Future of Politics

[Iceberg]

What "compared to the Clinton Admin that's nothing"?

Wow! Clinton lied about getting a blow-job from an intern. Big deal.

That's nothing compared to Bush misleading Americans and lying to congress (an indictable offence and worthy of impeachment), and the Bush Administration fabricating intelligence to go to war in Iraq.

Maybe we should talk about the clintons dropping the "national security" ball

Ummm. No. Clinton paid great attention to Al'Qaeda, unlike Bush. Clinton undertook several bombing missions which tried to reduce the likelihood of Al'Qaeda developing weapons.

What did Bush do for the first nine months of his term? Spent five weeks on holidays at his ranch in Crawford. Thought of ways to attack Saddam instead of going after Osama (who was, and still is, public enemy no. 1). Bush ignored security briefings a month prior to 9-11, including one entitled "bin Laden threatens to attack America on its own soil" (or something to that effect).

Clinton did everything he could to attack Al'Qaeda short of assassinating bin Laden (which would have broken international law), but he was handcuffed by a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate which thought his bombing missions in Sudan, etc. were ways of distracting them from the Lewinsky "scandal."

So, in summation, the Democratic party fights terror to the highest degree, while the Republican party is "soft on terror." (Case in point the anti-abortion bombers who are hardly mentioned, let alone criticised, by Republicans, but are vilified, and rightly so, by Democrats.)

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Do have to agree with Ice on this one. A BJ vs. 1850+ Americans dead, around 10,000 Americans wounded, who knows how many Iraqi's, Poles, Brits, Spaniards, etc., dead and wounded, over $200 billion spent so far to train terrorists in the most advanced methods of warfare. I'll take the BJ any day. I take it those are the things of importance to Republicans? Oh! Now I remember, the Republican national anthem, "Kill em all and let god sort em out." (unless, of course, your Terry Schiavo or a stemcell). Chickenhawks, someone must love em.

 

[Texan]

Wrong Wrong Wrong.....Clinton passed up opportuninties to either take bin laden out or take him into custody. (It would not have broken any international laws if he would have assassinted bin laden)
Clinton should have ramped up the war machine after the first bombings in Bahrain. Clinton dropped the ball when it came to terrorism, if the UN did not support it, we did not do it. Bottom line, Clinton new that Bin laden was behind the Bahrain Barracks bombing, the US Cole, the first Twin Towers attack, the mess in Somalia, and the bombing of our two embassies. The Republican party has never been soft of terror.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Saw something on this a while back so the details are a bit fuzzy but, if I remember correctly, the best opportunity we ever had to get Bin Laden (during the Clinton admin.) was in Afganistan (I believe). Someone had ID'd that he was at a camp but when they were about to launch missiles they were stopped because some Saudi Prince's jet was parked in front of the meeting place (why does all this seem to eventually lead back to the Saudi's?) Apparently would have caused too many international problems if the Prince would have been taken out.

Oh,

"(It would not have broken any international laws if he would have assassinted bin laden)"

You are correct in that, as far as I know, there is no international law against assassinating other countries leaders. Its a US presidential directive dating back to either Nixon or Ford (I forget which). It supposedly bars us from assassinations.

 

[Texan]

1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents. This treaty (which the United States signed) bans attacks against heads of state while they conduct formal functions, heads of government while they travel abroad, and diplomats while they perform their duties.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

So there is an international law against assassinations? I thought you said, "(It would not have broken any international laws if he would have assassinted bin laden)"

Please explain. The statements seem to contradict. I understand that Bin Laden isn't the head of a state but he is the head of a movement (think MLK, although I really hate to use that comparison as one is to be admired and the other is a scumbag).

 

[Texan]

Bin Laden is not a head of state, movements do not apply

******EDIT******

More evidence of Clinton dropping the ball

The CIA's former Bin Laden desk chief revealed Thursday night that Clinton administration lawyers warned counterterrorism agents that Osama bin Laden had to be kept as comfortable as possible if they captured him during planned raids into Afghanistan.

"The lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden`s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him," former Bin Laden desk chief Michael Scheuer told MSNBC's "Hardball."We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, [for] special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair," Scheuer explained. "They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn`t irritate his beard."

"The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community," the former CIA man lamented.

Concerns like that, as well as foot dragging by the White House, resulted in one missed opportunity after another to get the al Qaida terror mastermind, Scheuer said.

"We had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act," he claimed.

Although sharply critical of President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq , the CIA counterterrorism specialist put the blame for bin Laden's escape firmly on Mr. Clinton.

"In terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton`s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day," Scheuer said.

 

[Iceberg]

An excellent site to try to use boycotts as a method of political protest/activism:

http://www.boycott-republicans.com/

Another one:

http://www.buyblue.org/

 

[Iceberg]

"Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005091...0l5erSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

 

[mindido]

Ice,

Seems he's finally getting around to saying what many of us have been saying for a long time.

 

[cableguy]

thanks, ice... another list of businesses to support... i love the smell of commerce in the morning!!! remember, ice, boycott lists work both ways... and it is the evil republicans that have all the money...

in other news that pisses me off, the same people that were complaining that President Bush didnt drop everything and fly to the gulf coast after katrina are now complaining that he is using too much jet fuel for doing so... a little consistancy in the braindead left would be nice....

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/

 

[cableguy]

duke, that cannot possibly be right... remember that there is NO link between iraq and al quaeda, and if the media is to be believed, we are actually LOSING in iraq... also, the story about the three folks arrested in IRAQ that led to info about a bombing attempt on the new york city subway later today (october 9) must be a fabrication as well, because there is no link between iraq and fighting terrorism...

 

[Iceberg]

It's probably a decoy, trying to alleviate security at airports and the like, so Al'Qaeda can launch a new attack more easily. If I were the State Department, I would actually increase security because of this, since this should be thought of as a decoy.

and it is the evil republicans that have all the money...

Some do, but the vast majority of the rich states are blue-states. The Deep South, bright red-states, are typically poorer than their northern counterparts.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg, thank you... if the money is all in the blue states, why do i hear so much braying from those who live in them about "rich republicans," and "tax cuts for the rich?" seems if you dont want your tax cut, you could simply write a check out for the difference and mail it to dc, i am sure they would be happy to spend it... oh, and yes, i do know you arent an American, but the hypocracy here is staggering...

a lot of rural folks, the ones that grow the food for the blue cities (not states), can get by with a lot less money than city dwellers, because they can grow and hunt and fish enough to be largely self sufficient... thats a fair amount of expenses that can be taken off the table... money that can be used to buy a new shotgun, or larger truck tires...

something i would like to see sometime, just out of curiosity, is a comparison based on a baseline... i know that a house that costs about 400k here in the twin cities of minnesota can be purchased for about 225k in omaha nebraska, and would probably fetch close to a million in ny or cali... it is the same house, though...

 

[Iceberg]

More evidence the US is becoming a dangerous theocracy:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/15/inmate.abortion.ap/index.html

Have the SCOTUS heard of Roe vs. Wade???

 

[mindido]

Ice,

Roe v. Wade is dead, or at least it will be shortly. No doubt about that. Looks like its back to the coat hangers.

 

[Texan]

Ice, When I come face to face with a pro-choice person, I ask one and just one question, "What did your mom choose?"

 

[mindido]

Tex,

Kind of a stupid question as the answer is pretty obvious. But I guess if thats the depth of your understanding of the issue.....

 

[Texan]

Tex,

Kind of a stupid question as the answer is pretty obvious. But I guess if thats the depth of your understanding of the issue.....

I have a better understanding of the issue than you do. Abortion should not be a birth control, bottom line. If you think otherwise you are one sick bastard.