Cheney and the other war hawks (ie, future Halliburton employees and lobbyists) are so disappointed.
Bush: US Must Remain Vigilant on Iran
President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.
“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program,” Bush said. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”
Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.
>>all of those brave soldiers have been killed
>>or injured for the freedom of the Iraqi people.
Well, God bless the Iraqi people. Why did we just leave the Cuban people, the North Korean people, the Sudanese people, and the rest of the millions and millions of people suffering under a brutal dictator to die in poverty, disease, starvation, torture, and pain? The number of people suffering worldwide under tinhorn dictators is almost unimaginable.
Why do you suppose Dumbya picked Iraq, of all the countries that are no threat to us, if not to resolve his daddy issues? Hmmm?
And why do you suppose he bollixed up the unilateral invasion so terrible?
>>but it will be much worse if we just
>>turn our backs on Iraq.
You’re right. Dumbya has gotten us into a hell of a mess, and it’s going to be hard as the dickens to get out of it.
Dumbya has created a perfect storm here, a hellish nightmare of death and destruction, that SOMEBODY ELSE will have to bail him out of.
Just like every other endeaver he has ever undertaken.
#60 – all of those brave soldiers have been killed or injured for the freedom of the Iraqi people.
Knock that shit off.
No one was deployed to Iraq to liberate anyone. No American motive in the Mid-East has ever been motivated by buzzwords like freedom or liberty.
Those soldiers continue to be killed in an effort to secure Baghdad for the Iraqi citizens. Our troops (and Iraqi civilians) are being killed by suicide bombers and IED’s that are placed to cause unrest, fear, and carnage.
Our troops are being killed by threats that weren’t there until after we invaded and destabilized a nation that should never have been on the hit list in the first place.
This isn’t our soldiers fault. They are not policy makers. The President points in a direction, and they go… as it should be.
Bush should stand in the Hague and answer for his crimes.
MM,
So because Kennedy didnt bail out Cuba (oh, wait, he tried) Bush isnt allowed to fight in Iraq? Thats one weak argument.
Im not saying that all of bush’s motives are good. However, The soldiers who are fighting, are fighting everyday for the security of the Iraqi people. SO it is very true to say that they have died or been injured as a direct result of providing security for Iraqi’s. You would agree that the soldiers are on the ground right now are trying to hold the peace? Would you not? They watch intersections and markets and when given intel, they go find the people who help out with the attacks. The soldiers are provided the policing while others try to train new forces to take over after we are gone. What about that statement is wrong? I completely agree that we are in a mess. I have never disputed that. But it is ours to clean up. Plain and simple….no one else is going to do it. So do we just leave the Iraqi civilians to suffer. I dont think so.
My complaint with you is that you act like the Iraq war is only about getting revenge for daddy. You would have to be one heck of an idiot to actually think that is the only reason people were fighting in Iraq. And, as i said before….oversymplifying what is going on is rediculous. To then complain that we should have gone in to help cuba or any other nation; yet then condemn him for helping Iraqi’s is a little hypocrtitical. Especially since cuba stopped being a threat a decade before bush went into office. Not to mention the fact that we dont have a large enough army to solve every country’s problem in the world. We can barelay handle Iraq. And the lack of numbers in our armed services is a direct result of the Downsizing of the clinton era. Even if we still had our 300,000 ground troops, we cant solve everyone’s problems.
Also, as far as the “why did he choose Iraq abive all other places?
1) this is an argument that has been used for years….in fact it was used against clinton in somalia as well….by people who said he wanted to colonize Africa…this is also used by Osama as evidence that the US wants to take over the holy land. Additionally, this is always a bad argument because each president only has a max of 8 years and they need to start somewhere (and they always start where the US has the most interest). The problem is that US could never go fix everyone’s problems….so people say we have an alterior motive for picking the one place we do help.
