Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Democracy

If the "cold war" never went away, why don't grade school kids hide under their desks any more? What ever happened to the "Air Raid" drills.

Did anyone keep their bunkers stocked in NYCity, Chicago or LA?

That's the point, New Haven. We were lulled into a false security that Russia was our only real enemy and only threat for mass destruction on our soil. Hmmm. Wonder what happened? Because we've become so gullible to believe everything is secure including airplanes flights is why things like 9/11 happened -- it was another from of isolationism that we all believe it couldn't happen here (the very words the CIA and FBI gave the credibility of the revelation from the Al Queda agent in the Phillipines who previously described the attack on the World Trade Center). It wasn't just grade school kids who were taught the "duck and cover" and how do you know all the bunkers are now abandoned and not stocked with food? There's a rather large one under the Capitol building. The politicians will be safe anyway. Meaning the rest of us are expendable.

Can't recall who said it, where I read it, but it is good advice to:

Keep a good enemy

Russia was, actually, a good enemy. A good enemy keeps you on your toes.

Good anecdote, Tex-Star.

One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.
-Heinrich Heine

And I still do wonder how many wealthy people built bunkers and then turned them into wine cellars? At least they'll have one Hell of a time down there!

The Space Race, the Arms Race, the providing of arms to the North Vietnamese among other countries for which they still haven't paid Russia for and many other factors pre-Reagan spelled the end for the USSR. Detente would not have been possible with Gorbachev but he certainly had a motivation to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Every President has enjoyed his own unique providences that they likely had little or nothing to do with. History eventually reveals the truth and it can take a hundred years before the final analysis.

Although I'm short on knowledge about this subject when trying to pick which president from the list best represents the title, I was surprised to see Bill Clinton in the lead of votes. I think BC made too many mistakes during his eight years in office; the bombing of the Chinese Embasssy, the milk plan/drug plantt, and not following up on al Qaeda when the twin towers were attacked. I would be interested in hearing everybody's opinion to learn more about which president represented the best in fighting terrorism and promoting democracy, but the issue of fighting terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon. c.i.

Clinton didn't follow up on the first Twin Towers attack? News to me. What else would Clinton have been able to do at the time to follow up on the Twin Towers attack? The legislature would not give in on any tools to strengthen the CIA and FBI efforts. Was Clinton the bombadeer over the Chinese embassy or able to discern whether or not the intelligence on the drug plant was accurate (it's never been determined if there were, in fact, covert chemical and/or biological agents being manufactured there, another withholding of intelligence to protect sources). Regardless of foreign policy, those are military blunders which also have occured in Afghanistan and every other war. Really nothing to do with foreign policy. The fact is that the rest of the world was more comfortable with the U.S. and its President. No amount of excuses or rationlization will change that. Whether Colin Powell can go to the U.N. and convince the world and establish a formidable coalition to go into Iraq, for instance, will tell whether actions speak louder than words. I was uninspired by Bush's SOTU last night, managing to get through such flubs as his "penishula." It was a rehash of a rehash.

It's always easy to blame problems on the person who has left a position than for anyone who's come in to take the job. This administration has as least been wise enough not to play that game.

LW, Ever hear the term "the buck stops here?" c.i.

Or "if it's too hot in the kitchen........" c.i.

Lightwizard,

There is a fundamental difference between the approaches taken by the Clinton & Bush Administrations towards terrorism. Clinton treated it as a criminal matter and pursued international investigations and prosecutions if they could catch anyone. Bush is treating it more as a war.

The arrests of the group involved in the first attempt to take out the WTC revealed a larger international conspiracy, headed by bin Laden and also involved in the Kobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the bombings of our embassies in East Africa, and that of the USS Cole. Despite all of these events Clinton did nothing more than pursue criminal investigations, launch 40 or so cruise missiles against Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan - all timed to divert attention from his own personal problems. He also sent Madeline Albright to North Korea to open a direct dialogue - something no previous administration even considered doing - and signed a deal intended to buy them off their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programs, a deal which North Korea promptly ignored.

Hard to blame these errors on the Congress.

george, Thanks for providing the 'detailed' background of the Clinton administration's 'war on terrorism.' My impressions are pretty accurate most of the time, but my brain doesn't function at top speed as needed. c.i.

