The "global war on terror" is over

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp At the beginning of this thread I commented that the implications of the language change were interesting. No one seems to have picked up on that so I might as well make a few comments. I don't think the new sloganeering will sell but that remains to be seen.

As you can see, it has not derailed the Volconvo discussion one bit.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Logjam Naw, the funny stuff came from Clinton. "I didn't have sex with that women....etc." That was funny. Tragic, but funny nevertheless. AND the rest of the World was laughing.

Poor Logjam -- still logjammed back at Clinton. He cannot appreciate the delicious irony of the imbalance in the Bushista spin. Well, as they say, "Clinton lied, no one died; Dubya lied, thousands died." So, in a way, I can see why Logjam wants to go back to the Clinton days: the world was so much safer then. ;-)

[northtexan]

Quote by: Logjam Won't happen on Bush's watch. Might happen if the Hildebeast is elected.

LOL! And a few days later, the Bushistas are talking about a partial pullout BEFORE the 2006 elections.

On the other hand, Hillary's election wouldn't make it happen either, unless she were to grow a spine.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Logjam What about the 3,000 that died on 9/11? While Bush was president when it happened all of the planning happened during the Clinton years. You remember those years don't you? You know, the ones where Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism....Remember the USS Cole? Do I need to list more?

Yeah, I attribute all of those 9/11 deaths to the asleep-at-the-switch Bushistas, they who IGNORED the warnings about terrorism and plans to combat terrorism that Clark presented as a legacy of the Clinton Administration, they who ignored the clear warnings of the CIA that OBL wished to attack America by crashing planes into buildings, and they who had Dubya reading a children's book to a Florida classroom well after the WTC was attacked, and then had him chickenhawk his way around the country to a secure facilty, where he could cower until it was all over.

Clinton may not have been much of a president, but at least he WAS a president -- not the abomination that Dubya and his Bushevik administration have been.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Sonart Not exactly... ...Clinton had to get busy right away, with the first attack on the World Trade Center occuring about a month after Clinton took office. So the first order of business was to capture, try and convict the perpetrators, Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim and Wali Amin Shah, all now behind bars. You can visit them. Clinton's administration went on to stop terrorist plots to: kill the Pope, blow up 12 U.S. airliners, the UN headquarters, the FBI building, the Israeli embassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington bridge and an attack on the U.S. embassy in Tanzania. Clinton was able to do this after he tripled the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI and doubling counter-terrorism funding overall, along with creating a national security office to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts. Now of course you'd think the Republicans in Congress would be right there, helping our president fight the evils of terrorism. Well, not exactly. When Clinton proposed increasing our intellegence agencies wiretap authority, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shot it down. His reasoning? ''When you have an agency that turns nine hundred personal files over to people like Craig Livingstone... it's very hard to justify giving that agency more power.'' That would be a reference to 'Filegate', remember? Yet another Clinton 'Scandal' that congressional investigation proved groundless. We can see where the Republican priorities were. When Clinton asked Congress for more funds for anti-terrorism efforts, Orrin Hatch said, ''The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding.'' When Clinton backed legislation to expand access to banking records, in order to follow illegal money trails, it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. George Bush will later call for identical legislation. When Clinton appointed the Gore Commission to review and make recommendations regarding terrorist threats to our airlines, the airline industry vigorously lobbied against it through the GOP run committees as 'too expense'. And when Clinton supported legislation to make it easier to trace Internet traffic and fight cyber-terrorism, the Republican congress howled. To be fair, so did the far left, who saw the bill as a "plan to strengthen the repressive powers of the federal government". (Kindly note that since 9/11, Bush and John Ashcroft have pushed legislation for each of these issues.) Gingrich, however, was more supportive when Clinton hit Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawks in 1998. ''The President did exactly the right thing,'' he said. ''By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists.'' After the embassy bombings in Africa, Clinton issued a directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Alas, the Republicans didn't like that. Seems it conflicted with Saint Ronald's executive order 12333 prohibiting the assassination of heads of state. The fact that Osama bin Laden was not a head of state apparently went right past them. Then, after the Cole bombing, instead of funding the terrorists like Reagan or ignoring them like Dubya (pre-9/11, of course) Clinton appointed Richard Clarke as the first national anti-terrorism coordinator, tasked with creating a plan to take out al-Queda. He came up with a plan to break up al-Queda cells, arrest their personnel, attack their financial support, freeze their assests, give aid to countries fighting terrorists, and increase covert activity in Afghanistan to wipe out training camps and capture bin Laden. As a Bush official said, Clarke's plan amounted to ''everything we've done since 9/11.'' Then a horrible thing happened. George Dubya Bush took office. From the moment he took office, his administration completely ignored efforts to combat terrorism, prefering to focus on... here it comes... missile defense. Star Wars. During the transition, NSA Sandy Berger arranged 10 briefings with Bush's new NSA, Condoleeza Rice, assuming they'd realize the threat of terrorist attacks and want to continue Clinton's work. Nope. In fact, when TIME magazine asked Rice, she ''declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present''. Unfortunately, the New York Times did a story at the time. Quote: ''As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleeza Rice, and gave her a warning. ACCORDING TO BOTH OF THEM, he said that terrorism -- and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it--would consumme for more of her time than she had ever imagined.'' The final ingominy came in February of 2001, when the Hart-Rudman commission issued their final report. In it, they warned that ''mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern.'' Their advice? Create a new federal agency, ''A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.'' Bush's response? Zip! Zilch! Nada! Nicht! Nope, Bush was busy spending 42% of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, Kennebunkport or Crawford, Texas, spending important quality time with his wife and his dog. Not until after 9/11 did Bush decide to put in action everything that Clinton's team had tried so hard to get past Republicans. Ironical, huh!" .