2) The middle east has been a powder keg for 2 thousand years. Every US president for the last 30 years has had a plan to bring peace to the region. Carter tried by negotiating with terrorists and failed. Reagan was a little more focused on Russia, but Clinton tried to broker the peace as well. I honestly think that bush thought he could bring democracy to this region and he felt that Saddam deserved to be removed the most. Now, I must say here, that this was a very misguided belief, but I am sure that he felt this way…He further felt that if he brought democracy to Iraq that it may spread throughout the region (agian, this was, in opinion and misguided beleif).
3) After 9-11, Bush shifted his focus…as did everyone else. I think Bush thought that if he could get rid of Saddam and create a democracy in Iraq, that we would have a life long ally in a region where allies are hard to come by. I think he honestly believed that this would be a way to seriously alter the path of the middle east and creat some sort of peace. Again, this was misguided as well…but it should be pointed out that many others felt this way at the time. Many didnt as well, but bush apparently agreed with those who did.
I think after 9-11, Bush wanted to become the president that solved the middle east crisis. Again, given the history, this was probably not a great idea.
Again, I am a moderate who did not vote for Bush in the second election. I completely agree that Bush has made mistakes. His assumptions were proven wrong and we are now paying the price….However, I also dont think that mistakes and misguided assumptions always means that there is some underlying evil. He got a lot of things wrong, but he was elected twice. I guess at least the american people were smart enough not to elect Jimmy Carter twice. But then again, the dems didnt have the strongest pool of candidates for that second election either.
We are in a bad spot…but it wasnt just bush that got things wrong…the CIA, NSA, FBI – are all accountable. I know that bush was in charge at the time, but in reality, it was Clinton’s guy who was in charge of all of that. Also, they had a dumb rule back then that military intel couldnt be used in coordination with a criminal investigation…so we had one agent with the CIA doing intel and another agent working on the same case doing the criminal investigation, but they werent allowed to share info. it was called FISA and its why some of the 911 terrorist were able to continue taking flight lesson despite being spotted by the CIA. The CIA never shared the info with the FBI because they were afraid of breaking the FISA ruling. My only point to that is our entire intelligence system was FUBAR and it was mainly due to lack of resources and funding…which again…occured under clinton.
So yes, his assumptions were wrong and he made a bunch of mistakes…but some of them were based on faulty intel. It also worth noting that the last 4 presidents before him got it wrong when it came to the middle east.
>>Every US president for the last 30 years has
>>had a plan to bring peace to the region.
So Dumbya’s plan was to start a war. Brilliant!
>>After 9-11, Bush shifted his focus…as
>>did everyone else.
Right. Most of us shifted it to Osama and al Qaeda though. In Dumbya’s case, he was committed to invading Iraq long before 9/11, so he tried diseminating the bullshit stories, jumped on with gusto by Faux “news” talking heads and neocon nincompoops, that Iraq was somehow in bed with Osama. As they always say, “be careful what you wish for”. Thanks to Dumbya’s incredibly mismanaged war, al Qaeda DID become a powerful force in Iraq, where it had never been before.
>>it wasnt just bush that got things wrong…
>>the CIA, NSA, FBI – are all accountable.
Right, he’s not one hundred percent to blame, but the buck does stop somewhere. And his never-ending rewarding of imbeciles (like his Medal of Freedom to Tenet) and appointing to morons to positions of power and influence (like ‘Berto, and who can even believe that he seriously proposed an asslicking nobody like Harriet “I’ve never been a judge in my life” Miers as Supreme Court justice??) didn’t do anything to improve his already legendary incompetence.
>>It also worth noting that the last 4
>>presidents before him got it wrong when
>>it came to the middle east.
They may not have fixed the problems (which will probably NEVER be fixed), but Dumbya has taken “not getting it right” to a whole new level. He’s got that trophy locked up tight too. And not just for his blundering in Iraq. He has botched just about pie he’s stuck his finger in, throughout his whole career. Usually Daddy was there to bail him out, but I guess not even Big Papi Bush has the juice to get him out of the jams he’s gotten us into as POTUS.
Actually, Carter is who helped prove to the world that terrorism could bring the US to its knees. Remember the hostage crisis. Which spurred along all of this.
