Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 06, 2002, 06:02:37 PM
-
They Had a Plan (Time.com) (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)
You hear that sucking sound? That's Condaleeza Rice's future...
-
Had we had a "First Strike" policy on Japan, there would have been public outcry...I don't see that being much different than a pre-strike on Al Queda...can you imagine the liberals like yourself? Oh my!
Unfortunatley, sometimes it takes death to wake people up.
-
Sandman if Bush had attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan sometime in early 2001 you would have been the first to run here screaming about his stupid arrogance and alterior motives.
Respectfully shut the hell up. Or is this to be excused as yet another troll? :rolleyes:
-
Nice bobber but the bait was pretty tainted. You might pick up some catfish with it.....:rolleyes:
-
What's your point Sandman? (Didn't the previous administration have OBL offered to them on a silver platter? I seem to recall someone posting that here a while ago.)
-
It was being polished since the first attack on the WTC (1993), along with the best of intentions. I'll bet it was something.
-
Originally posted by majic
What's your point Sandman? (Didn't the previous administration have OBL offered to them on a silver platter? I seem to recall someone posting that here a while ago.)
According to the article, the Clinton administration considered an attack, but decided against it. One reason given was that they didn't want the attack to be seen as just another way to help the Gore campaign.
Oh... the point? The point is that we could have quite possibly avoided the attack on 9/11.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Sandman if Bush had attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan sometime in early 2001 you would have been the first to run here screaming about his stupid arrogance and alterior motives.
Respectfully shut the hell up. Or is this to be excused as yet another troll? :rolleyes:
Just as european, I'd like to state that I wouldn't have cared much if someone had wiped Talibans before :>
...neither do I care if they decide to attack Iraq, only would squeak about that why the job wasn't done already last time when it was possible.
-
"Oh... the point? The point is that we could have quite possibly avoided the attack on 9/11"
That's pretty easy to say in retrospect. Do you really feel that an attack on Afghanistan would have even been possible before 9/11. Keep in mind, that it is a landlocked country and Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world that had diplomatic ties to the Taliban, so they probably would not have let us use their airspace or set up any bases in their territory. After 9/11, they were te only one who grudgingly let us conduct offensive operations from or over their territory IIRC. We may have had a chance after the embassy bombings, but the former administration opted for cruise missile attacks. The only other viable option I can think of would have been to use the Northern Alliance against them; but, as we have seen, to be effective, they needed our air power to be successful.
Question: Do you support an attack on Iraq?
-
To many alleged one on one's. No witness's. Im not real happy with Jr.'s administration at this point either. But this sounds like election year BS.
BTW.. If you look into miss Rice's background. She has more snap than most of the folks that have been around thee for some time.
-
If Clinton had had these plans, the conservatives on this board would be screaming bloddy murder.
-
No, the Conservatives would have claimed it was a smokescreen to cover yet another investigation into his morals. Anyway Bill Clinton got his arse spanked in Somalia and that was probably the biggest reason he didn't act accordingly. After all it does seem pretty weak to claim now that No-Toke failed to react to a legitimate threat against this Nation due to political considerations. If he had information and didn't act while he had the chance then the case could be made that Clinton was more culpable than GWB for 911.
-
If Clinton had had these plans, the conservatives on this board would be screaming bloddy murder.
Isnt at least one liberal screaming bloody murder in this very thread about this very thing?
Idiots....
-
This article vindicates observations I made a few months back.
I wonder what other "liberal crackpot" observations I've made will be shown to be correct in the future? :D
-
Thinking that an article in a leftie rag, like Time magazine, vindicates anything. Vindicates my opinion of left wing crack pots.
-
Typical media response in favor of the president in hindsight. Can't even admit we got caught with our pants down. "We knew something was going to happen, just didn't know when it was going to happen". "We just knew they were up to something." No toejam Sherlock!
Masher
-
If my aunt had balls,,,,,she would be my uncle.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
According to the article, the Clinton administration considered an attack, but decided against it. One reason given was that they didn't want the attack to be seen as just another way to help the Gore campaign.
And we all know that this type of political capital can only be spent to save his own ass.
As for Condi's carreer going down the drain... That's interesting. Since the Article itself talks not of her failures, but of the failures of Washington to go after Al Quada to "take the fight to them" ro "roll them back" as the catch phrases seem to be. It's an interesting read, and it even addresses the fact that political conditions (that it, your opinion, my opininion, the pubilc support in general) went far to prevent action of this nature. We didn't have the will to put this plan into action prior to Sept. 11th, in part because the US public would never have believed it possible.
-Sikboy
PS: Do I get to keep the hook?
