Clinton and Terror - A Case Study Of What Not To Do

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006.

Page 1 of 2
  1. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Islamic fundamentalists whose ideology is similar to the Taliban seized control of Somalia's capital Monday, unifying the city for the first time in more than a decade and posing a direct challenge to a fledging U.N.-backed government.

    The advance against a secular alliance rumored to be backed by Washington comes after weeks of bloody fighting and 15 years of anarchy in the Horn of Africa nation, raising fears that Somalia could fall under the sway of al Qaeda.

    "We won the fight against the enemy of Islam; Mogadishu is under control of its people," said Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic Courts Union, on a radio broadcast. The militia now controls a 65-mile (100-kilometer) radius around the capital after fighting off a secular alliance of warlords.

    The Islamic militia is gaining ground just as the U.N.-backed interim government struggles to assert control outside its base in Baidoa, 155 miles (249 kilometers) from Mogadishu. Weapons prices soared there Monday amid fears that the militia could head next to Baidoa.

    The militia is the first group to consolidate control over all of Mogadishu's neighborhoods since the last government collapsed in 1991 and warlords took over, dividing the impoverished country of 8 million into a patchwork of rival fiefdoms.

    Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, said the Islamic militia's victory in Mogadishu was a major turning point in the country's history.

    "It is exactly the same thing that happened with the rise to power of the Taliban," he said, adding that the extremists are "using the people's weariness of violence, rape and civil war" to gain support for a government based on Islamic law.

    The battle between the militia and the secular alliance has been intensifying in recent months, with more than 300 people killed and 1,700 wounded -- many of them civilians caught in the crossfire of grenades, machine guns and mortars.

    Alliance leaders could not be reached for comment Monday and had likely fled Mogadishu. One of them, warlord Mohamed Dheere, was believed to be in Ethiopia seeking reinforcements.

    The United States is widely believed to be backing the secular alliance in an attempt to root out any al Qaeda members operating in the Horn of Africa, but American officials have declined to comment. The United States has not carried out any direct action in Somalia since the deaths of 18 servicemen in a 1993 battle depicted in the film "Black Hawk Down."

    U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said recently that three al Qaeda leaders indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania are being sheltered by Islamic leaders in Mogadishu.

    The same al Qaeda cell is believed responsible for the 2002 suicide bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya that killed 15 people and a simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner.

    The Islamic militants and their secular rivals began competing for influence in earnest after a U.N.-backed interim government slowly began to gain international recognition. The weak government, wracked by infighting, has not been able to enter the capital because of the violence.

    Interim Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi recently fired four ministers who were part of the secular alliance, leaving the alliance without any support in the government.

    Mogadishu residents expressed relief at Monday's relative peace, but they had mixed responses to the Islamic militia's advance.

    "The victory of Islamic Courts is a major step toward a lasting peaceful settlement in Mogadishu," said Somali economist Abdinasir Ahmed. "We are tired of the deception and rhetoric of the warlords."

    Computer engineer Abdulqaadir Bashir disagreed. "The Islamic clerics want to be like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," he said. "People have no hope at all."

    Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


    Looks like the Taliban and Islamofascism loved President Clinton. He watched while they took over Afghanistan and he pulled out of Somalia setting the stage for them to take control there according to the AP.
     
    #1 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  2. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,664
    1,042
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Yeah right, as if the Republican controlled Congress would have allowed (*) Clinton to do anything about either situation. Look at how they bitched about intervention in Kosovo, where the lives of middle class white people were at stake.

    This blame Clinton crap has grown really old. It's past time for Bushites to start looking in the mirror.

    (*) At one time in the United States, the foundational document (the "Constitution") assigned the power to make war to a national body of elected representatives (the "Congress").
     
    #2 richard schumacher, Jun 5, 2006
  3. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Jun 5 2006, 02:27 PM) [snapback]266089[/snapback]</div>
    Not blaming Bill - just interesting to see what happens if you do nothing - and Congress did not stop Bill from acting - he did not act at all - at least he could have tried to do something - anything. And Kosovo is a totally separate issue. You could have brought up what Clinton for Darfur or Rowanda - oops - he did nothing there either - sorry. Lets see...

