!! They can't get it right anyway so time to let Gays give it shot!!

[Taco John]

you give these clowns way to much credit...one disparaging political cartoon and these idiots are ready to commit suicide for their god



Sounds like the O'reilly Nation to me.

LOOK OUT! Someone said "HAPPY HOLIDAYS!" RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sounds like the O'reilly Nation to me.
LOOK OUT! Someone said "HAPPY HOLIDAYS!" RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Equating fanatical, murderous Islam to O'Reilly's "culture war" is either egregiously ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Knowing you, it's more likely the latter than the former.

[Taco John]

Equating fanatical, murderous Islam to O'Reilly's "culture war" is either egregiously ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Knowing you, it's more likely the latter than the former.


No skin off my back. I find O'Reilly's culture war to be just as empty and moronic as people getting uproariously offended at a cartoon making fun of their saviour.

Just as that cartoon isn't going to take away Mohammad from them, neither will the term "Happy Holidays" change the meaning of Christmas to me.

I don't find this to be either an ignorant, nor dishonest position.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Just as that cartoon isn't going to take away Mohammad from them, neither will the term "Happy Holidays" change the meaning of Christmas to me.


You are missing the point. O'Reilly has chosen to provide visible public opposition to the observeable phenomenon of the progressive secular social agenda. Included under that general umbrella is the defense of using Christian terminology and Christian imagery in the public forum to describe Christian tradition. It has little to do with the value of Christmas itself, and everything to do with both maintaining tradition, and honoring the people that the holiday is intended for.

[Taco John]

You are missing the point. O'Reilly has chosen to provide visible public opposition to the observeable phenomenon of the progressive secular social agenda. Included under that general umbrella is the defense of using Christian terminology and Christian imagery in the public forum to describe Christian tradition. It has little to do with the value of Christmas itself, and everything to do with both maintaining tradition, and honoring the people that the holiday is intended for.


I'm not missing the point at all. I don't need O'Reilly to defend me from "Happy Holidays." Christmas is in no more danger of losing its meaning to me than the teachings of Mohammad to those who would be angered by the comics. O'Reilly can take his wife-cheating, loufa scrubbing sanctimonious mug out of my holiday. I don't need his protection. Christmas will do just fine without him.

The irony is that Christmas was actually a pagan holiday to begin with, but was later encroached upon by the powers that be at the time in an effort to try and wipe paganism off the map. Nevertheless, Christmas has a particular and personal meaning to me that I will hold regardless of who wishes me a Happy Holiday. I don't feel the need to shove Christmas down anybody's throats, and certainly don't feel threatened by anyone giving me ANY sort of holiday greeting.

No sir. I'm not missing the point at all.

[BroncoBuff]

Al-Qaeda looks after their own interests. Why does this make them happy? They have a goal that was nearly impossible, but we can't fall asleep while they quietly plan their future.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House"
-Iraq's al Qaeda wing leader

You've missed a basic distinction here ... it's Al-Quada IRAQ that issued that gloating statement.

And the answer to the question "why"? is probably that this administration undertook a substantially* unilateral war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, a war which has cost, by most counts, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and has thrown the nation into a hellish guerilla civil-war. Can you imagine some nation invading us like that? I'd be pissed too.

And I'd gloat, too.




* I'm sorry, W*GS, there's that word again. Click here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substantially)

[Spider]

Al-Qaeda looks after their own interests. Why does this make them happy? They have a goal that was nearly impossible, but we can't fall asleep while they quietly plan their future.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House"
-Iraq's al Qaeda wing leader
Mommie ,`mommie help me the boogey man is going to get me

[Spider]

You are missing the point. O'Reilly has chosen to provide visible public opposition to the observeable phenomenon of the progressive secular social agenda. Included under that general umbrella is the defense of using Christian terminology and Christian imagery in the public forum to describe Christian tradition. It has little to do with the value of Christmas itself, and everything to do with both maintaining tradition, and honoring the people that the holiday is intended for.

you are so full of Shít on this your eyes should be brown ....... Comericialism , free market destroyed christmas ....... What in the **** does Santa have ot do with X mas ?
Rudolph ?
Frosty the snowman ?
O'Reilly is as stupid as they come , and so are the people that believe his bullshít ......if you celebrate X mas , Handing out Gifts , sending xmas cards , you are part of the problem , these things have little to do with the meaning of Christmas ..........

[BroncoBuff]

I'm not missing the point at all. I don't need O'Reilly to defend me from "Happy Holidays." Christmas is in no more danger of losing its meaning to me than the teachings of Mohammad to those who would be angered by the comics. O'Reilly can take his wife-cheating, loufa scrubbing sanctimonious mug out of my holiday. I don't need his protection. Christmas will do just fine without him.
No sir. I'm not missing the point at all.

Well done! :thumbsup:


O'Reilly is 99% about ratings ... after 20+ years of failure in the business, he finally found a very rewarding niche giving voice to all the anger that middle-aged and older men experience ... you know, all the 45-50+ y.o. men who think that everyone under 30 is either smoking pot or having gay sex while trying to undercut their social security benefits?

They need and appreciate (with ratings) a visible face giving voice to their anger .... and, to dig deeper, life's unfulfilled expectations. Like Thoreau said, "all men lead lives of quiet desperation." And lots of them watch O'Reilly.

[BroncoBuff]

Mommie ,`mommie help me the boogey man is going to get me

LOL
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear

"We have nothing to fear .... but Republican monopolies!"

[Blueflame]

Well done! :thumbsup:


O'Reilly is 99% about ratings ... after 20+ years of failure in the business, he finally found a very rewarding niche giving voice to all the anger that middle-aged and older men experience ... you know, all the 45-50+ y.o. men who think that everyone under 30 is either smoking pot or having gay sex while trying to undercut their social security benefits?

