Thoughts on this e-mail I got?

Well, it's a jumble of different anti-Clinton ideas that have nothing to do with each other, as these emails tend to be, but in the first part there's certainly a legitimate point raised that could be explored further. The implication, of course, is that Bush HAS been making good on the promise of hunting down the 9-11 bombers, which is up for debate.

They conveniently leave out the question of who trained and funded these people during the Cold War.

It would be easier to read any of the pro-Bush propaganda if it made any sense. I will never understand why most of America felt he was an ignorant frat boy prior to 9/11 and afterwards suddenly they all forgot.

</strong>

This is utterly laughable. "Taking action" equates to still not capturing or killing Bin Laden and Al-Queda still operating in multiple worldwide scenarios despites the same promises from Dubya.

Besides, Al-Queda formed with the express purpose of using violence against America on G.H.W. Bush's watch, not Clinton's. And he did absolutely nothing about it then, so...

</strong>

More hooey. The Justice Department wasn't "chasing" Bill Gates. They were ensuring a competitive, non-monopoly operating system market in the future. That's what America is about. Making sure people have choices and that a free market actually is free. And that has nothing to do with the fact he gives billions of dollars to charity (what multi-millionaire or billionaire doesn't?) or that Microsoft software is relatively affordable.

Meanwhile, where's the disdain over our current admin's priority crackdown on smoking paraphenalia while we're in the midst of multiple military theaters abroad and vulnerable to terrorism at home?

Wow...an ex-President and first lady writing a definitive memoir. How odd. First time for everything...

But thanks for today's propaganda, Grift. Afternoon chuckles are always welcome.

Because he was never an ignorant frat boy.

Preconceived notions aren't always true. The more you learn about a person, the more stereotype and image fall away to reveal a true picture. I'm absolutely positive that you (Bateman) have never blown a movie trailer all out of proportion (either positive or negative) but then ameliorated your statement in relation to the finished product. wink

I don't find Bush to be supremely gifted, but he has intelligent people like Powell and Rice looking up to him as the arbiter, the leader.

You may not like his politics, but he certainly seems to have a firm grasp of what plays with the American public. Seems like a sign of intelligence to me.

trained for what? how blow up a bomb? How to squeeze a trigger? what exactly did we train them on?

what would've happened if these people weren't funded? they still would've been pissed anyways for us turning our backs.

I'm pretty sure you didn't just say one positive thing about Bush in that statement. Surrounding himself with good people? Why didn't we fucking vote for one of them, then?

I just find it funny that you are willing to admit you voted for someone to be the president of the US that you didn't think was incredibly intelligent. Seems like a good filter to me.

He is surrounded by ignorant zealots who have no idea what is best for our country and they value loyalty among their collaborators over the ability to do their job.

Rice maybe, but Powell bucks him often and does his best to reign him in and temper his rhetoric where possible. Doesn't really seem like the mark of someone who "looks up" to someone, IMHO. He respects his Presidential position and superior military rank, but beyond that, I don't think Powell's shown much love for the man and the way he thinks.

As for what plays with the public... relatively bloodless war and tax rebate checks are no-brainers. As soon as either subside, so does his popularity ratings, and it's been that way throughout his first term.

I wonder why I just had a flashback to an interview with Bret Ratner where he explained he is a good director because he surrounds himelf with the best DP, Production Designer etc.

The CIA trained them how to have an efficient terrorist organization that could strike swiftly against the Russians and disappear. The CIA trained them in tactics. The US supported the most extreme groups in Afghanistan, helping them to become stronger and better equipped.

It seems people can't get it out of their heads that it takes more than one person to govern. It was so often said about Clinton that he "ran" the country. Well to be honest I'd rather there wasn't just one person "running" the country. That's called...

Heck, even RAMBO III points that out.

I think Bush is completely incapable of running our country let alone a small business. He has also surrounded himself by people that are borderline insane. I could go on and on about why they all have no idea what is best for our country but that would take a really post and I am sure that most of the Bush supporters know anyway...but they just don't care.

YOu can't say you surround yourself with good people & then bring out John Ashcroft. The man is neanderthol.

I am sure he can't spell it either. His morning prayer sessions are completely innapropriate and he is a racist religous nut. If he had it his way we would all be in church every Sunday and everyone who did anything the Bible was against would be shot.

Have you ever heard of the hindsight factor? Jesus fucking christ.

(This post was meant to be targeted at those who believe that Clinton deliberately let Al Qaeda off the hook.)

I agree, but aside from Rice and Powell, I remian unimpressed with his other choices.

Ashcroft chasing down smoking parahenalia? Rumsfeld alienating groups by the handful with his overly blunt bulldog diplomacy? One treasury sceretary that disagrees with the President, and a nother who's a corporate tax dodger? Health officials that believe that Bible study can alleviate feminine problems?

A very motley crue.

When I'm attourney general, you can say I shouldn't be because I'm stoopid.

Uhh...and what job did G.H.W. Bush have while all of this was going on?