Clinton is who originally appointed Tenet and our entire intelligence system went to crap during Clinton’s presidency. So you are right the buch has to stop somewhere and its stops with Bill as far as the intel goes. So actually, it was clinton era intelligence policies that led 911. So Clinton shares a great deal of the blame for the 3,000 americans who died as a result of our intelligence failures. So I agree…Bush made a bunch of mistakes…but for you to not be willing to admit Clntons failures in all of this just proves how you like to selectively use cause and effect….i.e. by saying the threat that is killing US soldiers wasnt even in Iraq until after the invasion.
#46, Todd,
My point was not to say that the current European powers were worse than us…
But you did.
….my point was to say that all countrys [sic] have skeletons in the closet.
You want to discuss slavery? It hasn’t been an issue in Europe for 1500 years, since the fall of the Roman Empire.
they point to European nations as being enlightened and speak of Americans as nothing but a bunch of ignorant bigots.
Geeze you are insecure. And making lame excuses. You also didn’t say that.
My point is to put things into perspective because you do get the anti-american rhetoric from the far left all of the time…
No, your point is to defend an indefensible war. See. You still slight America. I just pointed out to you it is a proper noun. By not capitalizing it shows your disdain. And you want to criticize the “far left”? The far left didn’t advocate a war built on lies.
Analysts by the way who have been extremely critical of the war(stratfor).
Sorry, I have no idea what a (stratfor) is.
I am so sorry that I give them more credibility than you all when it comes to geo-politics [sic].
Sounds like they might be part of your High School Nerd club. Maybe that is why they can’t spell it. So you want us to have faith in some group that can’t even spell their specialty?
Especially when they have been correct in almost all of their analysis for the past 2 years.
So, your group has been meeting for two years now? Since gr. 8?
Where do you get your info???
Reputable sources. Most notable the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker Magazine, Newsweek, and TIME. Other groups like the Annenburg Foundation, American University, Emory University, Princeton University, U. of Michigan, Northwestern U., and many more. I usually gage the veracity by the source.
Do I trust some 20 yr old with an agenda and no training or a company who is extremely successful soley [sic] because of the accuracy of their analysis.
I don’t know. It appears your prime source is that group of Gr. 10 buddies.
I must be an idiot…
No argument from me. It is your prerogative to be 15 and an idiot. Hopefully some day you will grow out of it.
So up to this point you have written 300 words and haven’t said anything. Your entire post is over 650 words. And you still don’t say anything. If you plan on going on to a higher education, it might be an idea if you learned to write.
#64, Todd,
Would you quit copying other people without citing your source. Your snipping clearly shows a total disjunct. You post things out of context.
This doesn’t make you look like you know something. It does show you can’t think for yourself.
#66, Todd,
Bush made a bunch of mistakes…but for you to not be willing to admit Clntons [sic] failures in all of this just proves how you like to selectively use cause and effect
No, it means that Bush was the one who ordered the invasion. Bush was the one who discounted the intelligence that pointed out Iraq did not possess WMDs. Bush is the one who gave faulty intelligence to Congress. Bush is the one who insisted the war would cost us almost nothing as Iraqi oil would pay for it. Bush is the one who insists that he was right all the time. Bush is the one that wants the legacy of having won a war. Bush is the one who will not turn over relevant documents to Congress to fully investigate. Bush is the one who has consistently lied about everything to America.
This is not Clinton’s war or any of Clinton’s mistakes that got almost 4000 American soldiers killed and almost 40,000 wounded. Blaming Clinton is not the sign of a moderate nor does it display any objectivity. It is the mark of a blind fool who puts the faults of his perfect leader on the shoulders of someone else.
>>Clinton is who originally appointed Tenet
Tenet, like Fredo, is stupid and weak, but his heart is in the right place. As long as he was working for an honest man, it wasn’t a problem. When he got thrown into the meatgrinder of the Bush Regime, he didn’t have the backbone to stand up to Puppetmasters Rove and Cheney. When he heard they wanted evidence of WMDs, he said “slam dunk!”, even though there was no evidence.