They need and appreciate (with ratings) a visible face giving voice to their anger .... and, to dig deeper, life's unfulfilled expectations. Like Thoreau said, "all men lead lives of quiet desperation." And lots of them watch O'Reilly.

Also, while Faux News is spending all its airtime whipping its viewers into a frenzy over a non-issue like the wholly-imaginary "War on Christmas", those myopic "news consumers" remain largely ignorant and uninformed on myriad other issues that do matter. Things like the deliberate revelation of the name of a covert CIA agent for political gain...

[Spider]

LOL
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear

"We have nothing to fear .... but Republican monopolies!"

mommie , mommie , the booger man is under my bed viciously rearranging my teddy bears SAVE ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blueflame]

LOL
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear

"We have nothing to fear .... but Republican monarchies!"

Fixed it for ya... ;)

[SteveTensi13]

mommie , mommie , the booger man is under my bed viciously rearranging my teddy bears SAVE ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish Clinton would've had that mindset before he let Al Quaida walk into the country. Alas, liberals have a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" mindset when it comes to national security.

I fear for my country.:pity:

[OrangeDoofus]

I wish Clinton would've had that mindset before he let Al Quaida walk into the country. Alas, liberals have a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" mindset when it comes to national security.
Yeah, that's why Clinton did nothing when the evidence of the LAX bombing surfaced, and let thousands of Americans die.

Oh wait, I'm getting my terrorist attacks confused again.

[Cito Pelon]

"Islamic totalitarianism", to quote a neocon. It is a big deal. It has been for what, 14 consecutive centuries? The GOP's approach to combatting it was a disaster. It was a two-pronged approach: One, attack in panic without forethought or allies. Two, make it profitable, because hey, that's what we do.

50% of Americans knew they would have to be bailed out of their panic, and be taxed heavily to recoup their profit-taking. So we'll see.

[24champ]

I wish Clinton would've had that mindset before he let Al Quaida walk into the country. Alas, liberals have a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" mindset when it comes to national security.

I fear for my country.:pity:

I am hopefull we can still achieve victory in Iraq. Hope this story helps.

BAGHDAD, Iraq: President Jalal Talabani said Thursday that he had been assured by Democrat congressional leaders during a recent visit to Washington that they would continue to support the government here and had not plans for a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

Talabani, a Kurd whose post is ceremonial, said Democrats also backed his idea of placing U.S. troops in bases while putting Iraqis in charge of security in and around cities.

[B]"They all told me that they want the success of Iraq's democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism," Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September.

"One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world," Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster.


Asked whether the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld meant the Bush administration's policy in Iraq would collapse, Talabani said, "I know George Bush as a clear and strong man who does not bow down to blackmail."

He said that the "Americans made big mistakes in Iraq" including the rejection of its leaders hopes to form an interim Iraqi government immediately after the invasion rather than occupying the country for more than a year.

Speaking about foreign fighters who are known to play a major role in the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqis as well as U.S. troops, Talabani said the country was subject to a "foreign invasion."

He said that thousands of non-Iraqi fighters had been killed, more than the 4,000 acknowledged by al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayoub al-Masri.

"We are being subjected to a foreign invasion, and we don't have enough forces to fight this invasion," Talabani said hinting that there was a need for U.S. troops to stay.

The Iraqi government and U.S. officials accuse Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq, a claim that Iraq's western neighbor denies, claiming it is impossible to control the long desert border.

"All Arab countries have terrorists in our country, hundreds each, and also there are others from Muslim countries too," Talabani said.

He added that "200 fighters used to enter the country every day and now it is about 30 a day."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/09/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_President.php

[Spider]

I wish Clinton would've had that mindset before he let Al Quaida walk into the country. Alas, liberals have a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" mindset when it comes to national security.

I fear for my country.:pity:

you are so full of shít ...... Clinton was able to have the 93 bombers arrested , then wanted to tighten air port security , but your Reos voted it down ...... seriously Bullshít those drunk bastards you pick up ....... it wont fly here

[24champ]

Yeah, that's why Clinton did nothing when the evidence of the LAX bombing surfaced, and let thousands of Americans die.

Oh wait, I'm getting my terrorist attacks confused again.

I still have my suspicions about the TWA-800 plane crash. The crash was never solved I believe, who knows maybe mini-nukes were used...

[Cito Pelon]

I'd start a "listen to ol' Cito" thread again, but since few do, I'll just say it here.

I called everything exactly how it panned out today with this "war on terrorism". I called the China/NK/Iran/Israel deal exactly as it has panned out. And I'm telling you right now the US has to somehow, someway get China and Russia to cooperate with us to disarm the wanna-be nuclear powers. That is absolutely the first step to global stability. The wanna-be's have to be stopped right now, and that won't be possible with China and Russia trying to help them as a counter to the US's coalition. That small window of opportunity I saw on 9/11 is obviously long gone, so now the US has less leverage, but cooperation between the big powers has to happen, or imagine how chaotic this can get. Certainly more chaotic than it is even now.

I used to say there was too many players competing on the Big Table gambling for world supremacy. Hell, that was eight years ago on the old DPO board, and now there's even more with NK now playing at the Big Table, and Iran certainly looking to do so. I called all this way back then, did I not oldtimers? This has to stop, and the only way to stop it is for the biggest players to band together and dominate. That's gonna be bloody, bloodier than it would have back then, less bloody than it will be eight years from now, but it's better than total chaos 30-40 years from now when Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and so on get nuclear weapons. How can you possibly stabilize the planet then? Hell, all those nations will be invincible, and certainly some will want to get their oats off by expanding. If you think it's a mess now, just wait. No more nuclear-weaponed states, and make it happen now. Trouble is the Chinese and Russians don't see it that way.

