georgeob1"
"I think the real point is that bin Laden isn't particularly important anymore. We have the terrorist organizations on the defensive and are fighting it out with them in their own neighborhood - not in the USA. We have destroyed their training infrastructure and have lured them into a war of attrition in Iraq which we will win."
Say that first sentence to the faces of the widows and orphans of the 911 attacks and see where that gets you.
The second? A mish mash of meaningless rhetoric that fails to distinguish the rebels fighting in Iraq from the larger al Quida born networks that are now presently operating in 60 countries and no longer concentrated in the hills of Afghanistan.
We are fighting in Iraq primarily an indigenous force of guerrillas arising from the population, and not in significant portion the remains of al Quida.
As to terrorism at large in the last few years? The world has seen a significant rise in terrorist attacks, albeit, not in the US. However, in eleven and a half years, only three different major attacks were perpetrated on the US mainland, and one of those was the McVeigh bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building. As to the other two, the initial garage bombing of the WTC was 5 months after Bill Clinton took office, after which the Clinton administration began to formulate an administration-wide program to counter terrorism, unless "terrorist czar" Richard Clarke is a liar about this. There is no evidence that the outgoing George H W Bush's administration informed the incoming Clinton administration anything about al Quida in 1992 as the Clinton people did 8 years latter with bush 43, yet under each, the US suffered deadly attacks.
So who would logically be more at fault if an attack occurred months into their administration; one who had no warnings from the people who manned the office before them, or an administration that was told directly by the out going administration that al Quida was a direct and deadly threat to the security of the nation?
You people blame Clinton more than you blame Bush.
This is that "Double-Think" that comes from the far Right.
As to the bombings of US embassies, recall this: the Sect of State under Bill Clinton asked for increased security for US embassies in 1997, and the Republican controlled Congress denied funding to upgrade embassy safety, as too costly. Imagine that? Bill Clinton tells Congress "Boys we have to "D" up at our embassies world-wide"
and the Republicans yawn, and say "fuggetaboutit."
What happens next? Bombings.
Thanks, GOP-controlled Congress.
georgeob1
The Clinto administration obsessed about killing OBL and expended most of our inventory of Tomahawk missiles in a fruitless attempt to kill him. They not only didn't get him, they allowed us to suffer an escalating series of terror attacks starting with the 1993 attempt to take down the World Trade Center, and continuing through the bombing of our barracks in Saudi Arabia, two of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, culminating in a second, successful attampt to take down the World Trade Center.
At least you admit that the Clinton administration WAS obsessed with getting Bin Laden, if only Bush had been too, perhaps those 3,000 civilian Americans who dead in the 911 attacks might be alive today.
The barracks bombing in SA, the embassy attacks and the Cole were all a horrible things. However, defending against terrorism in a foreign land is not the same as defending against it at home. The embassies were not secure in large part due to past ( read Republican) and Clinton administration policies as well as the Executive Branch refusal to call for funding adequately security upgrades as recommended by the Inman Commission in the late 1980's, the Cole was because those sailors on duty let that small boat get within killing distance in direct violation of orders to shoot anything that approached that close.
"A U.S. government commission appointed to investigate why two U.S. embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were vulnerable to terrorist bombings issued a scathing report yesterday, criticizing "the collective failure of the U.S. government over the past decade" to prepare for terrorist attacks and to adequately fund security improvements at American embassies.
"Responsibility for this failure can be attributed to several administrations and their agencies, including the Department of State, National Security Council, and Office of Management and Budget, as well as the U.S. Congress," said the report of the panel, chaired by retired Adm. William J. Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/stories/security010899.htm
http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/globalpartnerships/safeguarding/threatreduction/crowesystemsandprocedures.htm
Hang Clinton if you want, but bring enough rope to string up Reagan and Bush 41 as well.
