'I Decline to Accept the End of Man'

[LoneStarBuckeye]

Originally posted by GScholz
True, but if you remember history, the crusades were a pretty terrible thing. Remember Bin Laden got ticked off because he thought your military presence in Saudi-Arabia was a threat to Islam. They might fear that their own religion and values are at stake here. IIRC your President even used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches. Fear is a powerful force.

Agreed.

[Charon]

Here's  some more coverage showing bipartisan support for the missile attacks, without them being considered inadequate. Most sniping was of the "Wag the Dog" nature. Only McCain seemed to be pushing for stronger action [Hey, I would have voted for him if given the choice! ]

By Ralph Dannheisser

USIA Congressional Correspondent

Washington -- President Clinton's action in ordering strikes on
terrorist sites in Sudan and Afghanistan has won swift, bipartisan
support from leaders in Congress.

That included the top leaders of the Republican Party -- Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott -- that controls both houses of the legislature.

Both men were among a handful of legislators whom Clinton telephoned before the attacks, launched August 20 in the aftermath of deadly terrorist bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Gingrich termed the administration's action "the right thing to do." "We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it's been very decisive and I think it's very important that we sent the signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target," he said.

Lott issued a statement in which he said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just." He added that "based on intelligence provided to me Wednesday (August 19), the administration has very reliable information linking the terrorist Osama bin Laden and his bases to the cowardly attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, told reporters that the swift U.S. strike "represents a new phase" in this nation's effort against terrorism.

That phase is a "more aggressive" one in which this country "will
strike preemptively against targets that we think will cause us
trouble in the future" -- a phase marked by action still based on
substantial evidence of a terrorist threat, but perhaps less than the ironclad evidence required in a court of law -- Hamilton said at a press conference in the Capitol. "We must take steps that we have not taken in the past," he said.

Asked whether the actions in Sudan and Afghanistan could be seen as the start of a "Holy War against Islam," Hamilton sharply rejected that notion. "We're not attacking Islamic countries, we are attacking Islamic extremists who murder people," he said. "This should in no way be seen as an attack against Islam."

Many legislators, out of Washington for Congress' traditional August recess, weighed in with comments from their home districts.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican, said the day's military actions "were clearly designed to strike at the heart of a terrorist network that has the blood of American citizens on its hands, and which was planning further attacks on U.S. nationals. "It is my strong hope that these operations have been successful," Helms said.

"There must be no refuge for terrorists who murder innocent American citizens. Sooner or later, terrorists around the world will realize that America's differences end at the water's edge, and that the United States' political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism," he declared.

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a statement terming the military action "a welcome response to the August 7 terrorist attacks against the American embassies." He expressed the hope that the strikes "clearly signal our will to retaliate against terrorists who target American citizens abroad."

But McCain coupled his support for the administration's demonstration of "American credibility and resolve" in this case with criticism of what he sees as an inadequate response to other recent foreign policy challenges, including "Iraq's compliance with the weapons inspection terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, North Korea's violation of its 1994 agreement with the United States to cease production of fissile material, Serbia's repression of innocent civilians in Kosovo, the Indo-Pakistani arms race, and the urgency of reviving the stalled Middle East peace process."

Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, declared, "Terrorists must know that if they attack U.S. citizens, we will respond with deadly force. Those who would harm the security of the United States and its citizens have no place to hide."

Other Republican Senators who weighed in with quick support for the president's action included Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Ted Stevens of Alaska, and Alfonse D'Amato of New York. Said D'Amato: "If people think the Congress is not going to be totally supportive of the commander-in-chief, they're just mistaken. This may serve notice that, whatever our local disagreements, we stand with our commander-in-chief, and he was absolutely proper and forceful."

Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, who has been sharply at odds with Clinton on other issues, said the action was designed "to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did. "And that was the right thing to do," Burton said. "That's coming from one of the president's severest critics."

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House National Security Committee, told reporters, "We just had to do it, we just had to....We're quite sure the attacks in Africa came from these two places, and we had to strike back."

In contrast with the broad support, several Republican legislators suggested that President Clinton might have ordered dramatic military action to deflect attention from his domestic political problems.

One of those, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, speculated that the president could have acted precipitously in an effort to "focus attention away from his own personal problems." While he supports strong action against terrorism, Specter said, "We have to have an evidentiary basis for doing that."