[freak6]

If a Gore had been in office, the chances of 9/11 being successful would have gone down in half at least. If it had gone off, Osama would have been dead within 3 months.

"I wasn't on point, <b>I didn't feel a sense of urgency"</b>- Mr. Bush

[Cito Pelon]

Mommie ,`mommie help me the boogey man is going to get me

That was a good one. The GOP and their overplaying the "boogie-man" card finally put to rest.

But can I say these Mohammedan nuts should be slapped around a little bit?

[Arkie]

If a Gore had been in office, the chances of 9/11 being successful would have gone down in half at least. If it had gone off, Osama would have been dead within 3 months.

"I wasn't on point, <b>I didn't feel a sense of urgency"</b>- Mr. Bush

LOL You said Gore. I like his environmental policies if they were realistic. The #1 priority is fiscal policy. Nothing else matters if this doesn't get addressed.

[Blueflame]

That was a good one. The GOP and their overplaying the "boogie-man" card finally put to rest.

But can I say these Mohammedan nuts should be slapped around a little bit?

As long as we start with Osama Bin Laden.... what ever did happen to that guy anyway? Finding him and bringing him to justice for 9/11 should still be the #1 priority, imho...

[DBruleU]

As long as we start with Osama Bin Laden.... what ever did happen to that guy anyway? Finding him and bringing him to justice for 9/11 should still be the #1 priority, imho...

And what would that do? End all terrorism? Solve our problems? Things would be the same with him dead or alive. Imprisoned or not.

[Blueflame]

And what would that do? End all terrorism? Solve our problems? Things would be the same with him dead or alive. Imprisoned or not.

For one thing, it would send a message loud and clear that no terrorist is going to be allowed to attack Americans on our own soil and walk away with impunity. The man who claims responsibility should not remain unpunished more than five years after the attacks. The fact that he was allowed to escape while our resources were diverted to Iraq makes our country look weak on terror. And the threatening tapes he sends from time to time only add to that perception of weakness in the eyes of the world. IMHO, we should have finished the task of capturing the terrorist who planned and financed the attack our country before taking off on a tangent in the quest to depose a different despot (of a country that just "happened" to have a lot of oil).

[BroncoBuff]

For one thing, it would send a message loud and clear that no terrorist is going to be allowed to attack Americans on our own soil and walk away with impunity. The man who claims responsibility should not remain unpunished more than five years after the attacks. The fact that he was allowed to escape while our resources were diverted to Iraq makes our country look weak on terror.

Had I been Kerry's campaign manager in 2004 - I wouldda run on your post, Blue - to the virtual exclusion of all other issues. TURN THE TABLES:
"The President is weak on terror ... why is it that our nation, with the most powerful military on Earth, cannot find, capture and bring to justice one man - the man who knocked down those towers?! The memories of 3000 dead Americans demand change! Ladies and Gentlemen, George W. Bush is weak on terror."
And I wouldda run a commercial with the 2 Bush soundbites back to back: "Wanted: Dead or Alive," and, "I don't know where he is, I don't spend that much time thinking about him," said just 2 or 3 months apart.

Kerry was a wimp.

[Stuck In Texas]

If a Gore had been in office, the chances of 9/11 being successful would have gone down in half at least. If it had gone off, Osama would have been dead within 3 months.


What makes you say this? How would a Gore Administration been able to reduce the risks? How would he have been able to get at bin Laden when the current administration can't?

The problem is that the U.S. knows pretty much where bin Laden is, but what can they do? If the U.S. invades to get him, it puts Musharraf in danger from his own population. The last thing we need is for him to be overthrown by the radicals in his own country. Don't forget - Pakistan is a nuclear power.

[Stuck In Texas]

For one thing, it would send a message loud and clear that no terrorist is going to be allowed to attack Americans on our own soil and walk away with impunity. The man who claims responsibility should not remain unpunished more than five years after the attacks. The fact that he was allowed to escape while our resources were diverted to Iraq makes our country look weak on terror. And the threatening tapes he sends from time to time only add to that perception of weakness in the eyes of the world. IMHO, we should have finished the task of capturing the terrorist who planned and financed the attack our country before taking off on a tangent in the quest to depose a different despot (of a country that just "happened" to have a lot of oil).

I agree with you that it would be great to get bin Laden, but in my opinion, the message was already sent loud and clear "that no terrorist is going to be allowed to attack Americans on our own soil and walk away with impunity". I think the Taliban received that message and while he's still alive, I'll bet bin Laden has also received the message. He may be alive, but he's not living the same life he was before 9/11.

In fact, it appears that al-Qaeda was surprised by the strength of the American reaction.

From a newspaper article:
" But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.
Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
"Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and operatives had more autonomy.""

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

I would love to get bin Laden, and while the war hasn't been perfect, I do think the message was sent, and received.

[W*GS]

Cito's still playing Risk, I see.

[Blueflame]

Had I been Kerry's campaign manager in 2004 - I wouldda run on your post, Blue - to the virtual exclusion of all other issues. TURN THE TABLES:
"The President is weak on terror ... why is it that our nation, with the most powerful military on Earth, cannot find, capture and bring to justice one man - the man who knocked down those towers?! The memories of 3000 dead Americans demand change! Ladies and Gentlemen, George W. Bush is weak on terror."
And I wouldda run a commercial with the 2 Bush soundbites back to back: "Wanted: Dead or Alive," and, "I don't know where he is, I don't spend that much time thinking about him," said just 2 or 3 months apart.

Kerry was a wimp.

IMHO, we needed to "make an example" of the man responsible for planning and funding 9/11. He... not Saddam... needed to be publicly dragged from a "spider hole" and tried in an international court before the eyes of the world.

