Bush response to 9/11 prevented more attacks

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by straffo
Yes it's a success ... never was heroin so cheap.

Well stop buying it then!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
But..but...your hero Clarke testified and defended that "...the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved."

This story is relevant to Iraq, WMD, and Clarke?

[straffo]

Cannot Rip buziness is buziness

One of the point I wanted to show in my previous post (but again I'm too subtil even for myself ) is the lack of control of the Afghanistan by our troops.

Certainly Kaboul and other major town of Afghanistan are more or less controled ... but on the countryside it's the same old piece of *****y country it allways was ....

[Pongo]

"Bushes total lack of decisivness let us successfully attack the WTC."
The quote the CIA didnt pass along.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This story is relevant to Iraq, WMD, and Clarke?

Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved. He defended the Clinton administration's controversial 1998 attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, which many observers think was based on flimsy intelligence at best. Clarke said, "To this day, there are a lot of people who believe that it was not related to a terrorist group, not related to chemical weapons. They're wrong, by the way. But the president [Clinton] had decided in PDD-39 that there should be a low threshold of evidence when it comes to the possibility of terrorists getting their access — getting their hands on chemical weapons

When the potential threat exists, act upon it, thats his message. Bush did that in Iraq.

[Ripsnort]

If we want to discuss "Prevention" of 9/11, and failures of presidents...lets discuss this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
When the potential threat exists, act upon it, thats his message. Bush did that in Iraq.

So... success in Afghanistan somehow extrapolates to just cause in Iraq.

I get it.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Source

A right-wing newspaper's second hand account of a British newspaper's alleged obtaining of a secret interrogation transcript - sorry if I have my doubts.  

The action in Afghanistan and increased airline security certainly make a 9/11 style attack less likely, but those were obvious responses.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by -MZ-
A right-wing newspaper's second hand account of a British newspaper's alleged obtaining of a secret interrogation transcript - sorry if I have my doubts.  

 

Well what do you want, the Left wing newspaper account? Tell me, I'll get you a different source.

Waiting....

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by Steve
Frog,  Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.

Thank you.

Yes. Same could be said with alot of other regimes in the world right now. But we werent sold into going to war with them based on terrorism. Millions are dieing in the DPRK and we wont lift a finger to help them.

If bush would have came out and gave that for a reason and got all of our allies to back us up and help reconstruct the country then i doubt us crazy liberals would have much to complain about.

btw are you sure it was in the hundreds of thousands?

[Steve]

btw are you sure it was in the hundreds of thousands?

No, I'm not sure in the literal sense.  Accounts coming out of there from various sources report it as such.  How many is enough?

Same could be said with alot of other regimes in the world right now.  Millions are dieing in the DPRK and we wont lift a finger to help them.

...Yet.    The DPRK is a  huge problem I agree, a human rights disaster. But can you not agree that it is a different problem due to it's nuclear capabilities?  And why isn't the left screaming about the atrocities goin on in DPRK?

Honestly, do you doubt that Saddam's gang and Bin Laden's gang weren't working together at least financially?

Do you approve that Saddam would send cash to families of people who murdered Israeli's?

[Nilsen]

Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?

yes or no ?

[hawker238]

Steve:  Why isn't the right-wing screaming about people dying in DPRK?  They certainly did it (and continue to do so) about Saddam.  Don't give me that nuclear stuff either, it was "proved" Iraq had WMD's....

[Steve]

Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?

Yes,  he very specifically mentioned the Iraqi people.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by hawker238
Steve:  Why isn't the right-wing screaming about people dying in DPRK?  They certainly did it (and continue to do so) about Saddam.  Don't give me that nuclear stuff either, it was "proved" Iraq had WMD's....

Allow me to copy and paste my post from earlier today:

Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens. Nevermind that North Korea’s military is three times larger than Iraq’s. A war with North Korea will require 700,000 troops, almost three times the number being sent into Iraq. Nevermind that Seoul, South Korea, is within striking range of North Korea's missiles. The city would be a likely target should the U.S. strike North Korea. Up until quite recently, South Korea has been a supportive ally of the U.S. Considering the risk of nuclear war from taking on a nuclear power, the Bush administration has chosen to engage in diplomacy first, using China as a conduit to pressure Pyongyang into halting its program to enrich uranium for weapons.

The U.N. Security Council had given Saddam Hussein ultimatum after ultimatum, and if the Left had its way, would give him countless more before ever authorizing war. Funny how the Left is so quick to criticize Bush for not going after North Korea without so much as a peep demanding a single ultimatum against them first.