So yes, Clinton is guilty of appointing someone who was OK in fair weather, but sucked as a wartime consigliere. In Clinton’s defense, he probably couldn’t predict the future to know that someone as evil and dishonest as Rove/ Cheney would be taking over his appointee.
However, everything else (with respect to the Iraq war) IS Dumbya’s fault. And to suggest otherwise implies either a boot-licking subservience to those in power, or an absolute lack of any critical-thinking skills.
Speaking of intelligence, why is “intelligence” spelled “intelligence” in the header here? 🙁 That’s not very intelligent.
Woops, I meant “spelled ‘intellegence'”. I guess either I can’t misspell a word even if I try, or I’m not very intelligent.
Todd said, >> We had no intention of going into Iran and actually fighting a ground war like in Iraq. We had a possible intention of bombing the crap out of some buildings/reactors,
Goodness some people are so naive! So many conservatives foolishly believed we could invade a country, be showered with flowers, and then waltz away.
And now some of those same shiny faced people believe that America can “bomb the crap out of some buildings” without any blow-back or military consequences.
Good luck with that!
#73, MM
Rough day at the office?
I was looking at #72 repeatedly trying to figure out the issue. I’m glad you clarified it. I was beginning to question myself on what I was missing.
Yes, Nuclear One. I may net qualify for “geek”, but I can on occasion get cranky. And that’s when any shred of “intellegence” goes down the crapper.
Blessed be. I should go hug a tree or something. Maybe take a ride on my broom.
Mister Mustard said, >> Speaking of intelligence, why is “intelligence” spelled “intelligence” in the header here? 🙁 That’s not very intelligent.
(I’m a horrible speller and an even worse typist so I shouldn’t even mention this but…) I had to laugh when an NBC web site misspelled “intellegence” in their headline. I noticed it a couple of days ago and they still haven’t corrected it.
http://tinyurl.com/3yhxze
Mr. Allen, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Are you related to Gracie? Thanks for fixing my typo in the message criticizing the typo. Or perhaps “Ed.” did a global search-and-replace? I see it’s been fixed in the headline as well.
#76, MM
Na, just be proud of all the succinct points you have made. It takes a good person to admit their mistakes. I’m smiling with you, not at you.
>You want to discuss slavery? It hasn’t been an issue in Europe for 1500 years, since the fall of the Roman Empire.
Way off. Europeans themselves were taken as slaves in large numbers as late as the 1920s.
The word itself comes from ‘Slav,’ no wonder so many wars get started there.
So much heat, but so little light.
Mr. Fusion
“You want to discuss slavery? It hasn’t been an issue in Europe for 1500 years, since the fall of the Roman Empire.” – Mr. Fusion
Wrong!!! Do you actually read history books or just look at the covers? Slaves remained common in Europe throughout the early medieval period. Not to mention the fact that in the 1400’s was the start of the European slave trading in Africa. Oh I see as long as they don’t bring them home it is ok the buy and sell them.
“When was England EVER apartheid?” – Mr. Fusion
Well it seems you don’t know the history of England very well. I will chalk that one up to a poor education.
I will wet your appetite for knowledge. with this link. Don’t rush in you may hurt your brain.
http://tinyurl.com/3d792j
Next time look something up before asking dumb questions that are purposed to insult your opponent.
Stop pretending that you actually know anything and just be honest and say it is your opinion.
Mr. Mustard and Mr. Fusion,
Did you actually just call Clinton an honest guy??? Please!!!!! You have no clue what you are talking about. I told you that Bush has screwed up the war…I haven’t defended him in that…but maybe you can’t read. But everytime I mention a mistake made by the clintons…you change the subject and blame bush for something else. I wasnt talking about Bush…I was talking about Clinton…why dont you respond to that?