-
Sandman's latest picture
(http://www.democrats.org/images/hq/mcauliffe_sm.gif)
and his HomePage (http://www.democrats.org/) :)
this latest attempt to pin bush for something else the last admin played a bigger part in, will backfired on the dumbocrats -
-
Originally posted by easymo
Thinking that an article in a leftie rag, like Time magazine, vindicates anything. Vindicates my opinion of left wing crack pots.
Shit... I keep forgetting that the left controls the media. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Sandman's latest picture
(http://www.democrats.org/images/hq/mcauliffe_sm.gif)
and his HomePage (http://www.democrats.org/) :)
this latest attempt to pin bush for something else the last admin played a bigger part in, will backfired on the dumbocrats -
This just in... I'm not a registered Democrat.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
And we all know that this type of political capital can only be spent to save his own ass.
As for Condi's carreer going down the drain... That's interesting. Since the Article itself talks not of her failures, but of the failures of Washington to go after Al Quada ...
What gets me is Rice's denial that she knew anything about it.
This isn't about pinning blame on the Bush administration. Clinton shares the blame also. Election be damned, they should have done what was right. The Cole was hit on his watch and I believe they knew the Al-Qaeda were behind it.
-
So we made up a plan after the Cole. We decided to wait due to the lame duck presidency and the plan was passed on to the Bush people.
duh!
Did I miss the "liberal" part of that?
-
The number of people in the public at large who actually knew who Osama Ben Laden was prior to 9/11 was extremely small. Most of us on this board did not have a clue. Liberal was just as surprised as conservative when the planes hit.
Hindsight can turn people into prophets!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
According to the article, the Clinton administration considered an attack, but decided against it. One reason given was that they didn't want the attack to be seen as just another way to help the Gore campaign.
Oh... the point? The point is that we could have quite possibly avoided the attack on 9/11.
It's all pretty much armchair quarterbacking....
woulda...shoulda....coulda horsehockey. We never have been safe from a determined, planned attack. We just generally thought that to be the case. The USA has been studying and planning possibilities against Al-Queda and bin Laden since before Bill lobbed those cruise missles over in Sudan.
A note on my boofu buddy Bill. I have met him several times, the first when I was a college student at the U of A and he was governer...not just shook his hand but was around him several hours. There was just something about him my sixth sense didn't care for as a human being. I remember it well.
A note on Ms. Rice. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute, along with the power and determination. Also, there would really be something in boffing the National Security Advisor.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This just in... I'm not a registered Democrat.
you should be, I think they are looking for a new poster boy
me thinks you'll be voting like one this Nov too
-
Until this point, I didn't know just how gullible some people could be. If the common sense of having a president who sat for eight years and suffered three attacks yet didn't enact this plan doesn't turn on a light, then nothing will.
Weazel, the only thing this vindicates is the feelings against Clinton. He didn't act in the interests of America because it would have hurt him personally and politically, something he simply couldn't allow to happen.
Sandman, I thought you were a little quicker on the take than that.
-
No Kieran, that is just conservative spin. "Not doing anything" is relative. Exactly how much did GWB do in the time before 9-11? The attack on the Cole occurred during the Clinton presidency, and if the point is that Bill didn't act decisively enough then what is GWB's excuse? Does it matter that GWB wasn't President when the attack occurred? He had opportunity to take decisive action prior to 9-11.
The point is that it is the public that really decides how much can be done. Neither BillC nor GWB had that kind of support prior to 9-11.
-
there are no doubt 2 or three people who could be assasinated right now... today... and, we would prevent a suitcase nuke from taking out half a major city... then again... we might just kill em for nothing. Oh well... I'm sure sandman wouldn't care one way or the other. let's just do it and if we are wrong so what?
lazs
-
we (US CItizens) can't just blame the gov't.
we voted them in
and WE were more complacent than anyone.
How many of us truly expected or even admitted that something like 9/11 could happen.
Most Americans had no clue and falsely considered US safe from outside attack.
The reason for all the stress is the fact that WE, citizens and government, got caught with our pants down.
-
No Kieran, that is just conservative spin. "Not doing anything" is relative. Exactly how much did GWB do in the time before 9-11? The attack on the Cole occurred during the Clinton presidency, and if the point is that Bill didn't act decisively enough then what is GWB's excuse? Does it matter that GWB wasn't President when the attack occurred? He had opportunity to take decisive action prior to 9-11.
Hmmm. So what you are suggesting is that a president take action on a specific event that happened years before he took office? There is a window of opportunity on such events, wouldn't you agree?
Next, why would the Bush administration want to utilize a plan created by the Clinton administration- after all, Clinton had been so effective in controlling terrorism. I'm sure the plan included the words "cruise missiles" somewhere, don't you think? Seems to me Bush was using common sense.