Ooh, wonderful post, Sonant.

[northtexan]

Quote by: lathurberk I'm sure the Jihadists would be surprised to learn that they were created by George W. Bush.

That's right: they were created by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and especially by their minion, Rumsfeld.

[northtexan]

Quote by: oranged America's War on terror is over, but World War 3 is just beginning. China and Russia are combining and growing more hostile to America. Any occupied area in the middle east could start of revolution against America, and Europe is starting to get mad at America, too. Mexico is angry at border patrol policies. Canada will follow Europe where ever it goes. North Korea has always hated America, in South Korea, recent interviews show that though the government there is allied with us, the people there hate America more than they hate North Korea. Not to mention Southern Africa is mad about not getting enough aids money and what not. The entire planet seems to hate America exept Brittain. Oh and Antarctica, they always give some support.

No, no, no: not world war three. No, it's "World Struggle Three." Listen to Randi Rhodes sometime.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Sonart My, how non-partisan of you... The main difference here is that those of us on this thread... Patrick, RickSp, Nono, myself, and many others, were making the same arguement against LBDubya's and Rumsnamara's war back before it actually started. In other words, our foresight matches our hindsight. In yet other words... We told you so!!! Exactly our point. They weren't in Iraq when we invaded. They came to Iraq to kill Americans and prevent the creation of an American client state. We created the Iraqi mujahadeen. Oh, yaaawn... what devastating defeats? Apparently so 'devastating' that insurgent violence is at it's highest levels ever. They find more aid and comfort in the gross negligence and incompetence with which this misadventure has been handled by LBDubya and Rumsnamara. How incredibly lame to blame the failure of a policy on the people who argued against it. What Patrick Henry said... I recall a Pew study that said Muslim support for Islamic terrorists had dropped way down. However, that same report said that Islamic support for the United States had not changed and remained low, and European distrust of America had increased. . .

That's right: those of us who were out in the streets protesting BEFORE the invasion was perpetrated, as well as after, don't appreciate being called johnny-come-latelys in our critique. This is especially true because our warnings about what would happen if Iraq was invaded have proved accurate in spades -- if anything, we UNDERESTIMATED the mess the invasion would make.