This message would have resonated with the American people, I think. Whether or not the corporate media would have reported it without a negative spin is another question, though.

[Blueflame]

I agree with you that it would be great to get bin Laden, but in my opinion, the message was already sent loud and clear "that no terrorist is going to be allowed to attack Americans on our own soil and walk away with impunity". I think the Taliban received that message and while he's still alive, I'll bet bin Laden has also received the message. He may be alive, but he's not living the same life he was before 9/11.

In fact, it appears that al-Qaeda was surprised by the strength of the American reaction.

From a newspaper article:
" But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.
Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
"Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and operatives had more autonomy.""

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

I would love to get bin Laden, and while the war hasn't been perfect, I do think the message was sent, and received.

I disagree... as long as Bin Laden still sporadically sends us threatening tapes, one has to conclude that he is unpunished and unrepentant. The fact is, we do not know what kind of a life he's been living since 9/11... indeed, he could be living in the lap of luxury as a guest of the Saudi royal family (Bush's buddies) for all we know. And the Taliban? Other than allowing Bin Laden refuge in their country, their role in 9/11 was rather small. They are still in power in Afghanistan and the poppy fields are back to full production. Oh, and the pipeline Bush wanted is under construction, isn't it?

No, we needed to make an example of Bin Laden... to relentlessly pursue him and the other leaders of Al Qaeda... until they were captured and then publicly tried. Taking off on a tangent into Iraq instead... and in the process allowing him to escape... was a mistake, I think. Public opinion throughout the world supported the efforts to capture the terrorists.

[spdirty]

As for the title of this thread, just look at what Murtha, Turbin Durbin, Ole Teddy, Jimmy Carter, etc. have been saying over the past few years. Why wouldn't you want them in power if you are al Qaida?

[W*GS]

An interesting blog:

http://armsandinfluence.typepad.com

[Cito Pelon]

Cito's still playing Risk, I see.

And you'll always play the skin flute. How ya doin', fag?

[Stuck In Texas]

I disagree... as long as Bin Laden still sporadically sends us threatening tapes, one has to conclude that he is unpunished and unrepentant. The fact is, we do not know what kind of a life he's been living since 9/11... indeed, he could be living in the lap of luxury as a guest of the Saudi royal family (Bush's buddies) for all we know. And the Taliban? Other than allowing Bin Laden refuge in their country, their role in 9/11 was rather small. They are still in power in Afghanistan and the poppy fields are back to full production. Oh, and the pipeline Bush wanted is under construction, isn't it?

You're right. We don't know what kind of life he's been living since 9/11, with one exception. We know he's not living in the open and doesn't have the freedom to move anywhere he wants. That may not matter to him, but at least now he knows he's a marked man. Also, I don't think he'd be living with the Saudi Royal Family (I know you only used it as an example). He doesn't like the Saudi rulers. The Taliban not only provided refuge to bin Laden, but they allowed the terrorist training centers and refused to hand him over to face justice. I wonder how much different the world would be if they had handed him over. Unfortunately we'll never know. I'm confused when you say "they are still in power in Afghanistan". They are not in charge of the country. They no longer control the government. Certainly there are pockets of Taliban activity, but they are definitely not the political power in the country. They are now simply a rebel force attempting to overthrow the new government. I won't address the pipeline, because I know that many people on here subscribe to that conspiracy theory - I'm not one of them and I figure we'll just go 'round and 'round on that one.


No, we needed to make an example of Bin Laden... to relentlessly pursue him and the other leaders of Al Qaeda... until they were captured and then publicly tried. Taking off on a tangent into Iraq instead... and in the process allowing him to escape... was a mistake, I think. Public opinion throughout the world supported the efforts to capture the terrorists.

I would love to see us bring him to justice, but I'm not sure I'm willing to risk having the ruler of a nuclear power with a radical muslim populace overthrown in order to get him. It would be worse than Iran getting nukes now since Pakistan's program is much more developed. It's a scary world.

[Blueflame]

You're right. We don't know what kind of life he's been living since 9/11, with one exception. We know he's not living in the open and doesn't have the freedom to move anywhere he wants. That may not matter to him, but at least now he knows he's a marked man. Also, I don't think he'd be living with the Saudi Royal Family (I know you only used it as an example). He doesn't like the Saudi rulers. The Taliban not only provided refuge to bin Laden, but they allowed the terrorist training centers and refused to hand him over to face justice. I wonder how much different the world would be if they had handed him over. Unfortunately we'll never know. I'm confused when you say "they are still in power in Afghanistan". They are not in charge of the country. They no longer control the government. Certainly there are pockets of Taliban activity, but they are definitely not the political power in the country. They are now simply a rebel force attempting to overthrow the new government. I won't address the pipeline, because I know that many people on here subscribe to that conspiracy theory - I'm not one of them and I figure we'll just go 'round and 'round on that one.

I would love to see us bring him to justice, but I'm not sure I'm willing to risk having the ruler of a nuclear power with a radical muslim populace overthrown in order to get him. It would be worse than Iran getting nukes now since Pakistan's program is much more developed. It's a scary world.

Don't you think that it would have gone a long way toward discouraging other potential terrorists if the US (with the full sanction of the UN and all the rest of the world) had done "whatever it takes" to capture Bin Laden and the other AQ leaders and truly hold them accountable for their actions? It doesn't really matter how he lives or if he can or cannot move freely throughout the world. He's still alive (presumably... despite occasional unverified reports of his demise), still sending taped threats (or someone else is; claiming to be him... tapes that certainly seem to display a smug self-satisfaction rather than any regrets) and the families of the 9/11 victims still have not seen him face any kind of justice for the attacks. And to other would-be terrorists, it probably "looks" like he "got away with it".