Clinton decided not to kill Bin laden, Clinton appointed Tenet, Clinton allowed the intelligence community to collapse, clinton cut our military capability in half, Clinton underfunded anything that had to do with defense or intelligence, Clinton screwed up Somalia, Clinton rented rooms in the white house for profit (Lincoln Bedroom), Clinton lied in a grand jury testamony, etc….I have already spent several postings describing mistakes of the Bush administrtation. The fact remains that you probably wish you were monica with the way you run to the defense of your man. And thats the problem with America….you wouldnt congradulate Bush even if he did win the war in Iraq…Because you hate him. Just like, you wont acknowledge the mistakes of the democrats. People need to stop this party line BS (on Both sides)….it lets politicians get away with too much. We need to hold both parties accountable. We need to acknowledge that this whole confrontation has been coming for a long time. Yes, Bush screwed it up (badly), but so did most everyone else. Its insane that you cant admit that….again I will ask, how can anyone be a republican or democrat at this point is beyond me. They have all lost their minds. To them, its not about what is best for America anymore. Its all about who wins the game. You show this same problem MM. You are more concerned in slamming bush than having a real discussion about what has brought us to this point. Its all a game to you…You just want to protect your leftist team-mates and slam your opponents.
My only initial argument was that Bush was not a criminal. You may disagree, thats great…But I cant stand people who are willing to completely ignore their “friends mistakes” yet still go around criticizing everyone else. I am a moderate, I have listed my issues with Bush, but the main point of may argument is that every president since Carter (including Bush) has a hand in what is going on right now. Bush may have failed more in your eyes…that great…but you havent been willing to admit one mistake that Clinton made (except appointing tenet) and your response is laughable. He didnt know that Tenet would have to deal with a war…..Its the CIA. You dont ever appoint a man to head that organization, if he cant handle a war….thats just dumb. I am not defending bush….I am just saying that your far leftist rhetoric is a little overboard…and your use of selective cause and effect is just pitiful. Furthermore, had Carter, Bush I, Reagan, or Clinton taken the time to deal with the growth of modern terrorism (starting w/the establishment of modern Iranian government), we wouldnt have been in this situation…..911 may have been avoided. The second Iraq war would not have happened….does that excuse Bush for his mistakes? absolutely NOT! However, to pretend that cause and effect only begins with Bush, because you personally hate bush is insane. This car wreck began a long time ago…and Bush is not the only reason the world is in chaos. What about the middle eastern leaders who harbor terrorists? what about the leaders who fund, train, and support international terrorists? what about the terrorist themselves? what about the severe living conditions (cause by local war lords and leaders) that set up an environment that is condusive to terrorism? Someone needed to do something…and like in all other things…the UN has failed to live up to its obligations. Now, I disagree with the actions that Bush decided to follow…but I equally disagree with the absolute lack of action that has been taken by the last 4 presidents before Bush. They all play into the bigger picture. And you dont seem to get that. You can blame bush more if you feel like it, but Clinton was almost as big a jack ass when it comes to terrorism. So was Carter and Bush I (for not finishing the job in Iraq in the first place). I give Reagan a pass a bit because he was more concerned with the Berlin wall (and lets face…he was pretty old).
Get with it man….Dont you understand…I am blaming both parties…not because I feel like sharing the blame…but because they both have had even chances at leading our country and they both have sucked at doing that. So dont come here with you holyier-than-thou attitude and try to cover up the mistakes of one side. Explaining them is fine, but stop ignoring them. Stop pretending like the democrats sheet dont stink and every problem in America is caused by Bush (or the republicans). And please stop bitching about a capital a in America…are you that short on real arguments. Stop calling me a 10th grader, I told you my source, Strategic forecasting (some from Wiki.) who, at least with Stratfor, is very recognized. The only thing they are judged on is accuracy…meanwhile, your mainstream media crap is all about profits and constantly gets things wrong. The people at Strategic Forecasting are professionals. The people at the New York Times are liberal activists with no idea about war strategy, geo-politics, or anything else. They just take what others say and slap it down on a sheet of paper. Their analysis is weak at best and their facts are manipulated. Their headlines are manipulated to get the best sales. Not the most accurate information.