Another, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, called the timing of the attack "certainly suspect." If the terrorist role of the sites attacked was known about for some time, as U.S. officials say, "the question arises, why didn't we do something before? Why now?" he asked. "We fear we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold on to his job," Coats declared.

But Gingrich, the top Republican in the House, dismissed such
speculation as "sick."

And Stevens joined in that assessment. Citing his high regard for
Defense Secretary William Cohen and top military leaders involved in planning the operation, Stevens said "they would be the first to jump up if our military people were put in danger for political reasons.

"I just discount that entirely," he said.

Charon

[Gadfly]

You guys make me laugh.

OBL cares that we were in SA?

OBL cares about the Palis?

OBL cares about Iraq?

OBL has one goal, and many ways to achieve it.


Keep on living in your dream world, ladies, it must be nice, warm and fuzzy in there.


edit-and by OBL, I mean radical Fundamentalist Muslims

[Scootter]

Originally posted by GScholz
True, but if you remember history, the crusades were a pretty terrible thing. Remember Bin Laden got ticked off because he thought your military presence in Saudi-Arabia was a threat to Islam. They might fear that their own religion and values are at stake here. IIRC your President even used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches. Fear is a powerful force.

If this is what he fears then he is ignorant about America, I have heard that he is well educated and intelligent so this cannot be true. Our country is founded on the freedom of religion not freedom from it. The word god is used as to represent any deity you so desire to worship and is neutral in meaning. Recently a Federal court judge required  a 4200 pound statue of the ten commandments removed from a courthouse in Alabama, this was to continue a non biased presentation to all.

There is no tolerance in most Arab countries for any other religion other then Islam.
How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?

This fight is about change in the world and the maturing of the species, they want to remain in the dark ages and want no evolution, and this is why they will lose like the dinosaur. Change in the Middle East is happening every day, the people want what they want and a very  few want to stop it with fear and intimidation. When these holy wars are called for why is there not 10s of thousands running at our hotels and bases to die with bombs strapped on there backs? Because most don’t really agree with Ben Laden, this is why he hides in the remote hills and caves with his trusted few. Main stream street would have him turned in for the reward money like Hussein’s kids were.

We just don't want our people killed while a few old school farts try to reinvent the proud dark ages, I am confident that the blending of our cultures will bring peace , if we all survive that long.

[DiabloTX]

Here's a little history quiz for ya.

PLACE: Spain
TIME: 1492
EVENT: These people were FINALLY expelled after a long struggle.  Who were they?

History does prove that with the right amount of force, you can change things.  

Al Qaeda today is no different than these people were then.

Yes, you can say the same thing about the Spanish Inquisition but thats off thread.

Ok, who was it?

[midnight Target]

I think he means the Moors

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Here's a little history quiz for ya.

PLACE: Spain
TIME: 1492
EVENT: These people were FINALLY expelled after a long struggle.  Who were they?

History does prove that with the right amount of force, you can change things.  

Al Qaeda today is no different than these people were then.

Yes, you can say the same thing about the Spanish Inquisition but thats off thread.

Ok, who was it?

Was it the same people that lived alongside the Jews in harmony until the peace-loving Christians invaded them and forcibly expelled both groups?

[Dune]

Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.

Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.

But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals. If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him — which could have cost him the White House.

Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back — and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Eagler I applaude this admins restraint in not pointing out how the policies of the previous admin resulted in a 9/11 attack
makes me sick to my stomach that the media doesn't point out the fact
you think if it were reversed the same courtesy would be shown?
nah

Here on planet Earth, Bush was President on 9/11.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Montezuma
Here on planet Earth, Bush was President on 9/11.

So, a pot of water begins to boil immediately upon placing it on a stove?
-SW

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
Was it the same people that lived alongside the Jews in harmony until the peace-loving Christians invaded them and forcibly expelled both groups?

I think you will find that the Moors (which is an incorrect term by the way) INVADED Spain from Morocco in 711.  I also understand that it was retaliation from the Crusades.  I am not comparing the Moors to Al Qaeda directly, just the fact that it was an act of barbarism that was done in the name of Allah.  And yes, I know the Christians did the same although I don't think you will find an organized terrorist group that brings the word of god by killing innocent poeple in this day and age.  But, as religion seems to do, we can debate these facts all day long.  No religion is without blood on its hands from history, I just don't see how muslims can kill in the name of Allah today and expect the rest of the world to sit by and say, "Well, its their religion, we have to accept it."  If anything, they should be pissed at Saudi Arabia for being so "western" but thats the holy land.