I agree with ronkas. I'm sure you're suprised. People skills and a willingness to meet with leaders - even those we "don't like" is important in today's world. Clinton did get the middle east peace process moving (even though lots of people don't want to credit him for that) - actually Carter got it moving and then Clinton got it re-ignited. Unfortunately, Rabin was killed or I think things would have been much different. And quite frankly, those terrorists who use the Palestinian cause as their arguement for anger have at least some degree of credibility. Really, we should just blame it on the British, right?

I would never say Clinton was perfect - by any stretch. But things did happen when he was in office - lots of good things. Bush sr. and jr., not so much. Bush comes off as an arrogant cowboy. I have many friends in foreign countries and I have lived in foreign countries. I know how the Bushes are perceived - it's bad.

quote:

As to his first term, he lied in his State of the Union address, not about sex, but about nuclear capabilities; he manipulated intelligence to invade Iraq

Is this your opinion? If not, I would like to know what proof you have showing Bush had the intent to deceive the public.

Prior to Bush even getting into office, many including Bill Clinton were convinced that Hussein had WMDs. Who manipulated their intelligence?

What were the other two, Gus?[/QUOTE]

Dear MI 87: How time plays with the memory!

Remember the ALERT customs agent in Washington State that pulled the terrorist over on the basis of suspicion and found enough explosives to blow up a building? He was headed to LA to make his point on New Years Eve in 1999. Not a lot of information has come out about this arrest but this was one of the first Al Qaeda planned attacks that thank God, was thwarted by one of our border agents. Give HER a bonus I say.

Remember the nightclub bombings in Germany targeting US military personell while killing innocent Europeans in the same heinous act?

Lobbing a few cruise missiles did not deter Bin Laden, as history bears out. IN fact, Sudan OFFERED to cough up Bin Laden and Clinton did nothing about it, fact. Bin Laden eventually fled Sudan and went to Afghanistan where he found a welcome home.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
Fox News? C'mon Ron. Clinton was a pacificist and unwilling to deal with the problems of international terrorism. He was too busy being politically correct. His dismantling of intelligence coupled with his utter contempt for the military caused the problems we have here today. In 1997 BinLaden publicly declared Jihad on the U.S., yet Clinton refused to eliminate this threat on 2 different occassions. This has nothing to do with Fox News. Clinton over used diplomacy when military intervention would have been better. His wife is going to be far worse. What good is a thriving economy if you're not around to enjoy it?

I agree B-Boy, for what it's worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Amy:
I agree with ronkas. I'm sure you're suprised. People skills and a willingness to meet with leaders - even those we "don't like" is important in today's world. Clinton did get the middle east peace process moving (even though lots of people don't want to credit him for that) - actually Carter got it moving and then Clinton got it re-ignited. Unfortunately, Rabin was killed or I think things would have been much different. And quite frankly, those terrorists who use the Palestinian cause as their arguement for anger have at least some degree of credibility. Really, we should just blame it on the British, right?

I would never say Clinton was perfect - by any stretch. But things did happen when he was in office - lots of good things. Bush sr. and jr., not so much. Bush comes off as an arrogant cowboy. I have many friends in foreign countries and I have lived in foreign countries. I know how the Bushes are perceived - it's bad.

I will agree Amy that Clinton was a character, but not a strong leader when it came to hard decisions regarding foreign policy and the issues of terrorism.

Nobody can label the US as trigger happy or unpatient. The destruciton of the Twin Towers was the last straw. And why, because we couldn't "racially profile" at the airport security line??

To think that Al Qaeda didn't believe the towers would come down is CNN or Al Franken speaking (back at you RONKAS!), or they wouldn't have opted to use fully laden (fuel) planes such as Boeing 767's or 757's that were on their way to the west coast from the east coast. They figured a 737 or regional jet just wouldn't do the job. They calculated to inflict maximum damage by targeting these flights.

Yes, Amy, you are correct, many people off shore do not like the US but I can tell you that radical islam is wearing on the Europeans and Arabs alike. They are getting sick and tired of this BS.

quote:

I agree B-Boy, for what it's worth.

All your weight in gold!

Elect Hillary because she is married (even if it's just for show) to former President Bill Cliinton.

I doubt being married to Tony Romo would make Jessica Simpson a good NFL QB. Yet, Hillary's marriage to him defines her political experience.

Al Franken is a better comedian than a political pundit. Can't disagree with you there. But he was funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:


Nobody can label the US as trigger happy or unpatient. The destruciton of the Twin Towers was the last straw. And why, because we couldn't "racially profile" at the airport security line??

To think that Al Qaeda didn't believe the towers would come down is CNN or Al Franken speaking (back at you RONKAS!), or they wouldn't have opted to use fully laden (fuel) planes such as Boeing 767's or 757's that were on their way to the west coast from the east coast. They figured a 737 or regional jet just wouldn't do the job. They calculated to inflict maximum damage by targeting these flights.

