You can't deny Bush this:

[WaveStrider]

Quote from jonbig04:

lol its not false and you know it. I may or may not address the arguments that others posed, honestly most of them seemed so ludicrous that its a waste of time. On september 11 4 plans were hijacked, 2 of which destroyed the WTC buildings, 1 of which hit the pentagon. Nothing at all like that has happened since. I don't know why i have to keep restating it. You can take it apart and be as technical as you want but we all know its true.

You can't deny Clinton this:

No successful major terrorist attack occurred AT ALL during his Presidency. Therefore, by that logic, Clinton was a better protector of the US than Bush, who was President during the successful 9/11 attempt.

You are implying that Bush has kept us from being attacked again. But it could just as easily be argued that since there were no successful attacks during Clinton's Presidency, perhaps Bush went back to what Clinton was doing to stop them after trying his own unsuccessful method.

They are, of course, both improper conclusions to draw - but both equally so...

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from wjk:


If I remember correctly, we used a rather large inventory of missiles on the tent camp, and certainly Russia was informed ahead of time. Firing 1 or 2 to take out OBL wouldn't really be a stretch at all.

Yes, and the US can use planes -- but again that requires quite a bit of preparation. The military has to have cruise missiles available, in theater, and/or an aircraft carrier to launch the planes.

Russia has to be informed, along with other countries.

So spotting Bin Laden once isn't enough to have this all organized. Knowing where his camp is, though, is actionable intelligence.

And yes, there's always a concern with collateral damage.

 

[wjk]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, and the US can use planes -- but again that requires quite a bit of preparation. The military has to have cruise missiles available, in theater, and/or an aircraft carrier to launch the planes.

Russia has to be informed, along with other countries.

So spotting Bin Laden once isn't enough to have this all organized. Knowing where his camp is, though, is actionable intelligence.

And yes, there's always a concern with collateral damage.

Which makes my point. Why were we looking for him if we weren't prepared to take action? It seems Clinton really wanted him, and missed a great opportunity. The fact that we were in theater with the ability to launch missiles in August 98 would lead me to believe we were still in position in December 98, and that raises the question: why? or why not? To attack a training camp, and not attack a compound with reasonable intel raises questions. Perhaps as simple as collateral damage. Or maybe politics.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from wjk:

Which makes my point. Why were we looking for him if we weren't prepared to take action?

That's a very strange point you're making. What would we say to other countries? "We're looking for someone, and if we do stumble across him at some point, there will be missiles flying over, but we're not sure when."

It seems Clinton really wanted him, and missed a great opportunity.

Actually Clinton bombed him when they knew where his camp was.

The fact that we were in theater with the ability to launch missiles in August 98 would lead me to believe we were still in position in December 98, and that raises the question: why? or why not? To attack a traing camp, and not attack a compound with reasonable intel raises questions. Perhaps as simple as collateral damage. Or maybe politics.

Or both. Or the fact that you don't want to just bomb someone who looks like him, you want to get the real guy. Not every tall Arabic guy.

Sadly, he didn't have a sign on his head saying "Me!"

Compare that to Bush who refused the offer from the Taliban.

 

[arealpissedgoy]

Quote from jonbig04:

Ah, about time the conspiracy theories surfaced

Conspiracy?

no you dumb fuck. Those are FACTS. Easily verifiable at that.

 

[wjk]

Quote from bigdavediode:

That's a very strange point you're making. What would we say to other countries? "We're looking for someone, and if we do stumble across him at some point, there will be missiles flying over, but we're not sure when."

the same thing we told them when we hit the tent city

Actually Clinton bombed him when they knew where his camp was.

They also knew shortly after that the camp was warned and vacated, perhaps by those we informed of an impending attack. It was known shortly thereafter that OBL was not hit, so we would not have vacated the theater. But then, maybe he wasn't a target in the camp attack.

Or both. Or the fact that you don't want to just bomb someone who looks like him, you want to get the real guy. Not every tall Arabic guy.

I doubt we knew what anyone looked like in the tent city. But we hit it anyway.

Sadly, he didn't have a sign on his head saying "Me!"

That would have greatly simplified matters!

Compare that to Bush who refused the offer from the Taliban.

I simply don't understand a lot of Bushes moves either. He did react, though, and a message was sent. The wall came down. Governments who might wish to aid terrorists risk attack themselves. That's a strong message. Perhaps not having as many safe havens makes it more difficult for organization. And those things, though not enough, make us just a little safer...in my opinion.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from arealpissedgoy:

Conspiracy?

no you dumb fuck. Those are FACTS. Easily verifiable at that.

Hey douchbag, the word conspiracy doesnt imply whether its true or false. Why don't you bring a dictionary before you come into the big boys section next time?

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from bigdavediode:

If you exclude the WTC and then exclude the Pentagon, exclude the anthrax attacks,

C'mon you're listing a lot of bs too, Dave. Both the anthrax attacker and Beltway Sniper were Americans and both sprees were solved. Yes John Allen Muhammad was probably a jihadist but stuff like that and the shooting in Seattle etal aren't what the OP is referring too. Why not throw Columbine in their under Clinton then?

There hasn't been a single incident of state sponsored or Al queda terror on our shores since 9/11.

There's certainly been plans. Padilla and the L.A. terrorists were bona fide threats. There'll be more. Some will work out. No matter who is President. We know Bin laden wanted 9/11 to be 7/4/00.

Military policy is impotent against lone or small cell domestic terrorists.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

C'mon you're listing a lot of bs too, Dave. Both the anthrax attacker and Beltway Sniper were Americans and both sprees were solved. Yes John Allen Muhammad was probably a jihadist but stuff like that and the shooting in Seattle etal aren't what the OP is referring too. Why not throw Columbine in their under Clinton then?

Well yes, if you narrowly define "any terror attacks" as the one you want it to be, then you betchya. That's like saying there has never been a major crash in the stock market. There hasn't, because the ones I'm counting don't meet my threshold.

How can we as individuals search for and find objective truths (about the market or the world) if we selectively redefine categories for self-affirmation?

Isn't it better if we say "Hey, here are the facts" and then work to analyze them even when we're wrong? (I say "when" because it happens to everyone, even me, so my wife tells me.)

There hasn't been a single incident of state sponsored or Al queda terror on our shores since 9/11.

Or before 9/11. Kind of a stark reminder of the power of a vacationing president who doesn't read his PDB's.

There's certainly been plans. Padilla and the L.A. terrorists were bona fide threats. There'll be more. Some will work out. No matter who is President. We know Bin laden wanted 9/11 to be 7/4/00.

Military policy is impotent against lone or small cell domestic terrorists.

Well that's true. That's why it needs to be treated as asymmetrical warfare that it is.

It's not a "war" and we can't send "troops" in to some country or other to solve terrorism because it's done by "the Muslims." If only life were that simple!

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Well yes, if you narrowly define "any terror attacks" as the one you want it to be, then you betchya.

haha dave come on. I could see your point if there were countless other terrorist attacks in our history with thousands dead. However, what 4,000 people died on sept. 11th? how much destruction was caused?

The differences between the 9/11 attacks and other attacks is not "narrow". you know it.