DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 367, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/21/2005 12:02:52 PM · #1
sorry, here's a link to the story I posted above:
Story.
03/21/2005 12:01:10 PM · #2
It appears there was indeed a plan for appropriating Iraq's oil fields/industy by the Bush administration prior to the March 19, 2003 beginning of the war. In fact, as reported by Greg Palast, BBC and Harper's Magazine, there were two plans by two opposing factions within the Bush administration. The neocons and Pentagon, led by Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to break the Opec Cartel by privatizing the Iraqi oil industry and greatly increasing production of oil to bring prices down. The second plan by the state dept along with the US oil companies was for a simple overthrow of the Sadaam Hussein and keeping the Bath Party in power. They opposed the selling off of Iraq's oil and instead backed a plan for maintaining an Iraqi, state owned industry so as to keep prices of crude high and because the oil companies feared they would be barred from bidding for the oil fields, as they were in Russia after the Soviet collapse. This second plan was put together under the guidance of the James Baker Institute, who provides council for Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi government.

The first plan of the neocons was the plan chosen by the administration but is being blamed for all of the attacks of the oil fields and pipelines by the insurgents in Iraq. As a result, it now appears that the oil companies are going to be getting their way and Paul Wolfowitz will be taking a demotion to head the World Bank, according to Palast.
02/24/2005 01:12:01 AM · #3
Keegbow,

Absolutely... I agree with your point... and thanks for addressing it. Because I agree that this is a global issue, and the biggest challenge of the 21st century (the military hegemony by a single nation), is why I included the following in my original post:

Originally posted by bdobe:

[I]t's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.


Note that I also wrote:

Originally posted by bdobe:

...not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable;


Clearly I should've been far more explicit, and encouraged those in other countries to offer their valuable input. My point, however, was merely that there's a serious debate raging here at home, and that there are some extremely serious ideological divisions in my country. Moreover, the ultimate resolution to the issues being debated at home (and there are many, from the proper deployment of our military to civil rights to the role of the Christian church in our public life), which clearly affect the global community, are issues that are going to be resolved by Americans -- it's our responsibility and, for practical reasons, our decision to make. Now, my closing line only sought to encourage American readers to "raise their hands" and participate in the poll; I didn't mean to discourage or dismiss your input.

Make no mistake about it: As a Liberal, I recognize that I belong to the American family and to the international community as well; so, please, offer your input and your perspective -- I'd love to read what you have to say on the matter.

Message edited by author 2005-02-24 01:54:07.
02/24/2005 12:50:34 AM · #4
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Well bdobe, you know where I stand on the subject as Iím sure most others here to do.

I guess we are cross posting on this but whatever. As far as the global warming issue; itís just one of a much bigger problem: the destruction of our biosphere, life giver, Earth; and with that, ourselves.

To just focus on global warming is only looking at a fraction of the bigger picture. Regardless of who you are, one must realize that humans on earth, starting mostly in the last 150 years but especially in the last 50, have been pumping pollutants from burning coal and oil, to using pesticides on crops that leak into our drinking water, to pumping our cows and chickens full of antibiotics, hormones and steroids to the point that young people today mature 2-5 years earlier than they did in 1950.

Excusing global warming tends to lead to excusing environmental problems all together. And to use Japans exception from Kyoto as an excuse for the US to not join is just another move in the wrong direction. Are we afraid Japan will pass us in economic power right around the time the earth is so toxic cancer becomes the #1 cause of death?

Fact is, here in America the environment comes second to the economy. That is the policy of our administration and probably will continue to be unless the people push otherwise. All but gone was the environment in the last election, though its never been in more peril.

1st in foremost, that attitude has to change. Without a healthy earth, there is no economy, much less anything else.