Yes, Amy, you are correct, many people off shore do not like the US but I can tell you that radical islam is wearing on the Europeans and Arabs alike. They are getting sick and tired of this BS.

We weren't trigger happy because Clinton's administration wasn't trigger happy. Bush is. If Bush would have stopped short of Iraq, I could have managed to deal with the guy but he went too far.

I'm sure the terrorists wanted to inflict as much damage as possible. I don't think anyone anticipated the twin towers actually disintegrating...even the architect.

As for the radical Islamic faction, yes, many are wearing of them. So, we need a leader that will not wear on others as much as our current Pres and administration. Then, the anger/frustration/disgust can be appropriately placed. That is a significant reason why I believe Obama is the man for our time. There are other reasons (IMO) as well.

And Grateful, I'm really not willing to take Hillary to get Bill. Bill had his time and Hillary will not bring people together the way Bill could. I think Hillary is bright and certainly a leader but not Presidential.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:

quote:

I agree B-Boy, for what it's worth.

All your weight in gold!

Wow....that's like $250,000.

I'll take Clamato's weight in gold.

Fan, hate to tell you but I'm worth more than Clam considering troy ounces on the frame!

Amy, didn't Obama state that he would take out (assassinate) any terrorist leader if the chance presented itself??? Believe this was a quote from him some months ago. Can't say I disagree with him but???? Sounds like pretty tough talk to me.

It's a fact that Hussein financed and rewarded Hezbollah on it's attacks in Israel. As to WMD's, I'm still a doubting Thomas. I wonder what Syria has/had courtesy of Saddam, it's Baathist neighbor? Funny, you really didn't hear much when the Israeli's recently bombed the Syrian nuclear facility about 2 months ago. What was there? Why? I'd love to have the inside info on that one. I'm suprised as to how quiet Syria has been on that one. Why? Are they hiding something??? Their silence speaks volumes to me.


When it comes down to it, its a party of entitlements. Actually, I was ammused when Newt shut down the Government when budget cuts couldn't be agreed upon by the 2 parties, a gutsy move, that worked against Newt and the Rep. Party. While we, as private citizens, are faced with options depending upon our incomes and consume more or less as conditions dictate, the US Govt cannot or will not react to these fiscal issues that face them. I remember when Reagans man, Stockton, cut the hell out of the budget for the betterment of all. This whole country needs to go on a diet, including myself!

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:

Amy, didn't Obama state that he would take out (assassinate) any terrorist leader if the chance presented itself??? Believe this was a quote from him some months ago. Can't say I disagree with him but???? Sounds like pretty tough talk to me.


When it comes down to it, its a party of entitlements. Actually, I was ammused when Newt shut down the Government when budget cuts couldn't be agreed upon by the 2 parties, a gutsy move, that worked against Newt and the Rep. Party. While we, as private citizens, are faced with options depending upon our incomes and consume more or less as conditions dictate, the US Govt cannot or will not react to these fiscal issues that face them. I remember when Reagans man, Stockton, cut the hell out of the budget for the betterment of all. This whole country needs to go on a diet, including myself!

On the first question: He said something like that and I view covert, calculated operations differently than "Shock and Awe". Careful actions based on reliable intelligence are not "trigger happy" decisions.

I understand your view on the Democratic party...the Republican party has it's own labels too. Nonetheless, I tend to lean toward liberal social policy and conservative fiscal policy. That's why Clinton was so successful. Perhaps Newt and the Republicans would have come through that shutdown less scathed if they'd had the interpersonal skills of an Obama.

quote:

It's a fact that Hussein financed and rewarded Hezbollah on it's attacks in Israel. As to WMD's, I'm still a doubting Thomas. I wonder what Syria has/had courtesy of Saddam, it's Baathist neighbor? Funny, you really didn't hear much when the Israeli's recently bombed the Syrian nuclear facility about 2 months ago. What was there? Why? I'd love to have the inside info on that one. I'm suprised as to how quiet Syria has been on that one. Why? Are they hiding something??? Their silence speaks volumes to me.

I subscribe to the theory that Saddam did ship his WMD's to another country, Syria probably being one of them.

Stand by Yoss: Later today I'm going to post some interesting photos from Iraq during the early stages of the invasion. Sent to me by my 2 Star friend. Photos never published by the Media.

Remember folks, Saddam was resisting UN inspections for years, he used WMD on the Iranians and his own people. Then the US gives plenty of warning that we are going to invade and we begin staging of troops. Saddam had plenty of time to hide these things or ship them to a sympathetic neighbor. Where Saddam miscalculated was the ease in which the US led campaign moved across Iraq and our survelliance capacity. He couldn't operate effectively and that is a credit to our military.

IMO-The Bush administration didn't understand the nature of the conflict. Defeating the Iraqi army was easy and that's where Rumsfeldsfeld was short sighted. Unfortunately the adminstration choose to ignore the history of the region and the age old religious fueds. Iraq was no more ready for democracy than Brittany Spears was ready for parenthood.