    A recap of the Clinton Presidency:
    WTC I 1993 - 6 dead, 1000 injured and Bill did nothing
    Embassy Bombings - and Bill did nothing
    Kobar Towers - and Bill did nothing
    USS Cole - and Bill did nothing
    Got a call, "do want Osama" four times - and Bill did nothing
    Genocide in Rowanda - and Bill did nothing
    Genocide in Darfur - and Bill did nothing
    Prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing data - and Bill weakened our defenses
    Gutted the CIA, especially human based intel - and Bill weakened our defenses
    Allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons - and Bill put us in greater danger
    Allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons - and Bill put is in greater danger
    Allowed India to develop nuclear weapons - and Bill put us in greater danger


    Your turn. Name one time Bill did something to defend American interests or stop genocide or strengthen the United States.
     
    #3 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  4. Mirza

    Mirza New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    898
    0
    0
    Bash clinton all you want... I doubt very many care here.
     
    #4 Mirza, Jun 5, 2006
  5. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,664
    1,042
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]266106[/snapback]</div>
    And from these object lessons Bush has learned... what, exactly? Beyond the importance of tax cuts for the rich, I mean.

    It's even more interesting to ask what could happen if Bush continues to do nothing about these problems. He *has* hastened us down the road to insolvency, which by itself will force solutions to all of them, though not the solutions that any sane person would have chosen.
     
    #5 richard schumacher, Jun 5, 2006
  6. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 5 2006, 02:54 PM) [snapback]266112[/snapback]</div>
    Obviously - because there is no defending his inactions and inadequacies in his primary role as President - PROTECTING the United States.

    And I am not bashing Clinton, just stating facts.

    But many here would like to see the US hurt and diminished further believing we are a force for evil and not good. That is their right - at least the American citizens here.
     
    #6 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  7. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]266106[/snapback]</div>
    Pretty much on target... They took out the world trade towers, we responded with Afghanistan and Iraq, and rightfully so. Truthfully, we should have gone into Syria, Somalia, and other hotbeds, gone on the offensive, but alas, too many liberals would scream...
     
    #7 Mystery Squid, Jun 5, 2006
  8. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Jun 5 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]266139[/snapback]</div>
    Stick to the point - please stop the liberal side step when you are obviously at a loss for defending weakness and inaction.

    What was the estimate of the cost of the 9/11 attacks - I have read anywhere from $250,000,000,000 to $1 trillion dollars - hows that for solvency. And the cost of a dirty bomb going off in Manhattan??? If Gore/Kerry were President we probably would have a better chance of finding that one out.

    What would the cost have been in Canada if they did not catch those peaceful Muslims with the thee TONS of ammonium nitrate - or do you think they were going to grow some large vegetables??

    How much is the average American life worth to you. And then multiply it by 3,000 for a starter. And then add pain and suffering and some extra if they were married and then extra if they had kids. Would you add a little extra if they jumped from above the 90th floor from the WTC alive to avoid burning to death????? Did you catch the videos that recorded the sound as their skull hit the ground and exploded??????????? Ever go back and look at those pictures??? And you think they are just going to go away - or you are worried about something as trivial as money....
     
    #8 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  9. amazingarthur

    amazingarthur New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    49
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]266106[/snapback]</div>
    Another example of how uninformed the right is.

    Bill Clinton was VERY tough on terror. Do you remember in 1998 when he ordered Cruise missles at Al Queda? The right was busy screaming, "No blood for Monica!"

    You guys are sick!

    When it comes to Clinton, according to Richard Clarke's (served Bush 1, Clinton, and total Moron Governor Bush) book.....

    Clinton did some things right.

    Declared "a war on terror before the term became fashionable." This was back in 1996, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Bush assassination attempt, the Khobar Towers attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing. (On Page 127, Clarke notes that it's possible that al-Qaida operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned.")

    Page 225: Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist state in Bosnia. Clinton's efforts to quell the war in the Balkans "defeated Al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks."

    Pages 79-84: Responded to Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush with force. He ordered the bombing of Iraq's intelligence headquarters, which, Clarke says, paired with a "stark warning" to the Iraqis, "successfully deterred Saddam from ever again using terror against us."

    Pages 112-21, 129: Responded to Iran's role in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack with an unspecified "intelligence operation" intended to deter further Iranian terrorism.

    Page 186: Responded to the African embassy bombings with strikes on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan, even though he anticipated criticism for the timing. (The strikes took place on Aug. 20, 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.) According to Clarke, Clinton said: "Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice about the timing. That's my problem. Let me worry about that."

    Pages 211-12: Worked to prevent al-Qaida attacks planned for the millennium. In December 1999, Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger "convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode. 'We have stopped two sets of attacks planned for the Millennium. You can bet your measly federal paycheck that there are more out there and we have to stop them too. I spoke with the President and he wants you all to know.' " Clarke adds: "It was the sort of attention we needed in the summer of 2001."