But, then, I remember the recently-late General Westmoreland during the Tet Offensive, standing before the cameras in front of the American Embassy in Saigon to explain how everything was under control and the offensive a horrible defeat for the Viet Cong, only to flinch as an explosion went off behind him. That was one of the turning points in American attitudes toward the Vietnam War: the light at the end of the tunnel was a Viet Cong bomb blowing a hole in the American Embassy. The amazing thing is how similar the Bushista spin is about Iraq to the Democratic AND Republican spin about Vietnam.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: ibm the government has treated their people like tool (granted there are many in the populace).

Which government does treat its population differently ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Libertarian Exactly. The republican controled government and consertitive media DOES flip-flop more times than they want to admit and most of them just accuse other groups of fliping there ideals.

Mass-media has become a tool in politicians' hands to manipulate masses. Parties' shades are meaningless.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PatrickHenry In fact Clinton's watch had some significant successes against international terror. Bush has been unsuccessful in reducing the numbers of jihadists, and has even been responsible for creating more of them, according to CIA sources in Iraq.

B.Clinton's decision resulted in that Osama is still alive.
G. Bush has decided to change Arabic states' political surface, while that process can eliminate (and/or minimize an influence of) terrorists that reside within these states.

There have always been Islamic fanatics (that interpratate Koran in a very weird way - put it extremely midldly) within Arabic states. No one needed to create these people. The difference :
- they were passive, then
- they are active, now

If not Bush today, then other generations to come would have to face them. It does not matter whether it is Bush. It could be you.
The main reason :
- oil
States that heavily rely on oil supplies need that resource to support their eceonomy, market, science, technology, ect. Today, while majority of non-Arabic states have made scientific and technological progress, that oil is needed much more than any time before, and a demand will "soar" with years to come.
Who is to be blamed, then ? All of us.
Many states have been importing oil from Arabic countries for decades, while doing not much to change these Arabic states' political structures.

B. Clinton tried to keep "passive Isalmic fanatics" off the core the real issue : oil reserves.
G. Bush has decided to re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies. By entering Iraq, "passive Islamic fanatics" have become "active" ones.
If we make a switch, then B.Clinton would face the same or similar problem, as G.Bush today. The names are meaningless.
The core factor : technology and science. We have no any other source than the oil to support a state with fundamental needs for an existance and a progress. Otherwise, Mankind descends into caves, or so.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yikes! It looks like Osborn didn't have his coffee this morning.

He can get a tea, instead.
Osborn F Enready for President :-)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Rainbow Mass-media has become a tool in politicians' hands to manipulate masses. Parties' shades are meaningless.

All too true. We lost 5 Gi's over the weekend, 7 more today. The total is now over 1800 with nothing at all to show for it, and no end in sight. Hardly a word from the mass media, the casualties don't even rate a page one story.

[ibm]

Quote by: Rainbow Which government does treat its population differently ?

i don't know. but let's suppose you have a point, does that make the way our government treats its people right?

[Zeebadee]

Oops, seems that the "global war on terror" is back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/po...gewanted=print

This could get interesting if Bush is really going against his handlers, and pushes the issue of how to characterize his administration's policies.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: ibm i don't know. but let's suppose you have a point, does that make the way our government treats its people right?

Any government treats its nation the way that both interact and influence each other.
A politically and socially weaker population, allows a governing body to upkeep a tight and
strong grip over that population.
As a population becomes a politically and socially stronger, then a governing body must comply with that population's demands and realese that grip.

Since majority of people are poorly educated, then a governing body reigns on its own, most of the time.
Why to blame a governing body, since it rules on its own ? and not majority of people who neglect and/or fail to get a solid education ?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee Oops, seems that the "global war on terror" is back. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/po...gewanted=print This could get interesting if Bush is really going against his handlers, and pushes the issue of how to characterize his administration's policies.

I guess they realize that their new marketing isn't working. Back to the old standard.