Japan is exempt too (how ironic; home field advantage?). I didn't even know that (you learn something new every day). Of course I doubt if Japan pumps nearly as much poison and filth into the air as fellow exemptees China, India, and Brazil. Now I know people delight in referring to the United States as the world's biggest polluter (if China and/or India have not yet passed us up yet). I don't know the exact rankings of China, India, and Brazil, but I do know they are in the top 10. Now I have asked this question before and never gotten an answer, so I will ask again. Just how is the Kyoto treaty supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when 3 of the top 10 polluting nations are totally exempt from ANY emission limits whatsoever? It in reality is nothing but a feel-good guilt-assuaging socialistic wealth-transfer which offers no help whatsoever in alleviating the problems it purports to address.

Message edited by author 2005-02-24 19:48:23.
02/24/2005 12:45:40 AM · #5
Originally posted by bdobe:

Thank you both for your participation in this poll...

Now, not to single anybody out, however, from previous threads, I know (broadly speaking) which side of the fence David Ey stands on -- again, I don't mean to single anyone out, just making an observation.

As for Keegbow, it's too bad that you're in Australia, that's not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable; it's just that (as I see it), ultimately, the intended audience is American: given how much these issues affect us here at home. However, it's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.

Again, thank you both for raising your hands...

Anyone else out there?


This whole affair is not just American it affects the world. This is what amazes me with Americans you cocoon yourself in your own media hype and disregard what is going on in the rest of the world or have little regard to other cultures and their views.
ďHelloĒ what you are debating is about a war in another country, which has divided the world this is not just about your President and or your major political parties.

Regards
Tim
02/24/2005 12:15:43 AM · #6
Well bdobe, you know where I stand on the subject as Iím sure most others here to do.

I guess we are cross posting on this but whatever. As far as the global warming issue; itís just one of a much bigger problem: the destruction of our biosphere, life giver, Earth; and with that, ourselves.

To just focus on global warming is only looking at a fraction of the bigger picture. Regardless of who you are, one must realize that humans on earth, starting mostly in the last 150 years but especially in the last 50, have been pumping pollutants from burning coal and oil, to using pesticides on crops that leak into our drinking water, to pumping our cows and chickens full of antibiotics, hormones and steroids to the point that young people today mature 2-5 years earlier than they did in 1950.

Excusing global warming tends to lead to excusing environmental problems all together. And to use Japans exception from Kyoto as an excuse for the US to not join is just another move in the wrong direction. Are we afraid Japan will pass us in economic power right around the time the earth is so toxic cancer becomes the #1 cause of death?

Fact is, here in America the environment comes second to the economy. That is the policy of our administration and probably will continue to be unless the people push otherwise. All but gone was the environment in the last election, though its never been in more peril.

1st in foremost, that attitude has to change. Without a healthy earth, there is no economy, much less anything else.
02/23/2005 11:29:25 PM · #7
Thanks for the response MadMordegon...

Just one quick (if long) point...

There's a close to universal consensus (especially in the non-corporate scientific community) on the existence and human causation of global warming. Now, most of the public in the industrialized nations (primarily EU) know and accept this universal consensus. Unfortunately, in our country -- given the lack of serious public discourse in our mainstream-corporate media on this and many other issues -- if one is a firm subscriber of the conservative-Republican plank, there's exactly a zero chance that that person will ever concede that global warming is real and that a century plus of industrialization is the cause. Moreover, it doesn't matter how many Noble prize winning scientists have singed on to any study, documents, etc. -- Mother Teresa (rather, her equivalent in the scientific community) could've signed the study, and it wouldn't make a difference.

So, what's my point? I know that you don't necessarily expect to change anyone's mind... and that that point, perhaps, does not need to be reiterated; that being said, in our nation, global warming is an issue that has been so thoroughly caricatured and dismissed by conservative-Republicans, that I wouldn't even expect a sympathetic or inquiring response from anyone that subscribes to the conservative-Republican plank.
02/23/2005 11:20:55 PM · #8
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Ive read most of it. No point in posting though. This has been a pointless merrygoround for the last 10 pages, if not sooner.



Well said, but some make the pony go faster....heh.
02/23/2005 10:52:47 PM · #9
Ive read most of it. No point in posting though. This has been a pointless merrygoround for the last 10 pages, if not sooner.