The whole world supported our efforts to find/arrest Bin Laden. We needed to finish the job when we had the chance to do it.

Yes, it is a scary world... and getting scarier all the time.

[W*GS]

And you'll always play the skin flute. How ya doin', fag?

How nice.

[freak6]

What makes you say this? How would a Gore Administration been able to reduce the risks? How would he have been able to get at bin Laden when the current administration can't?



Clinton knew the #1 risk to our national security was Al Qaeda. As soon as Bush came into office, he DEMOTED the terrorist czar to a sub cabinet level, so that Dick Clarke had ZERO access to the President until it was to late. Clarke sent memos, tried to shake up the Whitehouse, but with the worst National Security Advisor in history whose dumbass didn't even know that addressing terrorist threats were a part of her job as <b>National Security Advisor</b> is it suprising the ball got dropped.

As I posted, Bush also answered your question himself.

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency" - Mr. Bush.

This is after the FBI and CIA concluded a few days after his inauguration that Al Qaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

"I didn't feel a sense of urgency" ... Then 9/11.

Gore took the threat of terrorist attack as the most serious threat to our national security. The August 6th PDB would have been taken seriously, and he would have done alot more than simply warn the FAA, which is all Rice/Bush and Co. did. This is after first testifying that there was nothing to take action on in the August 6th PDB. Then 2 minutes later she testified that she did take action.

That was perjury, our Sec. Of State perjured herself right there in the 9/11 commission hearings. She should be in jail for it, she dishonored the memory of all the heros that fell in 9/11, by lying about what they did before it. Disgusting.

[W*GS]

Clinton knew the #1 risk to our national security was Al Qaeda.

Supposedly. He sure didn't act like it was.

Holding lots of meetings and sending lots of memos didn't impact al-Qaeda in the slightest.

[freak6]

Holding lots of meetings and sending lots of memos didn't impact al-Qaeda in the slightest.

Because that's all he did, right? That's it, right?

9/11 should have been foiled. But alas,

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency. There are some things I wish we'd have done" - Mr. Shrub er Bush.

Meanwhile, Osama is still plotting more attacks 5 years later.

"Catching or killing Osama Bin Laden is my #1 priority" - Bush on Osama

"I repeat what I said earlier, I'm just not that concerned with him" - Bush on Osama after he got away.

Impeach this incompetent buffoon already...

[freak6]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AJzeK9pOdak"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AJzeK9pOdak" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[W*GS]

Because that's all he did, right? That's it, right?

Pretty much. If you can provide proof that Clinton and his administration undertook actions that impacted or degraded al-Qaeda's planning and training for 9/11 (remember, that started on Clinton's watch), I'd like to see it.

[Spider]

Pretty much. If you can provide proof that Clinton and his administration undertook actions that impacted or degraded al-Qaeda's planning and training for 9/11 (remember, that started on Clinton's watch), I'd like to see it.

Huh ?
Clinton watch ? I know you are not to bright about Goverment , but Terrorism , às`we know it started in the Barbary wars ,`where we faught Arabs for shipping lanes , then 1948 , then the IRA went right threw Carters , Reagans office ( Beruit 1983 )The Iran Contra affair , then Reagans admin pulled Iraq`off the terrorist list ,then Russia helped speed things along in 84 with invading Afghanistan , causing us to jump in , then 1993 wtc bombing ( 1 month after clinto took office) then Kobal towers , Somalia , several us embassy bombings , USS Cole )
I know you like to be a Shít W*GS ,but try to be an honest shít .........

[W*GS]

None of us need a (faulty) history of terrorism from you, Spider.

Care to answer the question?

[Spider]

None of us need a (faulty) history of terrorism from you, Spider.

Care to answer the question?
LOL faulty ....care to show me where I am wrong ?
As`for answering the question , LABF has answered it more times then I care to shake a stick at .....`Dont look to me to be your guide when you cant pay attention ............

[W*GS]

LOL faulty ....care to show me where I am wrong ?

The USSR occupied Afghanistan in 1979, and left in 1989.

The rest is such a mishmash it's difficult to determine your point, irrelevant to my question as it is.

As`for answering the question , LABF has answered it more times then I care to shake a stick at .....`Dont look to me to be your guide when you cant pay attention ............

LABF's little laundry list of counterterrorism actions proposed by the Clinton administration has much more to do with scoring political points in the aftermath of the OKC bombing than fighting pro-actively against al-Qaeda.

[Spider]

The USSR occupied Afghanistan in 1979, and left in 1989. yeah so , in 84 things realy heated up .......

The rest is such a mishmash it's difficult to determine your point, irrelevant to my question as it is.

Ha! thats what I thought , you are so quick to open your piehole when it comes to clinton yet , you cant show where Clinton did more or less then anyone else , when it is clear terrorism started before Clinton was president ......`thanks for playing though ......



LABF's little laundry list of counterterrorism actions proposed by the Clinton administration has much more to do with scoring political points in the aftermath of the OKC bombing than fighting pro-actively against al-Qaeda.

as I said dont look to me to be your guide , you are lost when it comes to politics , you are an Anarchist , so you look to me to guide you through this , i wont do it .. the answers are there , you need to understand them ......

[W*GS]

yeah so , in 84 things realy heated up .......

Backpedalling isn't your best move.

Ha! thats what I thought , you are so quick to open your piehole when it comes to clinton yet , you cant show where Clinton did more or less then anyone else , when it is clear terrorism started before Clinton was president ......

I was referring to Clinton's actions in regards to the threat posed by al-Qaeda (which we've been told time and again was practically Clinton's obsession), not Clinton's policies in the overall history of terrorism.