And what job did he get when Reagan left?

If you put any blame on Clinton, then you must share it equally with them. No way around it.

He got the right people, but the wrong organization.

Al-Queda was formed of the same Afghanistan Rebels in that conflict, but they formed after the Gulf War because of disgust at continued American interference and general hate for America.

And Bush I was VP while we worked with them, and he was Prez as they turned against us.

Is Powell against Bush because Powell can never be wrong???

Bush surrounded himself with intelligent people from both sides of his own party. He takes in thier sometimes differing viewpoints and then makes the decision. Bush seems to have sided more with Powell lately than Rumsfeld, but I don't think that means much if we're comparing intelligence or competence.

Let's make this clear: Bush makes the decision after weighing the disparate viewpoints. I don't think Powell or Rumsfeld are very close idealogically but Bush has the strength of character to listen to both of them and then make his own decision.

I can respect that.

Regarding my feelings about Bush's intelligence during the election... I'll admit the constant media attacks and his uncomfortable public speeches made me doubt his intellect... however I would much rather have a stupid man as President than a morally bankrupt zombie beholden to China.

Better to have a stupid morally bankrupt zombie beholden to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, then?

Out of China and Saudi Arabia, which country has spawned 16 individuals who EACH killed American civilians in a 160+/1 ratio?

Wasn't deflecting this to the conservatives the same as any time Bush is brought up, someone has to scream "Well, what about Clinton?"

For me the question is, COULD Clinton have done something more?

We should have killed them before they did anything.

If they really had a problem with the Saudis asking us to keep troops there, shouldn't they have been blowing up the Saudi Royal family instead of our embassies in Africa?

Hang on a second.

What's this about?

Al Qaeda formed in 87-88 to oversee and finance the training of mujaheddin fighters. He cofinanced camps with the CIA. These are camps that the US government now calls "terror universities."

bin Laden and Al Qaeda were doing the exact same things they are doing today, but because they were doing them to our enemies, we liked them.

“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

-Ronald Reagan,March 8 1985

Clinton fucked up several times and was not perfect but I really stand by what he did. Everyone acts like he was told 9/11 was going to happen and he did nothing about it.

But, it's not deflection if indeed Al-Queda DID form on Bush I's watch and if indeed Bush's "taken action" has produced exactly the same amount of concrete results that the author is complaining about in the first place with Clinton. Then, it becomes clear that HE is doing the deflecting in a blindly partisan manner.

To answer your question...yes, he could've. Clinton DID have a chance to get Bin Laden handed over to him and he did hesitate for reasons that seemed sensible at the time, but in retrospect were hardly enough to defer taking custody of him. Clinton could've initiated a number of comprehensive military iniatives in hindsight.

But that's the thing...hindsight.

Just like in hindsight, Bush could've stopped both 9/11 and our current Iraqi conflict.

But at the time, he made what seemed like sensible decisions not to go further.

I don't blame either guy. They were both carrying out long-standing and confusing Middle Eastern policy that we'd locked ourselves into decades ago when we started installing Shahs and Ayatollahs.

I must have missed it when Al Gore pledged to break ties with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Must have been before he invented the Internet.

Olsens

It wasn't even an issue during the election, so why would either guy comment on it one way or the other. Besides, that in no way exonerates Bush from not doing so.

And I repeat, which country - China or Saudi Arabia - has spawned more men who have killed large numbers of American civilians single-handedly? Which has rich citizens that OPENLY finance these very same operations?

And you think Clinton was morally bankrupt because he pandered to China, yet Bush is merely stupid?!?

Let's be fair. They're both morally bankrupt using your criteria (and I agree with it. I think they both are).

Diva posted a thread about this a little while back, and I can't find it right now, but one of Bush's health offical appointees had written that Bible study can alleviate feminine problems.

I don't see how Bush can extricate the USA out of our ties with the Saudis (though I wish he would). No one was holding a gun to Clinton or Gore's head forcing them to personally take campaign funds from the Chinese government.

One problem was created by the principles involved, one was thrown into the principle's lap.

Wait, whose family has had business dealings with the bin Laden family?

The same way we eventually severed our ties to Iraq and took action against them. That's not a problem created by the principles involved, that's a problem created by the PRINCIPAL involved, Dubya.

If we SAY we're not going to tolerate states that aid and abet terrorists and we invade such states under this same ideal, then we cannot use OTHER states that aid and abet terrorists openly - including those who ACTUALLY WERE responsible for 9/11 - to help us do so and we also cannot call them "ally" or "friend" as our currert Prez does.

No principle is forcing him to do that except his lack of principles.

That would be the Bush family, David.

Devin,

I hate you therefore I will have no further dealings with any of your family including your fifty half-brothers and sisters or your hundred cousins or your huge multinational corporation. You, and you alone, guide my feelings toward your entire family (I apologize for sleeping with your mother).

Fruit of the poisonous tree don't you know.

It's a little creepier than that.