    Page 225: Recognized early on that terrorism was a primary post-Cold War threat, and "greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs.


    And according to..
    Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright today mounted a vigorous defence of the Clinton administration's record on combating terrorism, saying that security forces were given clear orders to assassinate Osama bin Laden following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya.

    Ms Albright, the first in a series of high-profile witnesses to give evidence to federal inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, fended off suggestions that the failure to pursue military action against al-Qaida allowed its operatives to elude capture and continue their terrorist activities.

    She said: "President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of based on the knowledge we had to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaida."

    Earlier, the inquiry panel presented a preliminary report suggesting that delays by both the Clinton and Bush administrations in acting on intelligence information allowed the terror network to plan and carry out the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

    The Clinton administration had intelligence linking Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with terror plots as early as 1995, but years passed as it sought criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad.

    Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence "chatter" and urgent warnings in early 2001 by counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

    "We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

    In her opening statement, Ms Albright admitted that the Clinton administration failed to track Bin Laden down, despite a "maddeningly frustrating" international hunt. But she said officials had made it clear to the security services that they had clearance to kill him if they found him.

    She said: "The president was prepared to order military action to capture or kill bin Laden. If we had had the predictive intelligence we needed, we would have done so ... and I would have strongly supported that step."

    Ms Albright said that the cruise missile strikes ordered by President Clinton against suspected al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan were evidence of the administration's determination to "neutralise" Bin Laden and his network.

    "We did not launch the cruise missiles with the purpose of serving legal papers," she told the commission.

    But despite a series of forceful military and diplomatic actions around the world in the wake of the embassy bombings, which Ms Albright described as her "worst day as secretary of state", the US government of the day could not stop Bin Laden.

    In what appeared to be a thinly-veiled warning to the current administration over its action in Iraq, she warned that the war on terror would fail if the range of targets was too "broad".
     
    #9 amazingarthur, Jun 5, 2006
  10. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 04:00 PM) [snapback]266153[/snapback]</div>
    Yeah, and SOMEHOW, we're the greater evil by stacking a bunch of naked Iraqi prisoners into a pyramid, or having some chick point to their genitals.... :rolleyes:
     
    #10 Mystery Squid, Jun 5, 2006
  11. NuShrike

    NuShrike Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    1,378
    7
    0
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    Five
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]266106[/snapback]</div>
    You are ignoring that Reagan, Bush, and Bush all 'gutted' FEMA by filling it with political appointees. Clinton was the only one that put a non-political emergency experienced person in there.

    Remember Project Impact which proved that proactively averting dangers saved more money and lives than being reactive, with a good example being the Seattle earthquake? Some reason, New Orleans decided to stay out of the project, to their much later woe.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/st...c/femahist.html

    Katrina wasn't the only Hurricane that a Bush made the people wait 5 days for help. There was also Hurricane Andrew. Remember?
     
    #11 NuShrike, Jun 5, 2006
  12. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 5 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]266161[/snapback]</div>
    Oh my God - pointing to their genitals. The terror involved. Oh my God. How cruel and unusual. How about those Americans that were beheaded - i bet they would have preferred someone pointing at their genitals rather than cutting their freaken heads off?????

    How many of them at abu graib were killed, and were not those SMALL # of GI's who were responsible punished?

    And what of the Americans murdered on 9/11 which you obviously give no import to. It is ok not to side with the US when innocent US civilians are killed - that is their right. But to worry about some POW's having their genitals pointed at and to neglect the suffering of their fellow citizens and their families it kind of tough - imo.

    The left like to point at the actions of less than 0.01% of the US Forces in Iraq and totally neglect the good the 99.99% are doing in the most difficult of situations - but that is their right. They should keep up the good work.

    And the left makes no mention of the mass graves that are being continually found in Iraq.... The hypocrasy lives on.

    The left lives in a kumbaya world.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 5 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]266165[/snapback]</div>
    The liberal side step - heck blame the tsunami on Bush too. Seems to me NYC reacted perfectly well with GOOD LOCAL LEADERSHIP during a crisis of untold proportions that this country had never been exposed to before - ever. We did not need the Feds because we had a mayor and a governor that were actually smart and took charge.

    Tell me, Nagrin got re-elected the other week - is he going to make New Orleans a "chocolate city" after all :p Maybe next time he uses the buses or puts supplies where the people are told to go like the superdome??? And tell me when they find all that money that had been allocated and given to New Orleans to build the levies that never got to building them. I think the Federal government should get that back - what u say??
     