I also find it quite telling Mr. Fusion that you dont stand up to people who bash the US unecessarily, yet you fight for both England and Europe as a whole.
Its even funnier that you dont understand the fact that slavery was in large part driven by European Colonialism and the fact that Apartheid (in South Africa) was also a direct result of Brittish Colonialism in Africa. You could actually argue that slavery was imported to the America’s by Europe. You do understand that the early settlers of the America’s were European, right?
Furthermore, did you not ever hear of the Brittish oppression in India? Or the frightening brutality shown by France towards Algeria (a colony of France at the time and one of the inital breeding grounds of modern terrorists). Go read a book about something other than America injustices. Why dont you actaully learn about the rest of the world? I have seen a lot of it…because again, contrary to your original insult toward me (calling me a chicken hawk)my military history has taken me to many places.
Heck Germany been the flash point for 2 world wars, they are responsible for the death of tens of millions of people. You can say that was just Hitler or the Nazi party, but he was publicly elected into office and after he wrote Mein Kompf (which describes his plan to remove the people he considered undesirable)
Are you telling me that compares equally to segregation. Both are evil (both come from a similar time in history), but come on!
>>Did you actually just call Clinton an
>>honest guy???
Naw, he got sucked off by a thong-wearing chubette, and he lied about it because he was afraid of what his wife would say. Fucking girlie man!
He didn’t lie about his leadership of America, though, and he did a darned good job as president.
Dumbya, on the other hand, lied about everything near and dear to our country, and sold the USA to the devil.
I would like to say that I really didnt give a damn about the Monica thing, it really didnt directly hurt the country as a whole. But it was part of the reason he withdrew from Somalia so quickly (Some in the media complained that Clinton was using Somalia to divert our attention from Monica-gate). So then when images of those soldiers being dragged through the streets hit TV, the public support for being in Somalia began to waiver. So he pulled out and that decision to pull-out hurt the US as a whole…But that was just the American Idol effect (Using public polls to decide how to fight a conflict). He should not have left so quickly, it made us look really weak in a part of the world where brutality is a daily reality. Not a single person who served during that conflict wanted to leave after what happened to their fellow soldiers. But Clinton waivered at the first sign of the public waivering. Which is what they wanted…thats why they drug those soldiers through the streets in front of national news cameras. They were banking on the fact that the public support in the US would be seriously damaged if those images were seen. CNN, NBC, and CBS all happily aired the images and Clinton ran.
My only other problem was why her? Kennedy at least cheated with M. Monroe.
>>”He didn’t lie about his leadership of America, though, and he did a darned good job as president.”
Clinton was a better politician, speaker, and diplomat than Bush. He was much smoother, but I wouldnt go as far as to say that he did a darned good job. He was an above average president…but some of his mistakes have cost us dearly. The intelligence breakdown was a serious issue and it has taken up until now to fix. Future presidents should take the 90’s as a case-study for what happens when you ingore your intelligence community for a decade. You see, its counterintuitive, you actually need your intelligence community just as much during times of peace. Once the Soviet Union fell, we became the sole world power, and as we saw on 911, our enemies did not disapear when the Soviets fell, they multiplied. The extremists who previously were more concerned with Russia, now focused solely on the US and Western Europe. So when the cold war was going on, our intelligence community had a focused goal…Stop the communists….after that, our national priorities shifted to more of a criminal intelligence/operations system. We werent threatened by large states anymore, we were threatened by groups who are bound by ideology, but not geography (a truly unique and dangerous enemy). We were looking for small groups of extremely dangerous people. We needed good during the 90’s more than ever. The same with the FBI, who is crucial in counterterrorism efforts. And the state of the FBI when Clinton left office was alarming. Both the CIA and the FBI had less agents and analysts covering the entire world than the NYPD has on shift at any one time in New York. And this was a direct result of who Clinton appointed to run these agencies and the budget cuts he implemented while in office.
