quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
I just posted an article saying Clinton cut off cash to the Taliban regime.

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium

Now given the fact that Clinton did this, do you think it was then prudent for the following administration to give them 43 million?
Clinton also did virtually nothing beyond that for close to 10 years, while the Taliban --on Clinton's watch-- performed increasingly grandiose exhibitions of terrorism:
  • the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that unsuccessfully tried to bring the towers down.
  • Al Qaida training, and supply of weapons, to the rebels who killed U.S. Army Rangers in somalia in 1993, and dragged their bodies through the streets of Mogadishu.
  • bombings of apartment buildings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995, housing U.S. military personnel.
  • the simultaneous bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
    Clinton made a token show of U.S. military power by launching a few missiles at a very nomadic terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, but Clinton knew this would be ineffective, and Pentagon officials aadvised him (and I saw them interviewed about this on 60 Minutes, shortly after 9/11) and ground forces were needed to do the job right.
    But as always with Clinton, he would not risk a drop in popularity by subjecting U.S. soldiers to potential casualties, even though Clinton knew that ground forces were necessary, if he were to do the job right. Serving his own political interests and popularity, rather than the best interests of the nation, as usual.
    And as we all know, Bin Ladin's surviving that attack unscathed is what made him a legendary hero across the entire Muslim world.
  • Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in late 1999, which Clinton likewise didn't respond to militarily, for fear of disrupting delicate peace negotiations, which were fruitless anyway.
    But the inaction against attacks just convinced al Qaida of U.S. cowardice and lack of commitment, and emboldened al Qaida to greater acts of terrorism.



quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

Given the fact that Osama basically ran the country, do you think perhaps some of that cash may have been used to fund the 9/11 plot?
No, because from what I read in the months after 9/11, it only cost about 200,000 dollars to train and supply the 19 terrorists.

And in recent months, it's been revealed that the 9/11/2001 hijackings were conceived at least 4 years ago. So all the components were put into place back then.

Osama Bin Laden had a personal fortune of about 50 million when 9/11/2001 occurred. And that's not even with al Qaida's larger and separate financial assets.

I think it's wild conjecture for you to assume that Bush somehow provided funds that made 9/11 possible. (And unpatriotic, vitriolically partisan, and slanderously anti-Bush, as usual).


quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

I have to go back to that Time article where evidence is given that the Bush Administrations palatable disdain for anything Clinton contributed to their total dismissal of anything they had to say, including the threat of Al Queda. So serious was Berger about Al Queda that he insisted on a briefing on them to Condaleeza Rice which was pretty much ignored.
For a Bush administration that campaigned to be a sharp break from Clinton, it's not so outrageous that the Bush Administration would temporarily, or even permanently, set aside policies that the new administration questioned as having been ineffective. Bush ran as the non-Clinton candidate.

When Bush stayed out of international politics and nation-building (pre-9/11), Democrats said he was wrong from that perspective. Characterizing Bush as isolationist, losing power abroad, economically stagnating, etc.

Then Bush becomes intensely pro-active in preventing terrorism by becoming very involved in international politics, spending more on defense and homeland security, and then Democrats bash Bush as a big spender a warmonger, not adhering to U.N. and other bureacracy ( i.e., Bush was fighting terrorism and global threats effectively) and then Bush is bashed by Democrats for spending too much, being non-compliant with international law (which wasn't working), and Democrats whitewashed the fact that the defense spending was necessary in the wake of 9/11, and would have increased under ANY President.

So whether withdrawn from nation-building and wars, or firmly ENGAGED in pro-active nation building, Bush is spun either way as wrong-headed and ineffectual. ( Conquering Afghanistan in the national interest, demolishing Afghan/al Qaida camps training tens of thousands of al Qaida terrorists, and attempting to create a strong centralized national government in Afghanistan. ) Whether Bush is passive or aggressive, Democrats and a complicit liberal media spin Bush's actions, no matter what, to be a negative thing.


And regarding the later Iraq war, France said it would veto ANY U.N. resolution to invade Iraq.
And the idea fabricated after-the-fact by liberals that if we waited another 6 months or another 2 years, that then France, Germany and Russia would have joined the "coalition of the willing"...?
That is utter nonsense.

France made very clear its enduring and unrelenting opposition to ANY action against Iraq (despite its acknowledgement of Iraq's danger and U.N. non-compliance, and signing the 10 resolutions to that effect over the last 12 years).
And Germany, and probably Russia as well, would similarly oppose ANY enforcement against Iraq, no matter how long we waited and held out a diplomatic hand for their consensus. For Democrats to say otherwise now is liberal revisionism, and deliberate misrepresentation.

France made clear to the world there was nothing that would change their minds. And Germany (with a President re-elected on a platform of anti-Americanism just a year before the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003) stood firmly with France.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

Or to put it another way. The WTC was bombed (the 1st time) with Clinton being in office only 18 days (I beleive). Did anyone blame Bush Ist?
No.
Have AM radio shills blamed Clinton for then doing nothing??
Yes.
Have they also blamed Clinton for the WTC tragedy?
yes. As often as they can.

There was no bitter condemnation of Clinton by Republicans in 1993.

But there sure as hell was a bitter, slanderous and partisan attack on Bush in the wake of 9/11/2001.

There is respectful inquiry, and then there is the divisive, inflammatory, unfounded and self-serving rhetoric of the Democrats regarding Bush, that began with Bush's election, lasted for most of his first year, took a brief break of a few months after 9/11 (because Democrats didn't want to look unpatriotic, even though they were).

And at the first opportunity it seemed safe to attack Bush again, they slanderously attacked him with a vengeance.

There is respectful, non-partisan inquiry, that gains credibility by asking the right questions about Bush, without taking cheap digs at every partisan opportunity.
That is NOT the kind of democracy-preserving inquiry I'm seeing from Democrats. All I see is a bitter, partisan attack on Bush.

A partisan Democrat/liberal attack on Bush that assumes as fact circumstantial things that would reflect UNfavorably on Bush. The type of reports they would toss out as "unconfirmed conjecture" or "overly optimistic" if it favored Bush, liberals accept as ABSOLUTE FACT if it tarnishes Bush.

And a partisan Democrat/liberal attack on Bush that assumes as false anything that would reflect favorably on Bush.

This bitter polarization begins with the liberals, and then they constantly portray conservatives as the ones who started it. When in truth, the conservative response is just equal time.

The fact is, who was in the White House for 8 years, between the 1993 WTC bombing, and the 2001 WTC bombing?

Who was the President who drastically cut military spending to pay for his own (liberal) domestic spending programs?
Who was a draft evader, who prior to becoming President, had voiced a contempt for the military?


Who took token action with missiles instead of troops in 1998, that he KNEW would be ineffective, and all his Pentagon advisers told him would be ineffective, that catapulted Osama Bin Ladin to revere and celebrity across the entire Muslim world, for defying the U.S. and living to tell about it?
Who observed increasingly grandiose attacks against the U.S. military and embassies, in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and took no military action because it would have been politically unpopular to put troops on the ground to fight it? (And cut and ran from Somalia, for the same reason?)

That would be William Jefferson Clinton.

It is the bitter tactics of the Democrat party that has forced Republicans to set the record straight.
Forcing Republicans to answer what was slanderously alleged about Bush, and pointing out that if Democrats are going to play the blame game, considerable blame rests on Clinton.