Redacted>>>"In Fiscal Year 2000 the State Dept. had $554 million for Embassy security. That was the full funding of the President's Fiscal Year 2000 request. But in 2001 Clinton felt he needed more money to do this. The full House approved the full request. It was $1.058 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, marked up the bill to include only $637 million, so that was a significant shortfall."
http://www.hri.org/docs/statedep/2000/00-08-07.std.html
That was a Republican controlled Senate, by the way.
But, none of these rise to the level of what Bush let happen by his lack of curiosity or a personal call to defend the nation to the best of his abilities. How can anyone say that it is sufficient action for a President of the United States to receive a daily report from his own CIA that is entitled "al Quida determined to attack US" and not raise holy hell about what is going on to prevent it.
What in fact did Bush do? Bush stayed on vacation. Bush cut brush. Bush did not call for daily updates on the situation. Bush did not increase funding for anti-terrorist programs. Bush cut that funding.
How can anyone with a lick of sense consider that those are the actions of a diligent man whose first call to duty is to protect us?
I beg to differ, I would take Clinton's obsessions about al Quida any day as a response to that threat, and any sane person would.
georgeob1
After 9/11 Bush appropriately and decisively changed the game to one in which we have the advantage, and one that takes the fight to them. Now Democrats attack the Administration for not emphasizing their own demonstrably failed policies. Doesn't make sense. No right thinking leader would resume policies that have prove3n themselves to be failures. The Democrats are really seeking self-justification in a situation in which the facts are not with them.
Sadly, no. Bush did not. He cut funding for counter terrorism, he opposed the formation of the Congressional 911 commission, and he opposed the formation of the independent 911 commission. It was not until there was vast public support for both commissions that Bush flip-flopped and agreed to back these commissions, albeit with so little funding as to midwife a stillborn independent commission.
We are 3 years out from 911 and still our seaports are vulnerable to smuggled cargo that could devastate a US city, with 5% of containers checked.
What did Bush say about this security lapse during the first debate with John Kerry? He rolled his eyes, smacked his lips and sneered about how much it would cost and to expect Kerry to raise taxes to pay for it.
Well, I fu&king hope so, because Bush has done nothing about this, yet used the boogieman of "higher taxes" to refrain from adequately funding an important feature of US Homeland security.
Again. Insane.
Bush demanded the censorship of 27 pages of the Congressional 911 Commission on which a Mideast nation supported al Quida through official government agencies.. we know this to be the Saudis, now 12 months later.
Why did Bush demand that this information be withheld from the American people? For what purpose are the American people denied information on which nation added al Quida?
Do you imagine if that nation was Iraq Bush would not have climbed the Washington Monument and proclaim it to the heavens?
As to defeating terrorism, one has to understand whom one is fighting, and the inability of the Busheviks to delineate between Iraqi guerrillas and the more far-flung network al Quida has metastasized into is appallingly naïve.
It's that ostrich-like faith based community mindset again, ignoring reality until it is too late.
Want numbers as to worldwide acts of terrorism over the last few years?
Think things have quieted down a bit?
As the GOP Congress told Clinton in '97
"fuggetaboutit."
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
"There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002."
"A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties."
Therefore, we are trading a few corpses for a dramatic increase in walking wounded, how very sad. Truly, how very sad.
Nevertheless, let us be realistic now. If those guerrillas in Iraq are "terrorists" then their acts of "terrorism" ought to be tallied as "acts of terrorism" but these attacks are not counted in this report.
Why do people call them terrorists if they do not count their violent acts as acts of terrorism?
Any idea about this other than to perpetrate an intellectual fraud as to the increased violence from terrorism and an increase that would reflect poorly on the Bush failures to destroy al Quida and its mutant offspring?
Or are the Busheviks finally going to admit that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi guerrillas are indigenous fighters and not al Quida operatives?
One can not have it both ways, saying that we are fighting in Iraq against "terrorists" and deny that the violence such people do are acts of terrorism.
Is there even the simplest village idiot in the land who thinks al Quida is rushing in to Iraq to go toe to toe with American firepower when they can wait and bomb from afar?
For your pleasure:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/pgt_2003/appg5.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/pgt_2003/appg2.jpg