Also, we dont need to always engage our military in conflict, but we do need to mainatin a military that is large enough to become engaged or defend our nation when needed (this is our federal governments #1 responsibility. He took the military cuts too far and left us in some serious trouble. There were almost 100,000 Marines in combat in the first gulf war. That is over half of the force that is currently there. We would have more there if we could, but we just dont have enough soldiers. They are already pulling 15 month rotations as it is. And though often blamed on Bush, that is actually more of a result of the troop reductions of the 90’s. When you dont have a draft, you have to keep career military men in uniform, even in times of peace. Its too hard to recruit large numbers of volunteers and train them in a short period of time. Clinton was seriously misguided with his views on this. But other than that, (and a couple of financial scandals)he was an all around good president. But the reasons above are why I dont think he was a “darned good President.” He was actually much less liberal than a lot of conservatives like to think. He was failry moderate. He did a great job in removing people from wel-fare programs, cut government spending (though in the wrong places – as mentioned above), increased financial support for education and job training, and didnt go nuts with the tax code. And I have to be honest, I cant stand Hillary, but it would be funny to see Bill as the 1st man….Imagine the trouble he will get into being in the white house with out having a real job to do. Thats way too much free time for him. Hollywood couldn’t even make that one up.
>>We needed good during the 90’s more than ever. The same with the FBI, who is crucial in counterterrorism efforts.
correction:
We needed quality INTEL during the 90’s more than ever. We needed the same quality work from the FBI, who is crucial in counterterrorism……
Sorry for any confusion Mr. Fusion
#82, J,
LOL, geeze, what a moran. You link to a site discussing something that happened 1500 years ago before England even existed.
If you read what I wrote, I said IN europe. I never suggested at any time that NO European was ever involved IN the slave trade. BUT, slaves were not an issue per se in Europe. Of course, your only proof is something that happened 1500 years ago.
#87, Todd,
(Some in the media complained that Clinton was using Somalia to divert our attention from Monica-gate). So then when images of those soldiers being dragged through the streets hit TV, the public support for being in Somalia began to waiver. So he pulled out and that decision to pull-out hurt the US as a whole…
Some more revisionist history. You obviously don’t know what you write about.
It was the Republican Congress that complained about Clinton sending a cruise missile to Somalia in 1998. They were the ones crying that it was a ploy to take the heat from “Monicagate”. Coincidently, the target was a chemical plant alleged to be producing weapons. There was no proof one way or the other as to it’s exact nature. At the same time he sent several cruise missiles in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden. Yup, the Republicans complained about that too.
The issue of fighting between Somalian warlords and American troops happened several years earlier, like in 1993. At that time, they went into Somalia on a peace keeping mission with the understanding they would only temporary and would leave in a matter of months.
FYI, there were 28,000 UN peacekeepers in Somalia from 30 different countries.
FYI, there are nine Senators still in Congress that voted to leave the humanitarian work in Somalia.
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Cochran (R-MS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Specter (R-PA)
Warner (R-VA)
Don’t you find it funny these same Senators all want to keep America in Iraq where there has been no defined goal?
>>Clinton was a better politician, speaker,
>>and diplomat than Bush. He was much smoother,
>>but I wouldnt go as far as to say that he did a
>>darned good job. He was an above average
>>president…but some of his mistakes have cost
>>us dearly.
I would say the same thing about Big Papi Bush. The consistent outcome, though, no matter which way you slice it or dice it, is that Dumbya sucks.
>>Also, we dont need to always engage our
>>military in conflict, but we do need to
>>mainatin a military that is large enough to
>>become engaged or defend our nation when
>>needed
Little known fact (among those not between the agest of 18 and 25): we still have the Selective Service, for which all men between the ages of 18 and 25 must register. If Dumbya REALLY thought we had to fight a war and the current military wasn’t up to snuff (AND he had any balls), he could have re-implemented the draft. That would have meant America would actually have to make a sacrifice to go to war, and then everybody (even the rednecks who supported Dumbya at the beginning) would have looked more carefully at the reasons for going to war, and said “Dumbya, you’re full of shit”.