hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 14:11:32 GMT -5
I am not endorsing any specific position. I just think that when we don't know for sure, we shouldn't act like we do. That is the problem. And I think that an open discussion in general is a good thing. Indeed. That's why in public school, you don't teach "God did it" when you don't know. You teach what the evidence shows. Once again, you make an implicit comment about something that I have never said. When or where did I say that we should teach that God did anything? The only comments I have had with regards to God, is that I try as hard as I can to avoid religious debates because of the personal and sensitive nature of the subject. You sir are guilty of the very strawman defense that you often wrongfully suggest of me. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 29, 2008 14:17:14 GMT -5
Believe it or not, Cam, I will give you that one. That is essentially the same argument I have heard before that while everyone had the same beliefs, it was GWB who chose to act on them. That is a fair enough point to make. But that is a far cry from the "liar" BS that so many people threw around. Also, don't you think that at that point in time, knowing what we then knew with regards to Clinton electing to ignore bin Laden and seeing how tragic that turned out, that maybe that could have motivated a bit more expedient action? Rightly or wrongly, that is certainly a valid point. But as to the danger of Hussein, there was a general consensus from the vast majority covering those on both sides of the aisle. Excuse me. Hate to throw a little reality on this parade. Clinton did not "ignore" Bin Laden. He did not invade a sovereign nation, but the level of attacks and clarity of evidence had not yet reached the level it did on 9/11. He did focus a lot of attention on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda... and the Clinton team vehemently warned the Bush team. It was the Bush team that chose to ignore Bin Laden because 1. Clinton told them, and ABC was the rule for the Bush team 2. They were convinced that China was the real threat. Secondly, no one but Bush/Cheney wanted to go into Iraq. And there is considerable evidence that they ginned up the evidence to support their point of view. Third, Bush and his team have ignored Bin Laden for the past 6 years, since they decided to invade Iraq instead...even though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 29, 2008 15:26:19 GMT -5
Sirsaxa, I will concede the third point, although the question still remains whether it was the right thing to do or not. In any case, he did think that searching cave by cave for a single man, who, along with his terror organization, was so damaged as to pose very little current threat was not the best use of troops. Was he right? That is debatable. But in any case, your third point is valid.
As for your first point, I have no idea what Clinton "told" them, but if Clinton was so convinced of the danger bin Laden posed, then he should have taken him out one of the 3 times that he had a chance. He passed on the 1st and 3rd times and the 2nd time he delayed enough to allow bin Laden to excape before we got there. I am not absolving Bush in this, but it is quite clear that there is plenty of blame to loft in Clinton's direction here. He was the one in charge when bin Laden built his extensive network for the most part. He was the one in charge when bin Laden was very vocal in his disdain and loathing of the west and most specifically America. He was the one in charge following WTC 1 ... at least by the time we were relatively certain that bin Laden was behind it. Clinton certainly doesn't get a free pass on that one.
As for China being the "real" threat: I'm not sure what that means. If you can provide documentation of our spending precious security resources -- manpower, money etc... -- on China rather than other dangers, then I will agree with you that in retrospect, that wasn't the wisest choice. But it is easy to look back after the fact and see where you went wrong. I am reminded about hindsight being 20/20.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 29, 2008 22:15:38 GMT -5
Sirsaxa, I will concede the third point, although the question still remains whether it was the right thing to do or not. In any case, he did think that searching cave by cave for a single man, who, along with his terror organization, was so damaged as to pose very little current threat was not the best use of troops. Was he right? That is debatable. But in any case, your third point is valid. As for your first point, I have no idea what Clinton "told" them, but if Clinton was so convinced of the danger bin Laden posed, then he should have taken him out one of the 3 times that he had a chance. He passed on the 1st and 3rd times and the 2nd time he delayed enough to allow bin Laden to excape before we got there. I am not absolving Bush in this, but it is quite clear that there is plenty of blame to loft in Clinton's direction here. He was the one in charge when bin Laden built his extensive network for the most part. He was the one in charge when bin Laden was very vocal in his disdain and loathing of the west and most specifically America. He was the one in charge following WTC 1 ... at least by the time we were relatively certain that bin Laden was behind it. Clinton certainly doesn't get a free pass on that one. As for China being the "real" threat: I'm not sure what that means. If you can provide documentation of our spending precious security resources -- manpower, money etc... -- on China rather than other dangers, then I will agree with you that in retrospect, that wasn't the wisest choice. But it is easy to look back after the fact and see where you went wrong. I am reminded about hindsight being 20/20. Cave by cave for a guy who couldn't hurt us anymore? So you are saying the "war on terror" is over? That's a really lame excuse for not finishing the job. As for Clinton three times having the opportunity to take out Bin Laden? Would you like to share those three with the rest of us? Bin Laden built Al Qaeda under Clinton's watch? Yes, he did. He actually started under Reagan and Bush who armed the Afghan resistance, then abandoned them after the Russians left. Not finishing that job was the true origin of the Taliban. Not to suggest Clinton is blameless, but how was he supposed to attack Afghanistan at that time? Before 9/11? And if was so obvious, why didn't Bush do so? When Bush took office, his team ignored Bin Laden and the Taliban and focused on China. That is not in dispute. As for the 20/20 hindsight line? You are suggesting that applies to Bush for not paying attention to Bin Laden, but not to Clinton? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 30, 2008 18:36:07 GMT -5
"When Bush took office, his team ignored Bin Laden and the Taliban and focused on China. That is not in dispute."
It is in dispute.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 3, 2008 11:19:39 GMT -5
sirsaxa wrote: As for Clinton three times having the opportunity to take out Bin Laden? Would you like to share those three with the rest of us?
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/www.geocities.com/cmcofer/clinton2.htmlwww.talk2rusty.com/site/product?pid=16502sirsaxa wrote: Cave by cave for a guy who couldn't hurt us anymore?
So you are saying the "war on terror" is over?
Now that's not what I said and you know it. What I said is that rightly or wrongly GWB and his staff decided that, having successfully damaged bin Laden and his Al-Queda network, it was not the best use of our troops to search cave by cave for bin Laden, and that rather we should focus on larger threats to America. Personally, I think we stopped focusing on Afghanistan too soon, but that isn't the point. The overthrown Taliban and al-Queda on the run situation there just wasn't stable enough and we are seeing the consequences of that now. And under no circumstances, did I -- or have I ever -- said that the war on terror is over. As for the 20/20 hindsight line? You are suggesting that applies to Bush for not paying attention to Bin Laden, but not to Clinton? No, not at all, in fact I have said multiple times that there is plenty of blame to go around, but the primary original blame lies with Clinton. |
|