    #12 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  13. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 04:33 PM) [snapback]266183[/snapback]</div>
    ...or the people who were killed in Falluja, pulled out of their cars, and hung like pinata's on bridges...



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/


    [attachmentid=3702]

    Yet somehow, this was easily forgotten... :angry:
     
    #13 Mystery Squid, Jun 5, 2006
  14. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 5 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]266192[/snapback]</div>
    It must suck being on the wrong side of history time and time again......

    They just want us to lose in Iraq so they won't be wrong AGAIN like they were with the Soviets, the Nazis, etc.
     
    #14 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  15. amazingarthur

    amazingarthur New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    49
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 02:51 PM) [snapback]266143[/snapback]</div>
    Who's watch did 9/11 happen on? Who ignored repeated warnings from Richard Clark? Who didn't read the report titled, "Al Queda Determined to Strike US"? They did read it, unfortunately, after Bin Laden struck.

    Clinton, Gore, Kerry, they would've NEVER let that happen. You know why? Because they are Americans first and Democrats second.

    Bush and his criminal friends are Republicans first and Americans second.

    Too busy giving tax cuts to big business and the rich to care about security.

    Remember, "Nobody could have predicted the levies would break." Yeah, how about the guys that just told you they may a couple of days earlier.

    Hey, why don't you righties defend your pres (governor Bush) on the post I started?

    BTW, where is Bin Laden? I would say the pres is protecting us if he would've "smoked 'em out of their caves" like he promised.

    What did Bush say about Bin Laden a couple of years ago? "I don't know where he is, I don't really spend much time on it anymore."
    Feel safe now?
    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION is a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION!

    It always takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush!
     
    #15 amazingarthur, Jun 5, 2006
  16. NuShrike

    NuShrike Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    1,378
    7
    0
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    Five
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 5 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]266192[/snapback]</div>
    Well-paid mercenaries who knew the dangers of their own job and fully agreed to the risks. We do mourn them, but not exactly innocent mercenaries.
     
    #16 NuShrike, Jun 5, 2006
  17. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Amazing Arthur @ Jun 5 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]266198[/snapback]</div>
    Right... :rolleyes: Got proof? :lol:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 5 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]266202[/snapback]</div>
    No? What did they do then? Got any proof?

    Thier company says they were there to provide security for FOOD deliveries (of all things), have anything to counter that other than suspicion? Or even, reasonable suspicion?
     
    #17 Mystery Squid, Jun 5, 2006
  18. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 5 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]266202[/snapback]</div>
    I guess than for you the same rights you want to confer on the Islamofascists do not extend to these mercenaries? It was ok for them to get slaughtered like that and then have their bodies treated like that?

    And if they were entitled to those rights, what are you doing to make sure those responsible for these acts of murder are being punished. Do you not see the hypocracy here?

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Amazing Arthur @ Jun 5 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]266198[/snapback]</div>
    You really believe this drivel - and you should not quote from the people that got us into this mess in the first place. Madleine halfbright - the ding dong of State - still cant shoot right with a retrospectroscope on.

    And I cant wait for Hilary to run - how many states does she win - one, two??? Karl Rove already contributed to her campaign. Run Hilary Run. And Clinton did let it happen - see my freaken list above - he let the nuclear genie out THREE times - brilliant!! and he had OBL FOUR times - and let him go. How many dead civilian Americans are there who died in vain??
     
    #18 dbermanmd, Jun 5, 2006
  19. Mirza

    Mirza New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    898
    0
    0
    I hope there are others out there who see the sheer futility in this thread.
     
    #19 Mirza, Jun 5, 2006
  20. amazingarthur

    amazingarthur New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    49
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]266220[/snapback]</div>
    You are blaming Clinton for all these attacks that took place on the other side of the world. Who was in office during 9/11? An atack on American soil, by a foreign enemy. Clinton met with anti-terror advisors every week. Ashcroft, Bush's choice, didn't even have terror on his top ten list. Instead, he wanted the Reagan era Star Wars program to be built (bet that would've gone to Haliburton). Who is in office when we blew our Clinton era surplus?

    It's a fact. When dems are in office everyone does better. The poor get richer and the rich get richer. When righties are in office the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

    Trying to kill the middle class.

    The right is always wrong!
    Type all you want Clinton beats Bush everytime. Heck, Nixon beats Bush.
     
    #20 amazingarthur, Jun 5, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2