I would be more intersted in people reading what I posted in the other rant. Im curious how many of those Nobel Prize winners and world scientists have "political agenda's" "pulling their strings".

But anyways...
02/23/2005 10:48:24 PM · #10
Thank you both for your participation in this poll...

Now, not to single anybody out, however, from previous threads, I know (broadly speaking) which side of the fence David Ey stands on -- again, I don't mean to single anyone out, just making an observation.

As for Keegbow, it's too bad that you're in Australia, that's not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable; it's just that (as I see it), ultimately, the intended audience is American: given how much these issues affect us here at home. However, it's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.

Again, thank you both for raising your hands...

Anyone else out there?
02/23/2005 10:23:16 PM · #11
I love this thread. It's the first thing I read when I go online keep it up you guys.
02/23/2005 10:06:53 PM · #12
!
02/23/2005 08:47:24 PM · #13
Quick Poll:

Other than the usual suspects (generally speaking, RonB and myself -- and a couple of other semi-regular posters to this thread), are there other DPC members that read these political rants?

A simple virtual raising of the hand (perhaps a post with, "hi," for example) would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.


02/22/2005 05:22:38 PM · #14
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One has to question the Wead (i.e., Bush's confession to his use of drugs) story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.


Here's the reason why:

The revelation that a conservative Republican plant, "Jeff Gannon" (the male-prostitute that was recently unmasked as posing as a "journalists" -- with, apparently, the blessing from someone in the Administration), had been "working" at Bush's White House for over a year and a half was starting to get a bit of coverage in cable news. So, of course, Bush & Co. are now quickly trying to change the subject from a potentially huge scandal, to a relatively minor one -- after all, it is relatively well known that Bush has indulged in the occasional use of illicit drugs.

Have you been smoking something weird? Or reading the conspiracy theories at Truthout.org again?
The reason, plain and simple, is that Wead is about to publish a book. He provided excepts to the NYTimes so that they could "review" it, and they insisted on "proof" that he had the dope ( pun intended ) on his charges that Bush smoked marijuana. So, he, to bolster his own claims did something liberals cannot do - he provided proof - some tape excerpts - so that they could 1) verify that the voice on the tapes was, indeed, that of Bush, and 2) verify that he ( Bush ) did indeed say what Wead said he said. No big conspiracy there. Just common sense.

And I'm STILL interested to know why liberals just can't seem to ever mention Gannon's name without a reference to his sexual lifestyle - as if that has a bearing on the story. If I were gay, I'd be questioning whether ALL liberals are as hypocritical as those in the media ( and Rant fora ). As for a "scandal", WHAT scandal? What IS the scandal? That a conservative reporter was permitted access to daily press briefings? That shouldn't be scandalous - they let Wolf Blitzer in, didn' they? That Gannon engaged in homosexual acts? THAT shouldn't be scandalous - it is, after all, a "private matter" between "consenting adults" is it not? I just don't get it. But then, I'm not a liberal.
Oh, and for what it's worth, Gannon/Guckert was not "POSING" as a journalist - he WAS a journalist: One whose occupation is the collecting, writing, editing, and presentation of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
02/22/2005 04:24:11 PM · #15
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One has to question the Wead (i.e., Bush's confession to his use of drugs) story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.


Here's the reason why:

The revelation that a conservative Republican plant, "Jeff Gannon" (the male-prostitute that was recently unmasked as posing as a "journalists" -- with, apparently, the blessing from someone in the Administration), had been "working" at Bush's White House for over a year and a half was starting to get a bit of coverage in cable news. So, of course, Bush & Co. are now quickly trying to change the subject from a potentially huge scandal, to a relatively minor one -- after all, it is relatively well known that Bush has indulged in the occasional use of illicit drugs.

Message edited by author 2005-02-22 16:41:15.
02/22/2005 04:02:15 PM · #16
Yes, the Times reporting, or lack of it, should be questioned because of their full support for going along with the Bush administration's march to war. They even admitted that a number of their stories were false and that they were guilty of poor journalism.