I'm simply asking why, if Clinton was so hyperfocussed on al-Qaeda, so little was actually done about it. Memos and meetings are one thing, taking the war to al-Qaeda (which, if you'll recall, they were already waging upon us) is something else entirely.

as I said dont look to me to be your guide , you are lost when it comes to politics , you are an Anarchist

Yeah, yeah. Try out your junior-high-level debate skills on someone else.

[Spider]

Backpedalling isn't your best move. who is back peddaling ?



I was referring to Clinton's actions in regards to the threat posed by al-Qaeda (which we've been told time and again was practically Clinton's obsession), not Clinton's policies in the overall history of terrorism. Speaking of back peddaling .......

`I'm simply asking why, if Clinton was so hyperfocussed on al-Qaeda, so little was actually done about it. Memos and meetings are one thing, taking the war to al-Qaeda (which, if you'll recall, they were already waging upon us) is something else entirely.
wrong president goof , that was `Bush ....... try to keep up .....



Yeah, yeah. Try out your junior-high-level debate skills on someone else.
sure thing just as soon as you quit asking the same questions over and over , after they have been answered 146+ times ......... you would think sooner or later it would sink in ...........

[TheDave]

Another thread veering off topic in order to talk about clinton... W*gs must be here...

[Blueflame]

Supposedly. He sure didn't act like it was.

Holding lots of meetings and sending lots of memos didn't impact al-Qaeda in the slightest.

Could that possibly be because Clinton didn't view himself as a "unitary executive"? Seems to me he just might have been more effective at combating the emerging threat of Al Qaeda if the Congressional Republicans had also recognized the threat posed by AQ. Instead, in full zipper-hunt mode, they mocked him, accusing him of "wagging the dog" when he tried more aggressive means of addressing the problem of terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, has enjoyed a rubberstamp Congress from Day One... but instead of looking for competence in his cabinet appointees, he was looking for blindly loyal yes-men. Although guys like Richard Clarke warned them about AQ, they remained essentially clueless and unconcerned until 9/11 actually occurred. Oh... and he fired Richard Clarke for telling him stuff he didn't want to hear... and he continues to ignore the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, leaving us still pretty much vulnerable.

[Spider]

you would think W*GS married Monica by the way he carries on

[TheDave]

you would think W*GS married Monica by the way he carries on


If i had to guess... i'd say he was Monica. How else do you explain this infatuation combined with that god forsaken picture of carrot top ;D

[Spider]

If i had to guess... i'd say he was Monica. How else do you explain this infatuation combined with that god forsaken picture of carrot top ;D

well if he is , he has nice títs ;D

[W*GS]

Could that possibly be because Clinton didn't view himself as a "unitary executive"?

The President does have the power to command. There's a big area between a de facto dictator and just one among equals. One of the bigger issues surrounding the Clinton era was his apparent inability to make "command decisions" when 20/20 hindsight allows us to realize he should have.

Seems to me he just might have been more effective at combating the emerging threat of Al Qaeda if the Congressional Republicans had also recognized the threat posed by AQ. Instead, in full zipper-hunt mode, they mocked him, accusing him of "wagging the dog" when he tried more aggressive means of addressing the problem of terrorism.

That's partly Clinton's fault, for failing to sell them on the danger al-Qaeda posed.

Not everything Clinton screwed up was someone else's fault. The ongoing excuse-making and rationalizations for his errors is tiring. We hear the mantra of "accountability, accountability, accountability" from the left; but that principle doesn't extend to Clinton - quite clearly. Why?

Bush, on the other hand, [...]

Bush's screwups don't excuse Clinton's.

[Blueflame]

The President does have the power to command. There's a big area between a de facto dictator and just one among equals. One of the bigger issues surrounding the Clinton era was his apparent inability to make "command decisions" when 20/20 hindsight allows us to realize he should have.
20/20 hindsight says the Bush administration should have heeded the warnings as well.

That's partly Clinton's fault, for failing to sell them on the danger al-Qaeda posed.
Even the very best of salesmen can't sell when the sales pitch falls on deaf ears. The Republican Congress was bent on its agenda of impeachment, which was always going to happen; Starr was spending unlimited $$ in an investigation in search of a crime. Republicans were intent on "payback for Nixon"....

Not everything Clinton screwed up was someone else's fault. The ongoing excuse-making and rationalizations for his errors is tiring. We hear the mantra of "accountability, accountability, accountability" from the left; but that principle doesn't extend to Clinton - quite clearly. Why?
Clinton absolutely should be held accountable for his mistakes. There are many things he did that I didn't like.

Bush's screwups don't excuse Clinton's.
And Clinton's don't excuse Bush's....

[W*GS]

Clinton absolutely should be held accountable for his mistakes.

Such as neglecting to take direct action against al-Qaeda...

Clinton and his team allegedly knew just about all there was to know about al-Qaeda, yet didn't act on that knowledge in any effective manner.

[Blueflame]

Such as neglecting to take direct action against al-Qaeda...

Clinton and his team allegedly knew just about all there was to know about al-Qaeda, yet didn't act on that knowledge in any effective manner.

Please post the link to support the claim that Clinton and his team "knew just about all there was to know about AQ"....

Sure, they were trying to acquire information... and recognized the threat. But I don't think they had anywhere near as much reliable intel as you're suggesting.

[Stuck In Texas]

Clinton knew the #1 risk to our national security was Al Qaeda. As soon as Bush came into office, he DEMOTED the terrorist czar to a sub cabinet level, so that Dick Clarke had ZERO access to the President until it was to late. Clarke sent memos, tried to shake up the Whitehouse, but with the worst National Security Advisor in history whose dumbass didn't even know that addressing terrorist threats were a part of her job as <b>National Security Advisor</b> is it suprising the ball got dropped.

As I posted, Bush also answered your question himself.

