The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

(Vote for us or you'll die!)

What amazes me is this is exactly the argument the DEMS are using! Saying that the Iraq war breeds more terrorism, that the Muslim world hates us more, that out policies in support of Isreal and demonizing Ahmadenijad and whatever else they accuse the republicans of have made us less safe! It is an argument of ideas - the republicans think that they have the better strategy for dealing with terrorism, and the dems do as well. Don't pull this crap of the republicans are the only ones doing it!

I see what is out there and that it is a republican strategy. Don't tell me that it isn't a dem strategy as well to say Bush and republican policies has made us less safe.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.

Sheesh.

Exactly. It wasn't until the investigation into the Cole attack that we had the evidence that would have made going after bin Laden in earnest acceptable and legal.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

You know of course that Lewis Carol was a logician? I even have his book on symbolic logic in my philosophy collection - a bit more dry that the Alice tales, but quite logical - I assure you

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If we're going to rehash old stuff, I'm game -The previous administration was offered bin Laden by the Sudan - Clinton has said so in his own words and it is recorded - but did not take him.

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.

Actually, that is the result of the anti-terrorist rock I've been carrying in my pocket since 9/11.

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard. The billboard is claiming that having a Republican in office is somehow going to magically make us safer than having a Democrat in office. The reality is that we were attacked with a Republican in office. What happened before not withstanding, there is concrete proof that having a Republican in office is not a mystical talisman against terrorist attack. Period.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard.

Hey, all I was doing was responding to JW saying that the Clinton admin warned the Bush admin about bin Laden. If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning. I'm not addressing the billboard.

But while we're at it, if it is logical to say Bush is responsible for 9/11 because the warning wasn't heeded, then it is also logical to say that Bush is reponsible for no attacks on American soil now. I'm not saying either is logical, I'm saying that I don't understand why the first is logical, as JW seems to think based on his posting.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning....

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.

Hmm....

Cause to take bin Laden

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition.

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.

[scaeagles]

Yes, certainly. My oversight indeed.

[JWBear]

An interesting aside...

I was looking up members of the bin Laden family (just curiosity). Here is Omar bin Laden, one of Osama's 17 sons. He's rejected his father and al Qaeda, and has married an English woman.

[scaeagles]

Funny....all democrats have left is empty talk of "hope".