One has to question the Wead story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.

Originally posted by bbower1956:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind.

PS: here's some good reading, short and sweet. read this

But then again, it's from a "liberal" newspaper, and not from a "real" source of news like the drudge report.


Funny how you quote a times article like it is a reliable news source. Yet Ron is twisting the truth. I believe it is the times whose credibilty has been greatly questioned after their writers were caught makingup entire stories.
02/22/2005 03:53:29 PM · #17
First, the Senators and Representatives did not vote for war. They voted to give Bush the opportunity to declare war without having to get congressional ok. Many voted for this with the notion that Bush and company were going to give diplomacy a chance.

Futhermore, it may even have been the case that not only was dissent vilified by the Bush administration, but that the senators and congress people that voted for this were downright scared, for their own lives, the lives of their families, their constituencies and for their political careers.

Paul Wellstone, liberal Senator from Minnesota was the Bush administration's fiercest opponent and was loudly outspoken against going to war in Iraq.

****
"Shortly before he died in a mysterious airplane crash 11 days prior to the 2002 elections, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone met with Vice President Dick Cheney, probably the Bush administration's most evil public face..."

"At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."
From this article.
****

Originally posted by bdobe:


Originally posted by RonB:

5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted.


Under the political climate that Bush created ("You're either with us or against us.") dissent was (and still is) vilified.

---------------------------------------

So, RonB, I guess you're going to shill for Bush & Co.'s call for another invasion... I noticed that you did not address that point.


02/22/2005 03:37:21 PM · #18
Originally posted by ericlimon:

I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind.

PS: here's some good reading, short and sweet. read this

But then again, it's from a "liberal" newspaper, and not from a "real" source of news like the drudge report.


Funny how you quote a times article like it is a reliable news source. Yet Ron is twisting the truth. I believe it is the times whose credibilty has been greatly questioned after their writers were caught makingup entire stories.
02/22/2005 03:18:45 PM · #19
Originally posted by RonB:

1) 9/11 attack is committed by al Qaeda/Osama bin Ladin - shows that the U.S. is vulnerable to attack on its own shores ( namely, border security is not adequate to protect us from attack ).


This has always been true, and it will always be true: 100% border security cannot, ever, be guaranteed. Where's your sense of reality?

Originally posted by RonB:

2) Who cares what Hussein thinks of bin Laden? or vice-versa?


Most reasonable Americans supported Bush's war because they were being told that: 1. Hussein and Bin Laden were cooperating with each other, 2) and that, therefore, there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. You now seem to concede that there was no such connection, but that doesn't seem to matter to you -- you would still continue to stand by your man.

Originally posted by RonB:

3) Hussein won't comply with U.N Resolutions and the intelligence agencies of many nations concur that he has programs in place for the development of weapons of mass destruction.


Wrong, there was plenty of evidence that Hussein did not posses WMD that threaten our nation, though Bush chose to ignore that evidence and, instead, hyped charges and used forged documents to sell his war of choice to the American people.

Originally posted by RonB:

4) There is no doubt that if he obtains them, he will use them - and use them against U.S. interests.


Hussein was nowhere close to obtaining or reconstituting his WMD program.

Originally posted by RonB:

5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted.


Under the political climate that Bush created ("You're either with us or against us.") dissent was (and still is) vilified.

---------------------------------------

So, RonB, I guess you're going to shill for Bush & Co.'s call for another invasion... I noticed that you did not address that point.

Message edited by author 2005-02-22 15:31:05.
02/22/2005 03:06:34 PM · #20
Originally posted by bdobe:

RonB,

Your right-wing conservative ploy has already been called out, but since you were addressing me, I feel obliged to respond. In typical conservative reactionary fashion, rather than critically examining the information in context, you immediately resort to the "blame-Clinton" ploy when backed into a corner. When will you, and those that share your world-view, recognize that your willful ignorance and apologists tactics merely provide political coverage to the irresponsible Bush administration?