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency" - Mr. Bush.

This is after the FBI and CIA concluded a few days after his inauguration that Al Qaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

"I didn't feel a sense of urgency" ... Then 9/11.

Gore took the threat of terrorist attack as the most serious threat to our national security. The August 6th PDB would have been taken seriously, and he would have done alot more than simply warn the FAA, which is all Rice/Bush and Co. did. This is after first testifying that there was nothing to take action on in the August 6th PDB. Then 2 minutes later she testified that she did take action.

That was perjury, our Sec. Of State perjured herself right there in the 9/11 commission hearings. She should be in jail for it, she dishonored the memory of all the heros that fell in 9/11, by lying about what they did before it. Disgusting.
Didn't Clarke also initially praise the Bush Administration's approach to terrorism? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html That brings me back to my whole point about Clarke. He was either lying then or he's lying now. Either way, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously. As for the PDB, I have read it and reread it and I know the question has been asked, but what, other than notifying the FAA could the government do with that information? Try analyzing it without the benefit of hindsight. To me, there is nothing new in that PDB. Even the part about hijacking planes is inaccurate. I don't have it in front of me, but doesn't it reference hijacking the planes in order to exchange hostages? Doesn't the PDB reference "government buildings" being watched in NYC? No government buildings were attacked in NYC. All I'm saying is that there wasn't enough information there to prevent the attacks. I guess if the government REALLY cracked down ahead of time to stop terrorism, that might have worked, but that would have taken a restriction on individual rights and that was BEFORE 9/11. If people are so up in arms now about how "rights are being violated", how much would they have screamed about the restrictions before the attacks ever took place?

Has the Bush Administration dropped the ball in a few places? Yes, but I think they did as well as anybody could have given their circumstances. Even Al-Qaeda was shocked at the quick response of the U.S. government to not only respond militarily, but to shut down air traffic and block their second level attacks.

[Spider]

what a load of shít ...........

[Stuck In Texas]

Please post the link to support the claim that Clinton and his team "knew just about all there was to know about AQ"....

Sure, they were trying to acquire information... and recognized the threat. But I don't think they had anywhere near as much reliable intel as you're suggesting.

Here is just one of several places online I found about Michael Scheuer who was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. He is not a fan of either President Bush or President Clinton. I suspect his perspective is one of the most accurate. Anyway, in this article (I can find more if you want) he mentions the number of opportunities that President Clinton had to get bin Laden. Like I said, he's pretty critical of both administrations, but I thought this addressed the question you're asking. If it doesn't, I apologize.

Here's the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/clintons_flawed_legacy.html

[Stuck In Texas]

what a load of shít ...........

touche ;D

[W*GS]

Please post the link to support the claim that Clinton and his team "knew just about all there was to know about AQ"....

We've been told time and again by the pro-Clinton partisans here that the Clinton team had the bead on al-Qaeda but were distracted and/or quashed in their attempts to act. You pretty much said that, too.

Sure, they were trying to acquire information... and recognized the threat. But I don't think they had anywhere near as much reliable intel as you're suggesting.

So the counter-terrorism program and agenda that the Clinton team handed over to the Bush team (which they promptly fumbled) wasn't as great and practically on the launching pad as we've been told here, over and over?

There's a disconnect between what you're saying and what the Clinton worshippers are saying.

[Spider]

Here is just one of several places online I found about Michael Scheuer who was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. He is not a fan of either President Bush or President Clinton. I suspect his perspective is one of the most accurate. Anyway, in this article (I can find more if you want) he mentions the number of opportunities that President Clinton had to get bin Laden. Like I said, he's pretty critical of both administrations, but I thought this addressed the question you're asking. If it doesn't, I apologize.

Here's the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/clintons_flawed_legacy.html

Ì dont know about that since Novak wrote it , but here is the low down and what it all boils down to ...... Clinton treated terrorism as a criminal offense , bush treated it as an act of war ............I was in Bush's corner right up to Iraq ...........I was more forgiving of Mistakes up untill Iraq had no WMD .....Now I hold everything against bush , like teling Rummy he had a job up to 2008 , find out Bush was replacing Rummy ..............I know alot of people say getting Bin Ladin wont stop terrorism , they are right it wont , but capturing and making Bin Ladin pay for his crime is the right thing to do and gives so many Americans closure ........ Bush realy screwed up there

[Blueflame]

Here is just one of several places online I found about Michael Scheuer who was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. He is not a fan of either President Bush or President Clinton. I suspect his perspective is one of the most accurate. Anyway, in this article (I can find more if you want) he mentions the number of opportunities that President Clinton had to get bin Laden. Like I said, he's pretty critical of both administrations, but I thought this addressed the question you're asking. If it doesn't, I apologize.

Here's the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/clintons_flawed_legacy.html

No instantly-discernible bias in that article, is there? ;)

[Stuck In Texas]

Ì dont know about that since Novak wrote it , but here is the low down and what it all boils down to ...... Clinton treated terrorism as a criminal offense , bush treated it as an act of war ............I was in Bush's corner right up to Iraq ...........I was more forgiving of Mistakes up untill Iraq had no WMD .....Now I hold everything against bush , like teling Rummy he had a job up to 2008 , find out Bush was replacing Rummy ..............I know alot of people say getting Bin Ladin wont stop terrorism , they are right it wont , but capturing and making Bin Ladin pay for his crime is the right thing to do and gives so many Americans closure ........ Bush realy screwed up there

I agree about Bush and Rumsfeld. Not only was that disingenuous, but politically foolish. As for the WMD, I know I'm in the minority on my opinions, and it's been rehashed so many times, it's probably not useful to get into that debate again. I would love to see us get bin Laden, but without a full scale invasion of that area of Pakistan I just don't know if we'll be able to do it. Here's a question that's off the subject, but one I've been thinking about for a while: What do we do if we somehow ever capture him alive? That would be a beautiful thing. lol

[Stuck In Texas]

No instantly-discernible bias in that article, is there? ;)
Yeah, it's hard to find stuff anymore that isn't biased one way or another. It's my fault that I didn't pay attention to the author, I just know that RCP is usually fairly neutral. If you want, I can find some other sources. I've heard about this guy before.

