U.S. Forces in Iraq Gain 'Momentum'

Binary_Digit · Mar 18, 2007

aquapub said:
This is still more than Clinton got accomplished in 8 years, and way more than you give him credit for accomplishing.

Haven't you been slapped by the truth enough times in this thread?

1995

Lacombe and Keyes also refer to the June 21, 1995 Presidential Decision Directive 39 (Unclassifed)/Unclassifed Abstract issued by President William Jefferson Clinton. The Directive "instructed a cabinet committee to review critical national infrastructure's vulnerability to terrorism in order to make recommendations to the president." In addition, Attorney General Janet Reno subsequently established the Interagency Working Group on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) which included "representation from a range of federal agencies. The group eventually concluded that potential sources and forms of attack had evolved sufficiently to require new kinds of review addressing both physical attacks, such as bombings, and electronic, or cyber, attacks."
In response to "the working group's recommendations, [President Clinton] issued Executive Order 13010-Critical Infrastructure Protection on July 15, 1996, founding the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The committee was designed to report to the president on threats involving vulnerabilities to critical national infrastructures while providing policy alternatives and solutions."

1998

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive-62 (PDD-62), "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas" and Presidential Decision Directive-63 (PDD-63), "Critical Infrastructure Protection."

PDD-62 stated "Because of our military strength, future enemies, whether nations, groups or individuals, may seek to harm us in non-traditional ways including attacks within the United States. Because our economy is increasingly reliant upon interdependent and cyber-supported infrastructures, non-traditional attacks on our infrastructure and information systems may be capable of significantly harming both our military power and our economy."

PDD-63 called for "a National Coordinator whose scope will include not only critical infrastructure but also foreign terrorism and threats of domestic mass destruction (including biological weapons) because attacks on the US may not come labeled in neat jurisdictional boxes."

The May 5, 1998, issue of Policy Analysis published by the Cato Institute Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at Cato: "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense."

1999

On January 20, 1999, Dr. Ruth David, former CIA deputy director for science and technology and then President and CEO of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, spoke before the National Military Intelligence Association (NMIA) Potomac Chapter at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, DC. The topic of her address was Homeland Defense.[7]
Jonathan S. Landay wrote the article "Launching a homeland defense" for the Christian Science Monitor on January 29, 1999:

"Since 1995, President Clinton and the Republican-led Congress ... boosted spending on these programs by billions of dollars. ...[and] Mr. Clinton has announced he will add billions more for counterterrorism and national missile defense (NMD) in the fiscal 2000 budget he sends next month to Congress. Lawmakers are expected to embrace his plans, and perhaps inject more money than he seeks ... These efforts have come to be known as homeland defense." It is, asserts Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre, "the defense mission of the next century." [8]

On February 1, 1999, President Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.'s FY 2000 Budget: Preparing America For the 21st Century was released. The Budget included:

"Prepare America for other critical future challenges. The President's framework will reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses for military readiness and pressing national domestic priorities, such as education, research, and the security of Americans at home and abroad."

Thus far, the term homeland defense had not been specifically used by the White House or the Clinton administration, although Presidential Decision Directive-62 (PDD-62), issued by President Clinton on May 22, 1998, did make reference to protecting the homeland: "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland".
Another example comes from the curious naming of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security. Although the Institute was both funded and initiated by October 1999, it was not formally established until April 2001. Even this opening, it is said, apparently was preceded by a "month of high-tech and heavy-hitter-security-type buzz" due to the Institute's "ties to the military and to the intelligence community."

Clinton administration: Homeland Defense Before 2001 - SourceWatch

Clinton's biggest anti-terrorism bill in 1996 was compared to the movie "Wag the Dog" and he was accused of doing it only to distract attention away from Lewinski. Republicans in Congress only approved a watered-down version of Clinton's proposals, and many of the policies they rejected at the time have since been implemented into the Patriot Act.

"April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.
The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak."

CNN - Congress passes anti-terrorism bill - Apr. 18, 1996

Here's a typical reaction that Clinton's proposed anti-terrorism measures recieved from Republicans:

"The President is "continuing to agitate for new powers to suppress terrorists" and "demanding more powers for wiretaps, more powers to prevent people from using encryption for their e-mail, more powers to classify normal crimes as terrorist offenses, and so forth."

"As usual," the President's "solution to every problem is more power for himself and his cronies" and he has "scorned opponents of his terrorist proposals, claiming that they want to 'turn America into a safe house for terrorists.'"

Clinton administration anti-terrorism law - SourceWatch

So once again you have shamelessly asserted a lie only to have it thrown back in your face. Doesn't it get old being proven wrong time and again? Do you have any interest at all in the truth?

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
Haven't you been slapped by the truth enough times in this thread?