Unlike some of my crusty, conservative brethren (and sistren, of course :wink: ), I do not subscribe to the notion that Clinton didn't care about terrorism. I simply think, as george has pointed out, that Clinton's world view led him to attempt to deal with the problem in ways that were ineffectual, and which may have unfortunately emboldened terrorists to subsequently do more rather than less.

¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤
A2K -- It isn't just for breakfast anymore.

Tresspassers Will

I'm sure most of us don't see Clinton as the "I don't care about terrorism president," but his political savvy fell short of being effective in that war. I still think BC was a pretty good president - over all. He just happened not to be good or effective at dealing with the war on terrorism. It was a relatively new world threat without the hindesight of 9-11. c.i.

A difference in the fundamental approach? Well, duh -- there was a bit of a warning as to how that approach should be changed on 9-11 and obviously there were no effective psychics in the era of the 90's. If there had been, the changes would have been made immediately -- like increased and more effective airline security.

However, we did need a more aggressive intelligence program -- if you'll go back to the period after the first Twin Towers attack, you'll see that the both houses blocked legislation to facilitate tactics which are now finally in place. The criminal course of investigation and prosecution was a success but unfortunately still left Bin Laden at large (even though Clinton had issued an order to kill him on sight). The adminstration did more than one study on the vulnerability of attacks through various means by terrorists groups and especialy Al Queda and specifically the lack of effective airline security. The result was legislative inaction. I'm not saying that the Clinton Administration shouldn't have done more but Monday morning quarterbacking isn't going to change the past. The CIA and FBI certainly didn't raise enough of an alarm to prompt the attacks to be handled any other way than the way they were handled -- the terrorists are criminals and we are searching them down now as international criminals. The war in Afghanistan was to oust a regime who was harboring, aiding and abeting these criminals. If it were purely going to war to oust the Taliban, why was money sent to them by this administration supporting them? We had a cooperative coalition to go into Afghanistan. I don't believe Clinton did anything more than what his military and intelligence advisors told him was prudent at the time. So I suppose if anyone here were President they would have declared a War on Terrorism after the first WTC attack and also suppose it would be accepted with indescribable enthusiasm. This history is too recent and I don't believe we've been privey to all the intelligence information from Clinton's time in office. Ten or twenty years from now may tell a different story and it may be to each individual's liking or not what the whole truth reveals.

c.i. - Clinton's political savvy was hardly second rate. The poll is not selecting just a President's foreign policy but the adminstration's foreign policy and if its structure worked effectively in international diplomacy. That's a little off the topic and the essay that this discussion's link addresses. I didn't hear any Republicans shouting about the threat of terrorism or bringing up any legislation.

Please excuse this slight sidetrack, but it's related, and I'm using it as an excuse to get it off my chest....Does anyone but me think that if New York builds a structure on the WTC site, taller than the originals, it would be a stupid macho move, that would challenge terrorists to target it?

The world's tallest building is slated to be built in Shanghai as a center for a world financial center hub. Damn those Chinese!
It's penus envy? Well, their design is a cantalivered gigantic glass sculpture which isn't in the least phallic. The radar system covering NYC is being improved and may well be the most sophisticated in the world and the improved communications would advise them of a plane off course and on that trajectory much sooner than ever before possible. I don't see a design where there are any occupants above the line of sight to the surrounding buildings -- there is one being considered that has two towers that are unoccupied and they are taller than the WTC towers.

Sophisticated...shmophisticated...what one man can do, another man can counter-act. I just don't like the idea of playing thumb your nose, with so many lives at stake...especially in my back yard.

The point is that there are a lot of politicians out there and not one of them thought of the threat (which was documented by our intelligence) which made the Twin Towers so vulnerable, sticking up like "come fetch me" targets. If this was to appear to be turning the other cheek, that's suppose to be after one receives a slap. As many had said, we were sucker punched. That has to mean that we were suckers. Politicians make ideal suckers -- they're all dumb enough to fit the profile.

Good point GW, the slicker you think you are, the bigger sucker you can be.

The salesman who feigns that he can sell anything and knows how to close the sale like a steel trap is the one who can also be sold a bill of goods that a kindergartner might reject.