[Blueflame]

We've been told time and again by the pro-Clinton partisans here that the Clinton team had the bead on al-Qaeda but were distracted and/or quashed in their attempts to act. You pretty much said that, too.
So the counter-terrorism program and agenda that the Clinton team handed over to the Bush team (which they promptly fumbled) wasn't as great and practically on the launching pad as we've been told here, over and over?

There's a disconnect between what you're saying and what the Clinton worshippers are saying.

What I said was this... with a partisan Congress that did not acknowledge the threat posed by AQ, Clinton had fewer options and resources (don't forget; Congress controls the "purse strings") than does the current administration. Is it reasonable to say "Clinton shoulda got them years ago" (with fewer resources), yet give Bush a pass for failing (with unlimited $$ at his disposal) to get them in the five years since 9/11?

[Spider]

I agree about Bush and Rumsfeld. Not only was that disingenuous, but politically foolish. As for the WMD, I know I'm in the minority on my opinions, and it's been rehashed so many times, it's probably not useful to get into that debate again. I would love to see us get bin Laden, but without a full scale invasion of that area of Pakistan I just don't know if we'll be able to do it. Here's a question that's off the subject, but one I've been thinking about for a while: What do we do if we somehow ever capture him alive? That would be a beautiful thing. lol

if you invade a country you better be damn sure of the reasons .........
guess work wont cut it .... I understand the complexity of going into Afghanistan to nail bin Laden ,`but we should have finished the job in afghanistan before moving on ..........

[Blueflame]

Yeah, it's hard to find stuff anymore that isn't biased one way or another. It's my fault that I didn't pay attention to the author, I just know that RCP is usually fairly neutral. If you want, I can find some other sources. I've heard about this guy before.

Given that Novak chose to reveal a covert CIA agent's name, compromising her safety and the safety of her team (essentially anyone she'd every worked with), I'd say his credibility is nil... and his bias (and conflict of interest) profound and overt.

[Blueflame]

if you invade a country you better be damn sure of the reasons .........
guess work wont cut it .... I understand the complexity of going into Afghanistan to nail bin Laden ,`but we should have finished the job in afghanistan before moving on ..........

Yep.

[SteveTensi13]

Given that Novak chose to reveal a covert CIA agent's name, compromising her safety and the safety of her team (essentially anyone she'd every worked with), I'd say his credibility is nil... and his bias (and conflict of interest) profound and overt.

Sorry, Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst not a covert op. Even the writer of the bill said their was no violation regarding the intent of the bill she authored, hence no crime. But, please spin away as always!

[Blueflame]

Sorry, Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst not a covert op. Even the writer of the bill said their was no violation regarding the intent of the bill she authored, hence no crime. But, please spin away as always!

If that's the case, then why are the taxpayers still paying for a special prosecutor who has not yet completed his investigation?

I'd say we don't yet have all the answers re: Valerie Plame and it's possible that we may never have them (for reasons of national security).

I'll believe there was no crime when the special prosecutor says there wasn't one. But please spin away... ;)

[defenseman]

If a Gore had been in office, the chances of 9/11 being successful would have gone down in half at least. If it had gone off, Osama would have been dead within 3 months.

"I wasn't on point, <b>I didn't feel a sense of urgency"</b>- Mr. Bush

Sure...dman

[defenseman]

And what would that do? End all terrorism? Solve our problems? Things would be the same with him dead or alive. Imprisoned or not.

True statement...dman

[alkemical]

To some extent. I think that by thinking one way or the other things would be different or the same - is silly.

One cannot tell what the future will be with what decisions are made in the present. To think otherwise - is absurd and a bit insane.

Unless of course, you don't believe in free will and assume destiny has everything mapped out.

[defenseman]

To some extent. I think that by thinking one way or the other things would be different or the same - is silly.

One cannot tell what the future will be with what decisions are made in the present. To think otherwise - is absurd and a bit insane.

Unless of course, you don't believe in free will and assume destiny has everything mapped out.

the point is , THEY have everything mapped out, not us. We will be sitting , watching and proactive when we need to be I'm sure. They, believe we all need to die, THAT WILL NOT CHANGE....dman

[alkemical]

To some extent. I think that by thinking one way or the other things would be different or the same - is silly.

One cannot tell what the future will be with what decisions are made in the present. To think otherwise - is absurd and a bit insane.

Unless of course, you don't believe in free will and assume destiny has everything mapped out.

the point is , THEY have everything mapped out, not us. We will be sitting , watching and proactive when we need to be I'm sure. They, believe we all need to die, THAT WILL NOT CHANGE....dman


Uh, i think you misread my post and where it was directed towards.

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=defenseman;1353775]


Uh, i think you misread my post and where it was directed towards.

Perhaps...dman

[TailgateNut]

True statement...dman
Iggymans statement is pure BS, it bwould not be the same. We wouldn't get the occasional "letters from Osama" signed with a smirk!
It may not change the actions of all of the terrorists, but it would serve its' purpose. One, justice served, unless you believe he had nothing to do with 9/11. Two, others may think twice if they know me stand behind our threats of "finding the culprit", unless you don't feel a sense of urgency!


Using Iggymans logic, we shouldn't hunt down murderers, because it wouldn't stop other murderers from commiting crimes! Classic!