OT - I lie, cheat, and steal a lot less than the "other" guy.

[Lurker]

I have always thought that the US government doesn't use enough 'wet work' personally

What's "wet work"?

water boarding...and/or other forms of torture

[jemagee]

I have always thought that the US government doesn't use enough 'wet work' personally

What's "wet work"?

water boarding...and/or other forms of torture

Not in the context i'm using it.

In the context i'm using it, it's assasination...liquidation of a human life, whatever you want to call it....

Course I also think the death penalty is underused

[JoMal]

author=Ted link=topic=4893.msg50589#msg50589 date=1220990132

Sorry . . . my bad.  I thought we were talking about my response to the following:

quote author=WayOutWest link=topic=4893.msg50557#msg50557 date=1220976995
I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden . . .


I agreed with WoW's astute comment because I believed it to be true, based on the many articles I have read on that specific subject.  The link I posted leads to one example of those articles.

I should have realized we were changing subjects from "I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden" to "Bush, Inc. failed to stop 9/11."  If I had, I could have saved us an argument because I now believe the FBI and Bush Administration's failure to react to the warnings you mention is one of two colossal U.S. government blunders in history--the other is the subject to which I responded.

You can shove the passive/aggressive attitude, Ted. It is unbecoming.

While it might be accurate to say the Demos, under Clinton, were very slow to react to their opportunities to capture Bin Laden, he at least was on their radar at the time.

Clinton was not in a position to rock the Arab world just yet by accepting a terrorist with ties to Arab allies. Clearly the political climate of the day was dictating how fast they should move on the intelligence being received. But that did not mean Clinton was not worried about Bin Laden. Far from it. He created an agency whose sole function was to identify the threat being shown by terrorists like Bin Laden and they had a very detailed report ready about the time the administration left office and Bush took over. It was from this agency, who's work covered most of Clinton's administration, that Bush, particularly Rice, essentially ignored after they received the info from an administration they did not want to show was anywhere close to diligent about combating terrorism. That article was suggesting it was conspiracy, not complacency, that made Rice ignore the warning. I think it was flat out arrogance to distance the Bushy's from anything related to Clinton, even a clear warning about a coming terrorist attack on U.S. soil.    

author=JoMal link=topic=4893.msg50576#msg50576 date=1220983624]
The author of the fateful memo mentioned was instigated by an agency created by Clinton, BTW.

The author was "instigated" by an agency?  What?  Oh . . . wait.  Reading between the lines (here enters that 9th grade level), I assume you are implying that because Clinton "instigated" the agency that employed the author of the warning memo, Clinton would deserve the credit for the content of that memo, and thus be absolved of any responsibility for failing to accept Bin Laden's head on silver platter years earlier.  You got me there . . . that's some tight logic.  But again, you're melding two different topics here--on one of them, we agree.

Here's the truth.  Republicans would have you believe that 9/11 would not have happened had Clinton or Berger acted on one of Sudan's many offers.  (I don't buy it.  Not necessarily true.  IMO, Al Qaeda was already too big to be stopped by the loss of Bin Laden.)  Democrats would have you believe that 9/11 would not have happened if the FBI and the executive branch would have reacted to the warnings it received.  (Not necessarily true, either. There were a lot of people involved in that plot.)

Both groups seek only to absolve themselves of responsibility and to maintain or regain power.  On which side the average American falls depends on how much of party lemming he or she is, in my opinion.

There were, again, some foreign policy issues that were involved in the U.S. delaying their response to getting Bin Laden. Once 9/11 happened, the U.S. stopped worrying about diplomatic issues.but up to then it was necessary. In hindsight, we all wish they had not delayed so long to allow Bin Laden to escape more then once, but the most serious warning about what Al Queda was going to do came late in the Clinton administration and from what I have read, they thought it was by far the most serious warning they had seen and were going to act on it except they ran out of time. I would suggest the Clinton's must have come to realyze how dangerous the Al Queda group was going to be.

But up to then, and apparently later, with what Rice alluded to, America had not been directly attacked, so that warning was a final excalation that Clinton took very seriously, but could not covince the new administration to feel likewise, even with the direct warning about what was about to happen.