And, now, as Bush & Co. begin -- once more -- to prep the country for another invasion, will you contribute to and facilitate Bush's irresponsible misuse of our military? (ex., Condoleezza Rice says an attack on Iran over its nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point.")

Since you're such a fan of literal and linear logic, how do you square this equation (keep in mind that at the time our own people were, in fact, rather skeptical as to whether Iraq possessed WMD):

(1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel;" [article] (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."

Originally posted by RonB:

Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution. It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years.

You must really LOVE that kool-aid.

BTW. I didn't "immediately" resort to the "blame Clinton" ploy - in fact I specifically said that I wasn't BLAMING Clinton for anything - merely pointing out the differences in the approach to terrorism between as demonstrated by him and by Bush.

As for (1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel; (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."

How about using your OWN reasoning to see that your logic, isn't.
1) 9/11 attack is committed by al Qaeda/Osama bin Ladin - shows that the U.S. is vulnerable to attack on its own shores ( namely, border security is not adequate to protect us from attack ).
2) Who cares what Hussein thinks of bin Laden? or vice-versa?
3) Hussein won't comply with U.N Resolutions and the intelligence agencies of many nations concur that he has programs in place for the development of weapons of mass destruction.
4) There is no doubt that if he obtains them, he will use them - and use them against U.S. interests.
5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted.
02/22/2005 02:16:39 PM · #21
RonB,

Your right-wing conservative ploy has already been called out, but since you were addressing me, I feel obliged to respond. In typical conservative reactionary fashion, rather than critically examining the information in context, you immediately resort to the "blame-Clinton" ploy when backed into a corner. When will you, and those that share your world-view, recognize that your willful ignorance and apologists tactics merely provide political coverage to the irresponsible Bush administration?

And, now, as Bush & Co. begin -- once more -- to prep the country for another invasion, will you contribute to and facilitate Bush's irresponsible misuse of our military? (ex., Condoleezza Rice says an attack on Iran over its nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point.")

Since you're such a fan of literal and linear logic, how do you square this equation (keep in mind that at the time our own people were, in fact, rather skeptical as to whether Iraq possessed WMD):

(1) 9/11 attack is committed by Al Queda/Osama Bin Ladin; (2) "Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel;" [article] (3) Therefore, you and Bush & Co. seem to conclude, "We must attack Iraq."

Originally posted by RonB:

Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution. It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years.


Message edited by author 2005-02-22 14:27:16.
02/22/2005 01:39:28 PM · #22
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference."

"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."

"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough." Excerpt from This CNN article.

And here's another article detailing what the Clintons did to combat terrorism.

What exactly do you mean by the "no problem, be happy" approach of Clinton's towards terrorism?

From what I can see, the only approach to terrorism that Bush is taking is the military one, which seems to be failing terror(ibly). Let me remind you that it was under Bush that what should have been the most defended air spaces in the nation got attacked. That despite numerous warnings of terrorism from many sources, Bush chose not to act prior to 9/11.

Militarism, imo, will not get rid of terrorism if not used wisely, and may in fact, worsen the problem over time, which it seems to have done already, as witness the ever increasing opposition in Iraq.

Originally posted by RonB:


I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ).


1) The Clinton approach was to treat terrorism as though it were a law enforcement problem - so his response was to "pass legislation". HELLO - the terrorists don't CARE about the law. It's no wonder that the Congress wouldn't act on Clinton's proposals. They were all talk, no action.

This quote from one of your links says it all, as far as I'm concerned:

"Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid by each."
(emphasis mine)

So we are to combat terrorism with Patience? Well, Clinton was certainly patient - for his entire eight years. And the U.N. was even more patient - for twelve years. And did we see terrorism decline? I certainly didn't. Just the opposite, I saw it increasing.

So we are to combat terrorism with Courage? That would be what Bush has done, not what Clinton did. Unless you call bombing an aspirin factory once in 8 years, and pursuing legal avenues against al-Qaeda "courage".