[lathurberk]

It is amazing to see the hackles that were raised over a few impertinent comments. I have to admit to touch of culture shock upon returning to the fray after a number of days in the high desert of Northern Arizona, where i was witness to the more compelling apologetics of sand, and sagebrush, and thunder. Maybe there is too much power in this perspective, because it seems to render the bickering tone of these posts into petty emptiness.
I find it odd that i'm in the position of defending an opinion poll, when it has long been my contention that most polls are full of leading questions, and preordained conclusions. Even if we overlook the question of bias, i wonder that we invest these studies with so much potency. Are we so obedient, and so rootless with respect to core convictions, that we must bathe ourselves constantly in the treacherous waters of public opinion? History is riddled with examples of entire nations full of people holding foolish views, installing terrible leadership, and commiting all manner of collective evil. Most of mankind's spiritual paths have the object of overcoming this world---not being ruled by it.
Thus i beg you to indulge me in the tiniest note of chagrin, at having put myself in the position of defending a specific example of a practice that i usually object to in a general sense.
The study in question is a sixteen nation survey of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, released 23JUN05. And though not earthshaking, the results are modestly encouraging. It shows an increase in favorable attitudes toward the U.S. of about 3 to 6 percentage points in France, Germany, Spain, and Russia. Favorability is down slightly in Britain, (pre-bombing), and Turkey. Of greater interest is the fact that the percentages are up significantly, (15 to 23 points) in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Jordan. India continues to have a very high opinion of America, (71%). Another very encouraging trend is a steep decline in favorable attitudes toward Islamic terrorism, throughout the Muslim world. Like i said, not earthshaking. But i brought it up in the first place merely as a note of caution to those who seemed to be girding themselves to dance on America's grave.
Frankly, i don't know what i expected. I was asked if i really wanted to play this game, and the question seems more appropriate now, not because of the intimidation that it was meant to engender, but simply out of a profound sense of world-weariness, for politics especially, that dogs my return to civilization. I thought that there might be a bit more balance in the train of comments that followed my posts, but apparently i've strayed into a closed council of liberal solidarity, and i know from experience that amoungst such company, i cannot offer even a single atom of my mind without giving offense. That we might persuade on another is not even a remote possibility, and this realization renders further argument a tedious, pointless exercise.
All that remains is for me to leave you to your clique, with a twinge of regret at having found such obviously able intellects in the service of a morally bankrupt ideology. It is a pitfall of the most able amoung us, that the iron of their resolve lends strength to the rhetorical prison that they unconsciously fashion for themselves. It is a note of caution i offer only because of the countless times i have found myself in the same trap. And because frankly, this personal prison is but a microcosm of the slavery we all will face if your socialist ideals ever triumph. Against that day, i leave with you a standing invitation to go skating over the river Styx, past the sorrowful city of Dis, to survey the ponderous wreck of your master where he remains deposed, upside-down in the ice.

[RVonse]

Quote by: lathurberk I find it odd that i'm in the position of defending an opinion poll, when it has long been my contention that most polls are full of leading questions, and preordained conclusions. .

I for one can't figure out what you have tryed to say but it is very encouraging to hear that the rest of the world is not quite so pissed off at us right now. Perhaps their is some hope.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow B.Clinton's decision resulted in that Osama is still alive.

Lovely 9/11 hindsight... C. Bush has done so much better.

Quote by: Rainbow G. Bush has decided to change Arabic states' political surface, while that process can eliminate (and/or minimize an influence of) terrorists that reside within these states.

Worked like a charm, hasn't it. pffft! :rolleyes:

Quote by: Rainbow G. Bush has decided to re-shape Arabic states' political arena, in order to have uninterrupted oil supplies.

Ahhh, so when Bush looked us in the eye and said this is not about blood for oil, he was lying. Glad to hear one of Dear Leader's minions admit it.

Quote by: Latherburk I find it odd that i'm in the position of defending an opinion poll, when it has long been my contention that most polls are full of leading questions, and preordained conclusions.

Ever notice how politicians and pundits react to polls? If a poll goes against their position, they'll say that a true leader is not swayed by polls, that it's their job to lead, not follow, and that their opponent is simply a wishy-washy poll follower. If the poll favors their position, they'll say that the American people are behind them, and that their opponent is ignoring the will and wisdom of the American people.

Quote by: RVonse I for one can't figure out what you have tryed to say but it is very encouraging to hear that the rest of the world is not quite so pissed off at us right now. Perhaps their is some hope

Make no mistake, Vonse... they're still quite pissed at us. Just marginally less so.


.