[JoMal]

I have always thought that the US government doesn't use enough 'wet work' personally

What's "wet work"?

water boarding...and/or other forms of torture

Not in the context i'm using it.

In the context i'm using it, it's assasination...liquidation of a human life, whatever you want to call it....

Course I also think the death penalty is underused

Actually that is the ONLY context in which "wet' work is used by government agencies.

[jemagee]

Well, it's the only context i had ever heard it in so i was just making sure.

And while I don't advocate willy nilly political assassination, I think that the strategic use of assassination for obvious threats (ala osama bin laden before he went underground) isn't something that should be dismissed out of hand.

[Ted]

You can shove the passive/aggressive attitude, Ted.

Ahhh, there's the sweet spot. 

Hey *shrugging shoulders* I just work with what I'm given.  *Raising hands in sign of surrender*  



Wait wait wait! This is my favorite part!

it might be accurate to say . . .

JoMal, I love reading your material, honestly and truly, you have my respect.  But it seems to be near fatal for you to admit that the Clinton administration may have bungled this when most of the sensient beings in this world agree they did.  And you just can't help yourself, can you?  Every time I respond, I have to drag you back to the original topic of our little back and forth, which was a very specific topic:

I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden . . .

This nine-word statement has nothing to do with George Bush.  Do you not realize that I agree with you about Bush's failure?  Again, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT BUSH'S FAILURE. You don't have to convince me.

But it can't just be about one topic.  Your last post is very revealing.  You can't talk about Clinton without talking castigating Bush.  Almost subconsciously, you can't even fully admit that it is "accurate" to say that Clinton squandered several opportunities to nab Bin Laden.

The closest you can get is a meandering apologist account of the many "reasons" why Clinton ignored the opportunities.  But you can't leave it there, of course.  While Clinton had "good" reasons for his failure, Bush had one reason: CONSPIRACY!!!  His failure was deliberate, even part of some conspiracy to ignore the threat because somehow if the government acted on intelligence provided by the previous administration, it would look like they produced something good.

You, sir, are losing your objectivity, and with it, your influence in this topic of discussion.

P.S. I still think you're a freakin' wizard in basketball, finance, and statistical analysis.

[westkoast]

Ted would you also agree that before the Clinton administration that the Reagan administration F'd up?  You could say that if they had not been given training and weapons that none of them would have 1) got the power they did by looking as freedom fighters upholding Allah's way against the evil communists invading their country and 2) knew how to fight effectively which gave them the ability to train legions of followers to do their bidding in Afganistan and beyond?

[Ted]

Yes. We also basically created Saddam Hussein because we didn't like Iran. U.S. Foreign policy is a sad, ridiculous, short-sighted cluster foxtrot.

[Lurker]

U.S. Foreign policy is a sad, ridiculous, short-sighted cluster foxtrot.

Very succint and to the point.  I like it.   


BTW how much oil is the US consuming in the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq?  Wouldn't we have much lower oil imports if it wasn't powering all those tanks, planes, ships, hummers, etc?  Wouldn't lower imports weaken the economies of the oil producing states?   Aren't most of our non-mideast enemies ones with "oil power"?  Where does each candidate stand with respect to energy policy and oil dependency?

[JoMal]

Ted -

Your take on this is interesting. I have no issue with what did or did not occur during the Clinton administration regarding Bin Laden. If they had a chance to get him, they should have.

But to tell me that my taking issue with Bush and what he did and did not do after 9/11 as a comparison is truly bizarre. Ted, you CAN'T be serious. THAT is what discussion merits, regardless of how narrow you wish to make the argument, whether you are in agreement or not.

So let's just discuss your one premise, which apparently is all wrapped up in this innocuous little statement by WOW:

I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden . . .

What CAN we discuss to further this topic? Can we ponder whether Clinton would have done things differently had he still been in power when that August, 2001 memo was sent to the White House? Are you under the assumption he would have followed in Bush's footsteps because he and his fellow Demo's had not done enough up to that point? Had he too, ignored the warning and 9/11 happened, would he then threaten and alienate our Arab and European NATO allies, then invade Iraq, not pursue Bin Laden where he was hiding out, and ignore the Constitution because the American people supported him to do whatever he thought was necessary? Do we both agree that if we had a choice between Clinton and Bush on these issues, we think Clinton would have handled things better?

So let's just discuss whether or not Clinton would have acted differently had that memo been given to him instead and he was still able to do something about it. The implication I am getting from you, since you feel the Demos failed earlier to corral Bin Laden, is that he would not have acted much differently from any other president, such as Bush. On that I disagree.

Yeah, I brought in Bush again. Sorry, Ted, but your sanctimonious-sounding and self-righteousness that we can only discuss Clinton regarding who should or could have captured Bin Laden because somehow, somewhere you made this the rule by which we must abide is just hard for someone like me to follow since I missed that memo.

 

[JoMal]

U.S. Foreign policy is a sad, ridiculous, short-sighted cluster foxtrot.

Very succint and to the point.  I like it.   


BTW how much oil is the US consuming in the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq?  Wouldn't we have much lower oil imports if it wasn't powering all those tanks, planes, ships, hummers, etc?  Wouldn't lower imports weaken the economies of the oil producing states?   Aren't most of our non-mideast enemies ones with "oil power"?  Where does each candidate stand with respect to energy policy and oil dependency?

You would think they could figure out how to employ solar panels on the tanks, what with all the sunshine they get in Iraq, wouldn't you?

[westkoast]

Yes. We also basically created Saddam Hussein because we didn't like Iran. U.S. Foreign policy is a sad, ridiculous, short-sighted cluster foxtrot.

Too bad you are not into the hippity-hop because there is a song done by political rap group The Coup that speaks on this very thing in a very funny way.

Yes guys, there is hip hop music being made that doesn't just talk about guns, girls, and bling bling.....

[WayOutWest]

Does camp McCain not realize that?  Of course they do! The important thing the Reps realize is how to PLAY the American voters, they will have them convinced that the Demo's are the ones that need replacing so vote for "change", vote Republican.  LMAO!  I guess the Dems where in charge on 9/11, I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden, I guess the Demos lied to us and had the US invade Iraq, I guess the Demos gave away billions in no-bid contracts to "friends" of the administration and I guess the Demos spear headed the campain to run our economy into the toilet. 

....I guess the Demos failed to get Bin Laden...

Did I NOT lay it on thick enough Ted?  Or did the Reps selection of a fanatic religeous nutcase for VP inspire your baiting abilities and improve them 10 fold?  If you are baiting I tip my hat to you again.

When Bin Laden was a "potential" threat, Clinton was overly cautious.  In hindsight Clinton should have takent Bin Laden out. 

THAT IS TOTALLY FRAKING DIFFERNT THAN THE UTTER FAILUE OF THE BUSH REGIME.  After 9/11, Bin Laden was public enemy #1.  We were at WAR with Afgan and the Taliban.  How the frak did we fail to nail that SOB?  You wanna know how?  INCOMPETENCE!  Yet the Reps want to act like the Demo's are the one's that let the mastermind of 9/11 get away.  Hello American idiots!  It was the Reps that failed to get Bin Laden after we declared WAR on him, his organization and COUNTRY! 

Can anyone guess my overall political views and affiliation?  Honestly, can you?  I am not kidding.

P.S. Please excuse my spelling, that is a job more suited for lower level thinkers.

[Ted]

If you are baiting I tip my hat to you again.

You'll just have to look at the evidence and make your own conclusion.

You can shove the passive/aggressive attitude, Ted.

Ahhh, there's the sweet spot. 

Hey *shrugging shoulders* I just work with what I'm given.  *Raising hands in sign of surrender*  

P.S. Please excuse my spelling, that is a job more suited for lower level thinkers.

You're destined for greatness sir.

[WayOutWest]

You're destined for greatness sir.

Greatness?  Been there done that.  Now I'm just trying to help the needy aka corporate America.