I tend to agree with Wlfgng, the people do have to support the president for the most part on actions taken, but here's the difference- Clinton has the audacity now to step up and say he had a plan to end terrorism, except Bush wouldn't do it. That tells me he is pointing a finger at Bush and laying blame for the attack squarely on his shoulders, when Clinton didn't have the guts to do half of what Bush has done so far, much less grab a rifle and jump in a ditch to die defending Israel. More, Clinton didn't do so because he was afraid of the fallout- exactly what he is chastizing Bush for.
I don't know who is the bigger idiot; Clinton, for saying the stupid stuff he does, or anyone that believes any of it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No Kieran, that is just conservative spin. "Not doing anything" is relative. Exactly how much did GWB do in the time before 9-11? The attack on the Cole occurred during the Clinton presidency, and if the point is that Bill didn't act decisively enough then what is GWB's excuse? Does it matter that GWB wasn't President when the attack occurred? He had opportunity to take decisive action prior to 9-11.
The point is that it is the public that really decides how much can be done. Neither BillC nor GWB had that kind of support prior to 9-11.
8 months vs 8 YEARS - give me a break, I think the bigger attack was the one on America's economy as the bubble was burstin
willie was too busy trippin over his trousers chasin his oral lovin fat chick to be bothered by much else
he could have popped the tall raghead after the cole or the first attack on the WTC, spun it to fit and make him look like a hero but ... willie was too busy trippin over .....
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Hmmm. So what you are suggesting is that a president take action on a specific event that happened years before he took office? There is a window of opportunity on such events, wouldn't you agree?
---snip---
You left out the second part of my post. If you had quoted it as well I think we are more in agreement than not.
Again neither BillC nor GWB had the support to do what has been done since 9-11. That much is obvious.
I'm not talking about 8yrs vs. 8 months. I'm saying no one made a stink about the lack of response to the Cole until the events of 9-11.
And! GWB had as much time to react to the Cole as BillC. Both did what the public allowed them to do.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
They Had a Plan (Time.com) (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)
You hear that sucking sound? That's Condaleeza Rice's future...
You're kidding yourself again.
Must be intoxicating to walk the earth with so much wisdom:rolleyes:
-
Why is it,
That devout, religious people always seem to have the biggest chip on their sholder? Can you imagine eglet trying to explain the above tirade to God? How can zelots claim to love America when they clearly hate so many Americans?
It took 9/11 to draw backers from around the world to our cause against terrorism. Much less here at home. Do I agree with the decision to wait before 9/11? Doesn't matter, we're in a fight. I support our leadership in this crisis. Anything else would seem un-American. If your trying to spin this conflict for political gain, your hurting our cause. We're a team until this religious war is won.
-
The February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people.
On June 26, 1996, a huge explosion tore apart the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers living in the military housing complex. The weapon was another very powerful truck bomb — it left a crater four times as deep and three times as wide as the hole created by the bomb that destroyed the federal office building in Oklahoma City. Bin Laden denied any involvement in the attack, but a few months later he publicly declared war on U.S. troops.
On August 23, 1996 Bin Laden issues a fatwah declaring holy war against the United States and calling for attacks on U.S. troops.
On February 23, 1998 Bin Laden issues a fatwah declaring U.S. citizens should be killed anywhere in the world.
On August 7, 1998, a truck bomb destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Moments later another truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania. The bombings killed 213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania.
On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole was attacked by a small boat laden with explosives during a brief refueling stop in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The suicide terrorist attack killed 17 members of the ship’s crew, wounded 39 others, and seriously damaged the ship.
Yeah, what was that new Bush guy doing about Bin Laden, anyway?
:D
-
Good one Toad! Right on!
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
[BYou hear that sucking sound? That's Condaleeza Rice's future... [/B]
Oh yeah baby, now that thought gives me a woodrow, getting my knob polished by the National Security Advisor. She's got a nice looking body, think I'll go browse the internet and see what they have on her...
-
Interesting Toad
On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole was attacked by a small boat laden with explosives during a brief refueling stop in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The suicide terrorist attack killed 17 members of the ship’s crew, wounded 39 others, and seriously damaged the ship.
Two months later in Dec 2000 the Clinton administration offered up a plan to the incoming Bush admin to get Bin Laden using special forces.
Jan 2001 the new administration shelved not only the Clinton plan but the Hart/Rudman terrorism report sighting further study.
According to that article the new administration was more interested in missile defense and getting the tax cut passed.
At the end of the day Sandmans right... 911 could’ve been avoided.
-
I have been searching the last hour for photos of Condoleeza Rice. You know there are few photographs. I also discovered she's in her mid 40s.
There is no fan club either. Well I'm going home now. If anyone finds any Condoleeza photos please post the link. Thanks!
