"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uqOdnbxl7_3u8dzYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:45415861$0$19734$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...[color=green]
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7JednSPCF4ZEw9zYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> "Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1161775314snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
> >>> In article <ItOdnS9Nf9daKqPYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@ez2.net>
> >>> [email]crwlr@yahoo.com[/email] "Jeff Strickland" writes:
> >>>
> >>>> I wasn't aware that the term, liberal, was name calling.
> >>>
> >>> Here in the UK it's not the least bit offensive, more likely just
> >>> plain inaccurate: rather like calling a New Yorker an "Angelino".
> >>> Indeed, the Liberal Democrats are probably regarded as the least-
> >>> threatening of the UK's political parties; and, considering their
> >>> usually idealistic (but often impractical) policies, "liberal" is
> >>> close to being a UKian political compliment.
> >>>
> >>> So I get a huge grin out of any USian extremist who tries to mock
> >>> me as a "liberal", of any sort. (But most extremists are not too
> >>> clueful, even at the best of times. *shrug*)
> >>
> >> Frankly, idealistic and impractical policies are among the worst for
> >> molding into public policy. I see no honor in being labeled liberal,[/color][/color][/color]
but[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> if you like it then ...
> >>
> >> Keep in mind, the radical muslim extremists struck London, so being
> >> liberal is not a shield against their wrath.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > Who said it would be? We live here. We fly on planes. Heck, Al-Qaeda
> > has an obvious preference for attacking New York City and there's just
> > case lots of liberals there. We take our chances just like anyone else.
> >
> > But it has occurred to us liberals that if we act friendly, maybe we'll
> > make friends. The attack on the WTC was condemned even in Muslim
> > countries,[/color]
>
> Really?
>
> The muslims I saw were cheering.
>[/color]
Yes, many were, especially in the West Bank and Gaza where people feel our
support of Israel makes Israel unnaccountable for their heavy-handed
policies. However, there were politicians and clergymen who condemned the
attacks.
[color=blue]
> Frankly, the muslim world has not done near enough to stem the flow of
> radicalism in their ranks. Not nearly enough. And that is the problem, in[/color]
a[color=blue]
> nutshell. It ought not be incumbant upon Americans and Britains to play[/color]
nice[color=blue]
> when there is very little (if ANY) effort on the part of Islam to rein in
> their radicals.[/color]
That's true. However, we enable their despots with high oil prices and this
leads to an increase in tyranny, an increase in frustration and an increase
in jihad - a direction in which they can lash out. Their despots are no
friends of ours.
[color=blue]
>
> it[color=green]
> > would have been smart to capitalize on that and simply root out[/color][/color]
Al-Qaeda.[color=blue][color=green]
> > It is not inconceivable that we'd have gotten cooperation from Saddam
> > Hussein, who was no friend of Al-Qaeda.[/color]
>
> True, he was no friend of al-Qaida, but hej was no friend of The West
> either. And, OBL could now (at the time) go to him and say, "We have found[/color]
a[color=blue]
> way to strike into the belly of the infadel. If you give us chemical[/color]
and/or[color=blue]
> biological agents, we can bring them to their knees."
>[/color]
We could have contained Osama bin Laden. He wasn't going to the loading
dock in Iraq to pick up a load of chemicals. And Saddam didn't have any to
give.
[color=blue]
> There is no reason to think that such a meeting would not take place given
> the worldwide intelligence that was available at the time.
>
> Let's go with the notion that the intelligence was flawwed at the time.
> Where would you stand TODAY if the flawwed intelligence was that he had NO
> WMD when in fact he did, and Bush did nothing? Where would you stand if[/color]
the[color=blue]
> intelligence community SAID Iraq had WMD, but Bush's advisors said that[/color]
was[color=blue]
> old data, and Bush did nothing while OBL and Saddam met and had the
> discussion outlined above?[/color]
Actually, the situation you describe is analogous to Pearl Harbor. We were,
in fact, surprised, and nobody held that against Roosevelt (well, a few did
and there are conspiracy kooks who still believe he engineered the situation
but they are regarded as kooks for a reason).
The difference was that we HAD been attacked by Japan and a war in reply was
justifiable.
Saddam Hussein was a total jerk, it's true, but he was a total jerk who did
not attack us.
[color=blue]
> My guess is that in either case, TODAY you would be railing against Bush[/color]
for[color=blue]
> ignoring the intelligence, or responding to flawwed intelligence. So, Bush
> works off of what we have -- the WHOLE WORLD had the same thing, by the
> way -- and 5 years later you guys second guess him. You would second guess
> him no matter what he did.[/color]
The only case for WMD came from Rumsfeld and the White House. Blix, Ritter,
Wilson, the CIA and other governments all thought the case was weak.
Powell, the poor bastard, got sent to the UN with nothnig. I listened to
him making his case, live on the radio, and thought, "My God, Powell's being
hung out to dry."
[color=blue][color=green]
> > We were able to invade Afghanistan,
> > as the Taliban had clearly enabled Al-Qaeda in their attack on us.
> >
> > But Bush, possibly the worst President in US history, pissed away a lot[/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green]
> > goodwill and potential cooperation in invading Iraq. The damage that[/color][/color]
Bush[color=blue][color=green]
> > has done to us is more profound than the damage Al-Qaeda did to us.
> >[/color]
>
> Yes. And that is explained by the world's obsession with being liberal
> feel-gooders. The cold reality is that the liberal feel-gooders would be
> screaming holy hell if there was a second 9/11 type of attack and GWB had
> sat around with his thumb up his ass, as you seem to infer that he should
> have done relative to Iraq. .
>[/color]
"Liberal feel-gooders..." Oh, I feel sooo put down.
In fact, the President was asleep at the switch - excuse me - sat around
with his thumb up his ass (you put that so well, thank you) before the FIRST
9/11 attack. It might not have been headed off, true, such a thing depends
on lucky breaks. But the Administration had tax cuts, Faith-based
initiatives and demonizing Social Security on their minds. And the
President had to clear killer brush on his ranch.
If the Administration had been focussed on terrorism, the Minneapolis
agent's report on Mossaoui and request for warrants and help might have
received some actual attention. But at FBI HQ, terrorism wasn't a big
priority (clearly, promotions weer going to go out for battles in the War on
Drugs, so that's what they were chasing) and the situation was
back-burnered. Sure, they could have had trouble obtaining warrants (as if
that bothers the Administration) but a can-do attitude, fuelled by interest
and demands for action on terrorism from the top, rather than a
don't-bother-us attitude, fuelled by negligence from the top, might have
made all the difference in the world.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]
Linear Mode