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01312003.html" target="_blank">http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01312003.html</a>

I guess it's easy for you to sit there saying this. It's also quite easy for me to tell Jeff Garcia to throw the ball just so it's out of the reach of any defenders but "in reach" for Terrell Owens to catch it. Doesn't make it easier for Garcia to do just because I want him to do it.

Your analogy between China and Saudi Arabia is pretty much apples and oranges. One was a personal deal between high ranking officials in our government and members of an unfriendly but currently docile world power, and the other was forty years of history dumped in the lap of our current President.

If the war on Iraq was unjustified (as you have stated loudly and often), what would an intelligent measured response to Saudi Arabia look like? Would it involve hopefully finding a new source of oil to diminish our dependence on the Saudis (merely as a corrollary to another action), along with developing new sources of energy to replace fossil fuels, as well as keeping diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia strong until WE are ready to drop the axe? I wonder who's doing that!

Edited for UBB and other sundries

The group were called Mujahadeen.

---which I see Devin mentions later in the thread---

</strong>

And that makes what difference exactly? Iraq was also dumped in his lap from his Dad screwing up. Yet, he acted on that with no problem. The economy was also thrown into his lap, and he's attempting to act on that as well.

Yet, NO action is being taken with Saudi Arabia. In fact, we PRAISE them.

THAT is personal. That's not being dumped in his lap. No one told him upon swearing into office that he MUST count Saudi Arabia as a friend and ally, even if Saudi Arabians fund Al-Queda and the vast majority of 9/11 attackers are Saudi Arabian.

That was his decision alone to call them as friends and allies despite that, and that is why he is every bit as morally reprehensible as Clinton. The only way you can reason he is not is to fall into Orwell-ian reasoning wherein:

WE VOW TO STOP ALL TERRORISM AND NATIONS WHO AID THEM....

but some are worse than others, and we should let the "not as bad" ones be and support them.

Actually, no. We'd demand the immediate arrest of all terrorist financiers (many of whom openly flaunt their ties), and we would demand that all terrorist-supporting funds in that country be frozen immediately. And we'd do it with the same bullishness that we use to create this Iraq invasion out of thin air, and with the same threat of force.

But then, that would require a real President who actually cares about stopping terrorists, and sadly neither Bush I, Reagan, Clinton, nor Dubya fit that profile.

The Alaska Refuge will not reduce our dependence on Saudi oil significantly. And Bush merely paid lip service to the "new energy source" option he so passionately backed in his State of the Union. Check the current budget: There's virtually no funding for it along with homeland security and a number of other programs he touts, but then refuses to financially support.

And if you WANT to keep diplomatic ties with the nation that spawned and backed the 9/11 attackers, you should be ashamed, frankly.

Actually, I was talking about Iraqi oil, not Alaskan.

Listen up. I agree with you on Saudi Arabia. I find their governement to be reprehensible.

But... attacking them for their vague, at least evidence wise, ties to the terrorists is extremely short sighted. They are still the most powerful nation in that region but you're willing to spit in their proverbial faces. Then what. What are the consequences of that action? This is not the right time for such Rumsfeldian diplomacy towards that particular country.

I don't agree with everything Bush does. But let's be honest. My thesis will work. Yours would have unimaginable consequences.

Note how I said "until we can safely drop the axe." What does that imply about my feelings toward Saudi Arabia?

</strong>

But of course, Iraq and Syria will do just fine. There's no moral point in drawing a hard line against terroism and then penciling in holes for the BIGGEST OFFENDERS TO SLIP THROUGH.

Why did those troops who died in Afghanistan sacrifice their lives if we aren't going to take it all the way? We've alreadly "applied diplomatic pressure" to Saudi Arabia to freeze those accounts and to turn over the offenders, and they responded with weak conciliatory gestures more BS-laden than anything Iraq did with the UN weapons inspectors.

The treat of force (and hopefully, not force itself) must be applied if Saudi Arabia is ever going to fully give up its big spenders supporting terrorism.

Elsewise, we might as well re-install the Taliban. Whoops, no need to do so...they're already regaining power under new names in every part of Afghanistan except Kabul.

</strong>

Burke, your thesis so far hasn't done squat because we're not even following it.

Where's the hydrogen cell funding? Aren't Iraqi oil resources supposed to be locked in a trust the US can't touch, and won't it be years before they can really effect our dependence on Saudi Arabia? More importantly, isn't Al-Queda still killing US personnel across the world? Yes. Isn't Afghanistan still in almost the exact same predicament they were in before we invaded? Yes. Isn't Iraq now leaning toward a theocracy barring our military insistence that they not become one, and ONCE (not if, but once) they do naturally evolve into a theocracy, won't we back in the same boat ten years from now as the clerics are now demanding we leave them alone?

You call that "working"?

The point is, we'll never be able to safely drop the axe until we barely need fuel anymore, and that is DECADES away. How many people will die in Saudi-funded terror attacks between now and then?

TOO MANY.