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Interesting Toad
At the end of the day Sandmans right... 911 could’ve been avoided.
You're whoopeeed right it could have, had you're hero clinton taken one of the 3, not one, not two but THREE oportunities to have bin laden handed over.
you people are full of toejam.
-
Like I said earlier, I don't know who the bigger idiot is; Clinton for saying the stupid things he does, or the person that believes a word he says.
Go right ahead and focus on one point in the "administration" of Clinton, completely ignore its summary failure on terrorism, and lay the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration- and for the most laughable reason they wouldn't listen to advice from an administration that had only caused an escalation of terrorism. Yup, that's advice I would have taken, too.:rolleyes:
Trouble is, you ought to use your head and look at the whole history and forget about what Clinton says of history. It's amazing how diehard liberals gobble up every word that drops from his lips...
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
At the end of the day Sandmans right... 911 could’ve been avoided.
Absolutely, as Udie so eloquently pointed out. :D
From February 26, 1993, when until January 19, 2001 your friend in the White House could have taken action to avoid 9/11.
For example that little offer made by Sudan. The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia. Ooopsie! (But go ahead and tell me how Bush was to blame for that one. :) )
And your buddy planned and acted so quickly after the Embassy Bombings! Just three weeks from the bombings to the "Monica Missiles" hitting empty camps in Afghanistan.
You'd think in the three months after the Cole your buddy could have at least launched a few more "Monica Missiles".
Also, perhaps it could have been prevented in many, many ways, not the least of which could have been meaningful security procedures for airports and airlines.. and oft requested thing but studiously ignored by all hands until say..... 9/11.. and which we still don't have (IMO).
-
Rogwar, go to Google, select the "images" search and put in her name. Lots of pics.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Rogwar, go to Google, select the "images" search and put in her name. Lots of pics.
That was one of the first places I went. Just mainly headshots though. I would like to see a little more detail. Home now. Going for Vietnamese food and then will look more later.
I still get CTDs, but not as many as before, and going on an interesting little quest can be as much fun as flying on ocassion. Certainly more fun than me in a fully loaded Corsair and you higher than me in an F4 :p
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there are no doubt 2 or three people who could be assasinated right now... today... and, we would prevent a suitcase nuke from taking out half a major city... then again... we might just kill em for nothing. Oh well... I'm sure sandman wouldn't care one way or the other. let's just do it and if we are wrong so what?
lazs
The case against the Al-Qaeda regarding the Cole attack may not have been as strong as the WTC case, but wasn't it enough?
Eagler, if you think this is a Democrat/Republican thing, you're missing the point.
According to the article our current president and our last president had an opportunity to act and they did not. The Clinton administration did not for political reasons. They thought it would harm Gore's campaign. They also did not wish to hand a war over to the next president. The Bush administration also did not for political reasons. It was a "Clinton proposal."
-
... and carter missed the big chance. he shoulda nuked Tehran and dropped a nice bonze plaque into the smokin crater commemerating the 52 american martyrs and ending forever any terrorist threat to this nation.
Every freakin american president since kennedy was a boob in office.
that's politics for yah.
-
"On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole was attacked by a small boat laden with explosives during a brief refueling stop in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. "
Anyone even remember WHY the USS Cole was refueling at a hostile port? Did it have anything to do with sick willie's "reducing the size of the FEDERAL government" , i.e. mothballing the tankers that would have usually refueled that ship at sea??
"The Clinton administration did not for political reasons. They thought it would harm Gore's campaign."
Of course he didn't act, he never did! The scum didn't have any balls unless they were laying on a fat girls chin.
"if you think this is a Democrat/Republican thing, you're missing the point"
Nothing but politics - the Dems are trying to smear Bush and the Reps in light of the Nov elections, nothing more nothing less...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Nothing but politics - the Dems are trying to smear Bush and the Reps in light of the Nov elections, nothing more nothing less...
If that's the case, they should have waited a month or so to release this story... and then they could start turning up the heat and indict members of the Bush administration...
Then again... has Cheney been indicted yet? :D
-
Sandman-
You really don't think Clinton's announcement of this "plan" isn't merely a step along the way to November? You REALLY don't think he won't be yapping about stuff right up to the last minute?
The Dems are going hard for Congress, and they aren't gonna pull punches. It won't be long before you hear Paul Begala talk about GWB dining with Idi Amin in the '70's...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Sandman-
You really don't think Clinton's announcement of this "plan" isn't merely a step along the way to November? You REALLY don't think he won't be yapping about stuff right up to the last minute?
I used to be more cynical. I'm out of practice. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
sometimes it takes death to wake people up.
maybe I should replace my alarm with a bomb or something? :p