Bill Clinton was not a big supporter of the military and I think that sent the wrong signal to our enemies. They had perceived us as weak and with no will to sustain any type of conflict-much as the Japanese thought in 1940. I think we need to be resolute, but also need to push the Iraqi's to step and police their country. Setting a timetable for a pull out would only play into the hands of our adversaries and leave a major void in the region. Look no further than Afganistan and how that played out after the Soviets left.

YOu are right on again Yoss: You would need a calculator to figure out how many UN resolutions Saddam violated. If he would have come clean like Ghadaffi did, he'd still be sitting in the lap of luxury in one of his palaces.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322309,00.html

One issue was that many of Baathist civil,state workers, not to mention the military, was put on the streets with no jobs after the capitulation of the govt. Tens of thousands became un-employed. Some argue rightly so I guess, the military should have remained intact to some extent to prevent looting and hooliganism. Hard to give a guy his gun back when the day before he was pointing it at you though. But it was a lesson learned the hard way and I really don't blame the powers at be for this slight. Who could have known, really, but now we do.

Again, read the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem". Very good. Great chapter about a Syrian town being leveled and every man, woman, and child being executed or imprisoned by Hafez Assad after an attempt on his life. Tribal justice at it's worst. The author asked the driver where the town was and he replied "you're driving on it". Place was erased from the face of the earth.

Modern man isn't so civilized after all, is he?

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:

Who could have known, really, but now we do.

Come on, Gus...you can't be serious about this one. I could have told you how badly this would turn out. And as I've said, I'm no historian.

Issues in the Middle East are so deeply imbedded in history, that there is virtually nothing we, on the outside, can really do to solve the problem.

We could stop offerring so much aid to Israel and then other Middle East countries only to find a few years later, they are our a threat due to the money they got from us. I think we should meddle less.

See, this is what happens when I go for Continuing Legal Education and then clean the garage, instead of monitoring this thread.

For some background

"Anfal Operations

Despite all public denial of using chemical weapons against the Kurdish civilians in 1988, the Iraqi regime did not deny a campaign it called Anfal. In a reply to a petition by a former Kurdish POW, Chief of the Bureau of the Presidency informed the man that his 'wife and children were lost during the Anfal Operations that took place in the Northern Region in 1988.' Anfal, a name of a sura in the Koran, is thus the official military codename used by the Iraqi government in its public pronouncements and internal memoranda. It was a name given to a concerted series of military offensives, eight in all, conducted in six distinct Kurdish geographic areas between late February and early September 1988. "

This is from an article about Iraqi-Kurdish genocide. I note that this was 15 years before we HAD to invade.

Clinton didn't cause this problem in Iraq. Bush #1 didn't cause this. Reagan didn't cause this. It is best that the leader of the free world actually leads the free world. W hasn't. His naive and reckless policy has cost us a generation of disabled veterans, not to mention the lost lives.

quote:

Anfal Operations

Despite all public denial of using chemical weapons against the Kurdish civilians in 1988, the Iraqi regime did not deny a campaign it called Anfal. In a reply to a petition by a former Kurdish POW, Chief of the Bureau of the Presidency informed the man that his 'wife and children were lost during the Anfal Operations that took place in the Northern Region in 1988.' Anfal, a name of a sura in the Koran, is thus the official military codename used by the Iraqi government in its public pronouncements and internal memoranda. It was a name given to a concerted series of military offensives, eight in all, conducted in six distinct Kurdish geographic areas between late February and early September 1988.

This shows that he had them and used them. That's the difference. He was a time bomb.

We can go back and forth all day long. Gus and Yoss bring up a good point about the UN. As far as I am concerned the UN is bunch of trash. At the time, not only was Hussein not following UN resolutions, but there was an overwhelming belief by both dems and repubs(even by other nations) Hussein had WMDs, yet the UN refused to do a thing. Also at the time, it is a fact that Hussein was trying to revitalize his WMD programs and that he had ties to terror groups. What's debatable is how strong those ties were to Al Quaida.

There is no doubt that military action was needed in Iraq mainly because of Hussein's refusal to abide by UN resolutions and the UN's refusal to take action. We could not ignore this forever. What's debatable is the timing. I'll agree that there are good reasons on either side of the issue.

I do believe in diplomacy to an extent, just not to the degree that Bill Clinton did while president. Also, I do not believe we should be governed by other nations to the extent that it may hurt us. Again, to call Bush a liar and manipulator without stating that it's your opinion is wrong. Again, during the 8 years of Clinton, his very own administration thought Hussein had WMDs and used the same reasoning to attack Iraq in Dec 1998. I honestly do not think both presidents conspired. Both presidents saw Iraq as a threat, the difference is that Bush was willing to eliminate it in its entirety.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

and excerpts from transcript dated Dec 16,1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bitterboy,

quote:

The posters on this board generally agree with local issues, but I see the potential for division when I read on national election issues.

This is an interesting observation by Grateful. I wonder why this is.