1995

Lacombe and Keyes also refer to the June 21, 1995 Presidential Decision Directive 39 (Unclassifed)/Unclassifed Abstract issued by President William Jefferson Clinton. The Directive "instructed a cabinet committee to review critical national infrastructure's vulnerability to terrorism in order to make recommendations to the president." In addition, Attorney General Janet Reno subsequently established the Interagency Working Group on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) which included "representation from a range of federal agencies. The group eventually concluded that potential sources and forms of attack had evolved sufficiently to require new kinds of review addressing both physical attacks, such as bombings, and electronic, or cyber, attacks."
In response to "the working group's recommendations, [President Clinton] issued Executive Order 13010-Critical Infrastructure Protection on July 15, 1996, founding the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The committee was designed to report to the president on threats involving vulnerabilities to critical national infrastructures while providing policy alternatives and solutions."

Wow. There's a lot of BS to dig through here.

Here we go...

Ordering investigations into terrorism...how is this meaningful when his conclusions about terrorism were still to tie the hands of the FBI, when he still treated terrorism as a police matter rather than as a military one, leading to 9/11, and when investigations of this sort that Bush spearheaded get dissmissed as "doing nothing" by you people?

Apparently, "slapped with the Truth" is liberal for "shown BS, irrelevant information."

:lol:

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
1998

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive-62 (PDD-62), "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas" and Presidential Decision Directive-63 (PDD-63), "Critical Infrastructure Protection."

PDD-62 stated "Because of our military strength, future enemies, whether nations, groups or individuals, may seek to harm us in non-traditional ways including attacks within the United States. Because our economy is increasingly reliant upon interdependent and cyber-supported infrastructures, non-traditional attacks on our infrastructure and information systems may be capable of significantly harming both our military power and our economy."

PDD-63 called for "a National Coordinator whose scope will include not only critical infrastructure but also foreign terrorism and threats of domestic mass destruction (including biological weapons) because attacks on the US may not come labeled in neat jurisdictional boxes."

The May 5, 1998, issue of Policy Analysis published by the Cato Institute Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at Cato: "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense."

These files state that we need to prevent terrorism, but shows nothing that was done.

What WAS done is the wall of separation was drastically increased way beyond what was appropriate, and it was made illegal for the FBI and the CIA to communicate in just about any way regarding terrorist threats.

Again, President Bush put together several directives and investigations like this in the mere months he was in office, and liberals call it "doing nothing."

That BS cuts both ways.

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
1999

On January 20, 1999, Dr. Ruth David, former CIA deputy director for science and technology and then President and CEO of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, spoke before the National Military Intelligence Association (NMIA) Potomac Chapter at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, DC. The topic of her address was Homeland Defense.[7]
Jonathan S. Landay wrote the article "Launching a homeland defense" for the Christian Science Monitor on January 29, 1999:

"Since 1995, President Clinton and the Republican-led Congress ... boosted spending on these programs by billions of dollars. ...[and] Mr. Clinton has announced he will add billions more for counterterrorism and national missile defense (NMD) in the fiscal 2000 budget he sends next month to Congress. Lawmakers are expected to embrace his plans, and perhaps inject more money than he seeks ... These efforts have come to be known as homeland defense." It is, asserts Deputy Defense Secretary John J. Hamre, "the defense mission of the next century." [8]

On February 1, 1999, President Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.'s FY 2000 Budget: Preparing America For the 21st Century was released. The Budget included:

"Prepare America for other critical future challenges. The President's framework will reserve 11 percent of the projected surpluses for military readiness and pressing national domestic priorities, such as education, research, and the security of Americans at home and abroad."

Thus far, the term homeland defense had not been specifically used by the White House or the Clinton administration, although Presidential Decision Directive-62 (PDD-62), issued by President Clinton on May 22, 1998, did make reference to protecting the homeland: "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland".
Another example comes from the curious naming of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security. Although the Institute was both funded and initiated by October 1999, it was not formally established until April 2001. Even this opening, it is said, apparently was preceded by a "month of high-tech and heavy-hitter-security-type buzz" due to the Institute's "ties to the military and to the intelligence community."

Clinton administration: Homeland Defense Before 2001 - SourceWatch

And Bush made gigantic increases in counterterrorism funding...in his mere months in office before 9/11...and liberals call it doing nothing.

That BS cuts both ways.

Like I said, Bush got more done in 8 months than Clinton did in eight years. "Getting slapped with the truth" is looking more and more like "being taunted with points that confirm my assertions."

:lol:

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
Clinton's biggest anti-terrorism bill in 1996 was compared to the movie "Wag the Dog" and he was accused of doing it only to distract attention away from Lewinski. Republicans in Congress only approved a watered-down version of Clinton's proposals, and many of the policies they rejected at the time have since been implemented into the Patriot Act.

:bs

1) Clinton pretended to give a rat's a$$ about U.S. national security precisely 2 times in his presidency, allegedly trying to do something about foreign threats...

THE DAY he admitted to sleeping with that woman, and THE DAY he was impeached.

