Jordan Vesteyo wrote: Now we are getting some where, tru the Clinton administration, had really put this country in danger.
Hi Jason and thanks for the response. In terms of the US being put in danger by Clinton - by ignoring the very employees of the previous administration I take it? You are aware that Osama Bin Laden, fully paid up member of the CIA free Kidney Club, offered to bring the Mudjahadeen to Kuwait and fight Saddam? But Poppy and King Fahd said no to their favourite terrorist and with the placement of US troops on Saudi soil this set the tone for the future - the US has been repeatedly asked to leave but prefers to continue propping up the leaders of this barbaric fiefdom, good friends of the Bushies, who struck a deal for it's continued defence in exchange for selling it's oil in dollars back in 1974. The same Bush who presented, via a diplomatic intermediary, an Israeli offer of help to Saddam in destroying Iran along with WMD, logistics, satellite intel to use the WMD and a whole glut of 'dual use' equipment. The long term strategy outcome here, involving stupidly bad decisions within the same decaying geneaology no less, appears to be bleak for all concerned. These people couldn't run a bath let alone a country or a war.
Jordan Vesteyo wrote: The terrorist strikes against us throughout the 90's were allowed to go with out retaliation.
Meanwhile those lovely Saudis & the Taliban were invited for a nice, sunny Texan holiday by guess who?
Jordan Vesteyo wrote: Don't even get me started on the 'Cut and run" strategy in Somalia.
Having CNN on the beach as they arrived did somewhat spoil the surprise element I'll agree.
Jordan Vesteyo wrote: Two embassys leveled, the Cole, the first WTC strike. Oh yeah Clinton, levled an asprin factory and lobbed 450 cuise missle in Iraq, but the terrorist threat was allowed to grow-- unchecked.
Because - holy moly o'reilly - AQ weren't in Iraq looking up at 450 sub orbital missiles and anyway I thought you said there was no retaliation
Is it possible that even ONE journalist in Washington would have the godlike balls to ask Darth Cheney where his evidence, that he said he's seen (and no one else has) linking the former despotic and secular Iraq with the followers of Sayyid Qutb & al-Quaeda? The evidence that he reiterated repeatedly he had seen - nevermind all the constant bylinking or connecting verbally by the Admin? Much like Blair you cannot take a country to war and then simply claim you made a mistake due to the intelligence you asked the security services to cherrypick/make up - many thousands more people have died than the numbers in 9/11 and assuming for one second it is purely incompetence then it's magnitude is indistinguishable from conspiracy. In fact you can read about Darth's friends here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01842.html
Jordan Vesteyo wrote: The infailures before 9/11 were in part to booth admins, at the same time several things in the Clinton adinistration to bolstering the terrorists. in 1995 Jamie Cerliniick (deputy US attorny) crated a 'wall' between the CIA and the FBI, not allowing the right hand to know what the left is doing so to speak. Her appointment allowed her to set policy for the FBI, creating this wall prevented the sharing of information. In 1999 the CIA had formed opeation Able Danger, which had identified 4 of the 9/11 hijackers, the Clinton admistration lawyers actually covered up the faces of 4 of the hijackers. Couldn't touch them due to the fact they were here legally. Now before the 9/11 hearings (which Jamie Gorelick sat on the panel), talk about a fox in the henhouse, Sandy Berger was admittedly stealing documents out of the National Archives, even stuffing down his pants. What was it stealing and what did it say, who is really at blam. Oh and Muhommed Atta, his lovely story, 1993 the Clinton administation had pressured Isreal to releases a number of detainees from jail, Isreal refused to release any that had blood on their hands, Clinton pressured them to release ALL of them, ...... Including Muhammed Atta. Madeline Albright...... of course Clinton Administration.
Thanks Jason - didn't know some of that and will look into it. Pardon my ignorance but has anything more ever been publically made of the suggestion that some of the hijackers were still alive? What's the domestic coverage like of potential conspiracies or is it simply taboo for the major networks? If certain figures were identified & investigated why were the results dropped and specifically on whose orders? Why did Bush order that the Bin Laden family be released without any questioning? Further in the weeks before the United States invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban twice offered to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the United States would provide evidence of Bin Laden's complicity in the attacks why was none presented?
Jordan Vesteyo wrote: Do Americans realisticly believe that terrorists will strike small towns... no. But the real possiblility of hard tagets, like oh, say the LA airport as part of the millenium celebration. Part of Al-queda's doctrine is to strike at small soft targets also. for example, busses and trains. As the Brits and Spaniards have seen.
So if we're not dealing with any huge military threat why is the US occupying a nation in the Middle East that has, by the lack of demonstrable evidence, had absolutely nothing to do with those perpetrating such acts? Was it to, once it's CIA asset dictator had been removed, draw the terrorists to Iraq to finish fucking up what successive administrations had started? Are we to assume that US foreign policy is merely stupid? Of course not - it's simply criminal. It'd be easy to suggest than responsibility lies with the President but quite clearly he's responsible for nothing more than coffee and doughnuts at the strategy meetings. The Dick & Donny cabal however, featuring such noted humanitarian intellectuals as the ultra right pro-Israeli Wolfowitz and Perle, appear to have other employment interests than the safety and security of the American people and the troops who defend them.
Jordan Vesteyo wrote:The Brits had the balls to deal with them, the Spaniards gave in to them.
'Fraid you are totally incorrect in both statements Jason. Firstly the Spaniards voted Aznar out because he, shortly after the appalling bombings, appeared to use the incident for domestic political ends. Just like Bush and 9/11 funnily enough - the guy who bans publication of flag draped coffins goes on to use them in his campaign ad's didn't seem to strike many as the rank hypocrisy it was. Anyway the socialist Spanish administration that succeeded Aznar had already committed itself to the withdrawal of troops before said bombings.
Meanwhile in the UK the quisling Blair just went for it - a series of show enquiries pathetic in both remit & scope attempted to clear the name of the Government and it's duplicitious excuse of a policy. Let's be absolutely clear about this: Blair has never even attempted to justify or explain his actions in subverting the British government and due process beyond claiming that he believes 'it was the right thing to do'. Frankly, short of a war crimes tribunal at The Hague where incidentally Saddam should be, I believe the right thing for Blair to do would be to pull a Bud Dwyer on national television. Britain has recieved, unlike our Australian friends and their free trade deal bribe, no apparent benefits other than dead soliders. Blair (like Bush) is attempting, and has already succeeded in some cases, in introducing draconian legislation over the entire populace (rather than simply those convicted of terrorist charges) in terms of custody, extradition, evidence and identification.
Tho' it may be somewhat outside the scope of this thread, and apologies to anyone having made it this far, many in the UK will not be happy until a full transcript is published of the April 2002 meeting between Bush and Blair at Crawford, Texas where it is widely believed he committed British forces to an illegal invasion under chapter 6,7 and 8 of the UN charter. 1441 stated quite clearly that the UN would resume in order to examine the evidence in light of Blix's report pending any further action.
In addition several reports have now come to light stating that the idiotic and incompetent CIA/NSA even infiltrated the weapons inspections teams in order to expedite potential assassination attempts - obviously the Iraqis were aware of this and, initially, attempted to keep them at arms length given the potential threat. Eventually however, as wider risks escalated, Saddam relented and Blix recieved more information it became quite apparent that the WMD claims cooked up for war, why go to Niger for yellowcake when your bloody well sitting on tons of the stuff?, were in fact complete bollocks. So much so that when a British weapons expert leaked it to the Press he was 'suicided' and his character and professional expertise rubbished in the subsequent 'transparent' inquiry designed to clear the government.
It really doesn't look good does it?
