Quote:

Darknight613:
Okay, point taken. But two triple-digit-bodycount attacks in a matter of weeks is a pretty big deal. I'd guess that something like this (at least the attack in Spain) would have gotten someone's attention beforehand if they were really paying close attention. Granted we can't be everywhere at once, but...oh, I don't know. I'm just pissed because almost 200 people died today, and I was just lashing out because I feel that something could have been done to prevent it. Exactly what, I don't know. I just wish it could have been prevented, as I'm sure the rest of us do.

And as you said, terrorists are very difficult to track down. I know it's tough, but as I stated in a previous post, I feel that Bush may have gotten side-tracked from his hunt for terrorists with everything else he's dealing with.



This incident in Spain is equivalent there, to what 9-11 was here.
It's a major terror incident, and was completely unexpected by the Spanish government and its citizens.

Al Qaida released a statement shortly after the Iraq War began, saying that Britain and Spain were targets for retaliation for their participation in the Iraq war (as well as Poland and Japan). But that was a while ago.

I think this makes it clear that it isn't just a war between the U.S. and Al Qaida. That in fact, the entire world is a target for Muslim extremism. (As if the point were not already made clear by Muslim terrorism and violence in Russia, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, China and elsewhere. )

But, y'know, blame it on Bush. ("Not partisan" ?!?!? )


This terrorism began under Clinton, and Clinton had 8 years to deal with it.

But he sat by and let happen:

  • The 1993 World Trade Center bombing
  • The ambush in Mogadishu, Somalia (because Clinton did not station adequate backup troops, if the troops came under heavy fire, because for politically correct reasons, he minimized the troops he sent there. Which resulted in a unit of Army Rangers getting slaughtered, and their corpses dragged through the streets on global television)
  • Also in 1993, Clinton cut and ran from Somalia instead of militarily finishing the job. Paying more attention to popularity polls than doing the job right, he pulled our troops out. Muslims all over the world, and Al Qaida in particular, still cite this as proof that Americans are cowards, which further incites them to attack us.
  • The 1995 bombing of U.S. troop barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
  • The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in the capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton's answer to this was to lob a few cruise missiles at Al Qaida camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. But it well acknowledged by Pentagon insiders at the time that this was known in advance to be a minimal, inneffectual illusion of action, that would not stop the threat, but would look tough to the American public. Clinton didn't do a larger and more effective attack in 1998, because he was attempting to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And a larger attack would have upset that agreement.
  • And furthermore, Clinton's inneffectual 1998 cruise missile attack is what made Osama Bin Ladin an international hero to the entire Muslim world, for standing up to the United States and surviving. If a real effort was made THEN, to really stop Bin Ladin, then 9-11 would never have occurred.
    Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
  • The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, at port in Yemen, in October 2000. Again, no response, because Clinton was negotiating peace in Israel/Palestine, and didn't want to upset the Arabs.
    Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on an increasingly greater scale.
  • And likewise, beyond Al Qaida and terrorism, if Clinton had not naively signed away roughly a billion a year in energy give-aways to North Korea, with no verification required regarding inspection of their nuclear facilities, then North Korea would not have had 10 years to secretly build nuclear weapons.
  • And likewise, if Clinton did not have a contempt for national security, and fill his administration with liberals who likewise had a contempt for national security, China would not have had the opportunity to steal nuclear secrets and missile technology, to build better ICBM's that can now reach the United States. This is something that will come back to haunt us, in the coming decades.
  • Clinton also had incentive to invade Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military defectors first began telling that Saddam Hussein had a secret WMD program, that he was hiding from U.N. weapons inspectors.
    And again in 1998, when Saddam Hussein pushed out U.N. weapons inspectors entirely from Iraq (violating the 1991 peace terms), Clinton again did nothing. Again demonstrating weakness that invited attack on the U.S.
  • And likewise, not resolving the situation in Iraq, maintaining Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq, and troops in Saudi Arabia, was the specific reason Osama Bin Ladin declared his Al Qaida Jihad on the United States.
    Again, a situation where, if Clinton resolved the Iraq situation, rather than leaving our troops there indefinitely, the Al Qaida rationalization for 9-11 might have ceased to exist.


You blame it all on Bush, some of which I actually agree with. But Bush was only in office 8 months, so he didn't have time to implement anything.
Even if Bush signed an anti-terror initiative the day he took office, it would not have been ready in time to prevent 9-11.

But at the same time, Bush ignored warnings of the Pentagon in early 2001 to implement anti-terror preparation, and instead Bush put his focus on an incredibly expensive and unproven ballistic missile defense program.

But it pisses me off to no end that you and others are so quick to heap all the blame on Bush.
Clinton laid the groundwork for 8 years, that resulted in Al Qaida's success on 9-11-2001. But you seem blind to that.

Blame it on Bush.

~

Regarding your comments that Bush should have done more to prevent the bombing of Shiites in Iraq 2 weeks ago, or to prevent what happened in Spain:

First of all, do we have ANY troops in Spain? Isn't that a job for the Spanish government? How is that Bush's fault?
We can share intelligence with Spain, advise them, but it is ultimately their job to defend their own country.

In Iraq, if we put more troops in Iraq, Bush-hating liberals say we're escalating the war (as happened in the summer of 2003).
If we put less troops in Iraq, then Bush-hating liberals say we're spread too thin and we're working our military too hard, and we're not doing enough.

So basically, no matter what the President does, Bush-hating liberals will bitch. No course of action will be acknowledged as the right thing.

And also regarding your "non-partisan" Bush-bashing "Bush should have done more" remarks:

How many hundreds of billions have we spent on homeland security?
And still, we know, shipping crates could be used by Al Qaida to bring in nukes or other WMD's for a terror bombing.
Or trains, or 18-wheeler trucks, or other means.
Despite the maximum effort within our own borders, we are still vulnerable, and our government tries every day to close those gaps. It doesn't happen overnight, or even in two and a half years.
And yet on local news, I still see a story every two months or so of how local reported snuck guns or knives or other more potentally dangerous materials through airport security. If we spent double the money and manpower, there would still be gaps.

~

It bothers me that your reaction, and the liberal reaction in general, is to blame Bush first, and irrationally, for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

Yes, I have some problems with Bush's military policy, and I think he could have done more, or pressed for more efficient and less wasteful use of military and security resources. But I still feel he is the strongest President we could ask for in the present post-9/11 situation.

Bush is the President who will pursue the U.S. interest first, and not waffle and cave in to the U.N., Saudi Arabia, France, Germany or anyone else, putting meaningless diplomacy in greater priority than U.S. national security, as I guarantee you Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, and other Democrats would, and have clearly stated they would.

~

Finally, you can take your "non-partisan" remarks about Bush, and shove them up your ass.

I'm so sick of you voicing your "non-partisan/neutral objectivity" even as you make blatantly partisan remarks.

And I'm sick to death of you, Darknight613, and liberal assholes like you, who always blame America, and especially the Republicans, first.
And then don't even have the guts to admit it.

What about Clinton, asshole. What the hell about Clinton ?!?



I feel very badly for the people of Spain. I know the anger and the tears I had on 9-11, and my heart goes out to them.
I have a former fiance in Almeria, on the Southern coast of Spain. And if circumstances were just slightly different, I might be there right now, and this would be even closer to home for me.