That's what conservatives compared him to wag the dog for.

2) Career criminals who make President Harding look like a boy scout should be kept away from that kind of power.

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

Binary_Digit said:
Doesn't it get old being proven wrong time and again? Do you have any interest at all in the truth?

I debate against liberals. I have no way of knowing what it's like. :mrgreen:

You've posted a bunch of text, but, as I've just demonstrated, it's total crap. Save your insults for when you've actually won a debate.

oldreliable67 · Apr 6, 2007

aquapub said:
These files state that we need to prevent terrorism, but shows nothing that was done.

What WAS done is the wall of separation was drastically increased way beyond what was appropriate, and it was made illegal for the FBI and the CIA to communicate in just about any way regarding terrorist threats.

Again, President Bush put together several directives and investigations like this in the mere months he was in office, and liberals call it "doing nothing."

That BS cuts both ways.

What most Clinton supporters either don't or perhaps refuse to realize is the effort that it took to get even these directives and how watered down they were from those that were proposed by NSC staffers, CIA, etc. These PDDs for the most part, proved insufficient and in some cases, counterproductive, and in some cases, their impact was muted or even nullified by the rulings and opinions coming from Justice (e.g., the now infamous "wall" between FBI and CIA). A number of authoritative references exist on these matters, just google'em up or I can provide them.

Having said that, we should also recognize that neither Clinton nor Bush are blameless. To bash either while supporting the other risks focusing too much on partisan bickering while ignoring the realities and lessons-learned (hopefully) of the history the anti-terrorism efforts.

aquapub · Apr 6, 2007

oldreliable67 said:
What most Clinton supporters either don't or perhaps refuse to realize is the effort that it took to get even these directives and how watered down they were from those that were proposed by NSC staffers, CIA, etc. These PDDs for the most part, proved insufficient and in some cases, counterproductive, and in some cases, their impact was muted or even nullified by the rulings and opinions coming from Justice (e.g., the now infamous "wall" between FBI and CIA). A number of authoritative references exist on these matters, just google'em up or I can provide them.

Having said that, we should also recognize that neither Clinton nor Bush are blameless. To bash either while supporting the other risks focusing too much on partisan bickering while ignoring the realities and lessons-learned (hopefully) of the history the anti-terrorism efforts.

Bush did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years, and Clinton also put Al Queda on the map by retreating from it in its infancy, he treated 8 years of Al Queda attacks as a criminal matter, rather than as a military one (where you make an arrest and do nothing about the terror-sponsors causing the problem...the pre-9/11 approach Democrats advocate returning to), and tied the hands of the FBI.

I don't really care how it looks. The truth is very one-sided on this. Democrats caused 9/11.

Hoot · Apr 6, 2007

C'mon, Aqua...Bush did nothing for his first few months in office. For you to blatantly say Bush did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years is outright neo-con spin.

Most sane people realize that terrorism cannot be beaten with military force...it takes intelligence and police work.

Navy Pride · Apr 6, 2007

Hoot said:
C'mon, Aqua...Bush did nothing for his first few months in office. For you to blatantly say Bush did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years is outright neo-con spin.

Most sane people realize that terrorism cannot be beaten with military force...it takes intelligence and police work.

Yeah we should fight it in a kind and sensitive manner and ask the corrupt Germans and French to help us like Kerry said.........:roll:

aquapub · Apr 8, 2007

Hoot said:
1) C'mon, Aqua...Bush did nothing for his first few months in office. For you to blatantly say Bush did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years is outright neo-con spin.

2) Most sane people realize that terrorism cannot be beaten with military force...it takes intelligence and police work.

1) I've got the 9/11 Commission Report, you've got Michael Moore. Good luck with that.

:lol:

2) Arresting individual terrorists while doing nothing about the foreign powers who sponsor them would merely lead to perpetual terrorism on the U.S...which Democrats spent 8 years proving.

Only a Democrat could mistake destroying the enemy for insanity.

Hoot · Apr 8, 2007

Navy Pride said:
Yeah we should fight it in a kind and sensitive manner and ask the corrupt Germans and French to help us like Kerry said.........:roll:

Last year, the British thwarted a terrorism plot, and it was not accomplished by military force. It was accomplished by intelligence and police work.

This is where our emphasis should be on the 'war on terrorism.'

aquapub · Apr 8, 2007

Hoot said:
Last year, the British thwarted a terrorism plot, and it was not accomplished by military force. It was accomplished by intelligence and police work.

This is where our emphasis should be on the 'war on terrorism.'

Congratulations. :applaud

You've just demonstrated what conservatives call the "pre-9/11 mindset." This is another term for "wanting us to revert back to the disastrously ineffective policies of the Clinton years."

Arresting individual terrorists while doing nothing about the foreign powers who sponsor them would merely lead to perpetual terrorism on the U.S...which Democrats spent 8 years proving.