So we are to combat terrorism with Imagination? Clinton was certainly imaginative - he did things with cigars that I never would have imagined. But did that decrease terrorism? I don't think so. Bunker Busters - now THERE is imagination at work.

So we are to combat terrorism with Restraint? Yeah, like the Spaniards and the Russians showed - and look what it got them. No, sorry, but restraint is only good when the other side reacts to it in a positive manner.

The bpublic has to be "informed and engaged"? It may only be me, but I elect my Representative and Senators to make those heavy decisions for me - because they have access to classified information that I am not privy to. Perhaps YOU would like to reveal ALL of that classified information to the American public so that they can "buy in" to the decisions of our elected leaders. Sorry, but I do not.

As for military action. It seems to be working. And may I remind you that the WTC attacks were planned under Clinton's watch. It was under his watch that the terrorists entered our country and trained at our facilities.

It would also appear that the ever increasing opposition in Iraq is aimed at Iraqi's. What does THAT tell you? It tells ME that it is just like the last election ( where not many were FOR Kerry, but a lot were AGAINST Bush ). Namely, the terrorists are not so much AGAINST Americans as they are FOR establishing and maintaining Fundamental Islamic Theocratic rule ( a la the Taliban ). Otherwise they would be working FOR the Iraqi democratic process - because the sooner it succeeds, the sooner the Americans leave.
02/22/2005 12:56:39 PM · #23
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference."

"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."

"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough." Excerpt from This CNN article.

And here's another article detailing what the Clintons did to combat terrorism.

What exactly do you mean by the "no problem, be happy" approach of Clinton's towards terrorism?

From what I can see, the only approach to terrorism that Bush is taking is the military one, which seems to be failing terror(ibly). Let me remind you that it was under Bush that what should have been the most defended air spaces in the nation got attacked. That despite numerous warnings of terrorism from many sources, Bush chose not to act prior to 9/11.

Militarism, imo, will not get rid of terrorism if not used wisely, and may in fact, worsen the problem over time, which it seems to have done already, as witness the ever increasing opposition in Iraq.

Originally posted by RonB:


I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ).


02/22/2005 12:18:34 PM · #24
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

If you really think that the Bush administration is erring "on the side of caution," then your thinking is greatly deluded. There is nothing cautious about Bush tactics and policies. He and his administration are not conservative, but rather reactionary and extreme and imperialistic. People in opposition to Bush do not wish to put anyone at risk but Bush's policies and actions have put the whole world at risk, especially the United States and its citizens. When all else fails in your arguments, and in the arguments of your fellow Bush supporters, you fall back on Clinton-blame.

Originally posted by RonB:


Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution.
It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years.


I'm not BLAMING Clinton, I'm merely pointing out the difference between his approach and Bush's. It is my belief that because of a LACK of sufficient response by Clinton, we opened ourselves up to REPEATED attacks. Al Qaeda was thought to be involved in the first attack on the WTC way back in 1993, and Clinton did nothing to go after them in a serious manner ( as Bush finally did in Afghanistan ). So we were attacked again ( Nov, 1995 in Riyadh ) and again ( June 1996 Dhahran ) and again ( Aug 1998 Nairobi ) and again ( Oct 2000 Aden ) and again ( Sept 2001 New York City ).

02/22/2005 11:24:17 AM · #25
If you really think that the Bush administration is erring "on the side of caution," then your thinking is greatly deluded. There is nothing cautious about Bush tactics and policies. He and his administration are not conservative, but rather reactionary and extreme and imperialistic. People in opposition to Bush do not wish to put anyone at risk but Bush's policies and actions have put the whole world at risk, especially the United States and its citizens. When all else fails in your arguments, and in the arguments of your fellow Bush supporters, you fall back on Clinton-blame.

Originally posted by RonB:


Now when MY life, and the lives of my loved ones are at stake, I'd rather have folks err on the side of caution.
It would appear that the Bush-haters would rather put the lives of their countrymen at risk in order to err on the side of "no problem, be happy", just like Clinton did for 8 years.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 08:39:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 08:39:24 AM EDT.