• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Clinton Administration Ignored Warnings

wrath said:
I agree that it was/is ridiculous. My point is Clinton did not want to risk political suicide by actively hunting down terrorists that have no government/country attached to them. It took the WTC and pentagon attacks to make Americans realize that turning a blind eye just wasn't going to cut it anymore. Look at the **** storm Bush is dealing with now. Clinton certainly did not have the balls for this and at that time neither did most of us.

Of course, China would have been different. China cannot melt back into the shadow of another country after carrying out an attack. They would have no choice but to answer for their actions. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda dont have to do this. Rats and roaches prefer it dark for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Debate Politics, wrath!:2wave:

EXCELLENT points...too bad you're dealing with a "negative-nanny" right now...
 
wrath said:
I agree that it was/is ridiculous. My point is Clinton did not want to risk political suicide by actively hunting down terrorists that have no government/country attached to them. It took the WTC and pentagon attacks to make Americans realize that turning a blind eye just wasn't going to cut it anymore. Look at the **** storm Bush is dealing with now. Clinton certainly did not have the balls for this and at that time neither did most of us.

Of course, China would have been different. China cannot melt back into the shadow of another country after carrying out an attack. They would have no choice but to answer for their actions. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda dont have to do this. Rats and roaches prefer it dark for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that was why we went to Afghanistan. And since when should politics be held above human lives? If everyone who would have voted for you is dead then why try to save face?
 
The way I see it....Clinton and his administration deserve 8 years of blame, Bush and co. deserve 9 months of blame.

Both parties are at fault!
 
SixStringHero said:
The way I see it....Clinton and his administration deserve 8 years of blame, Bush and co. deserve 9 months of blame.

Both parties are at fault!
Click to expand...

I agree however Clinton is moreso. Clinton had 8 years to solve a problem that was costing lives and he did nothing.
 
Here's more of my two cents...

If Clinton was the Pres in 2001 instead of 1993, would he have done
more or less than what Bush is doing?

If Bush43 was the Pres in 1993 instead of 2001, would he have done
more or less than what Clinton did?

Personally, I think if Bush43 was around in 1993 there would've never had
been a 9/11/2001....Historians would look back and just call it "Tuesday".
 
cnredd said:
Here's more of my two cents...

If Clinton was the Pres in 2001 instead of 1993, would he have done
more or less than what Bush is doing?

If Bush43 was the Pres in 1993 instead of 2001, would he have done
more or less than what Clinton did?

Personally, I think if Bush43 was around in 1993 there would've never had
been a 9/11/2001....Historians would look back and just call it "Tuesday".
Click to expand...

That was my entire point. Neither of them did anything...they valued politics above human lives. Bush displayed that when he ignored Al Qaeda for 9 months despite what went on during the Clinton administration. Bush had the same information about Al Qaeda's attacks before 9/11 and after. It's the same as Pearl Harbor..an important person in the DOD was kicking and screaming that an attack was iminent and no one listened.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
That was my entire point. Neither of them did anything...they valued politics above human lives. Bush displayed that when he ignored Al Qaeda for 9 months despite what went on during the Clinton administration. Bush had the same information about Al Qaeda's attacks before 9/11 and after. It's the same as Pearl Harbor..an important person in the DOD was kicking and screaming that an attack was iminent and no one listened.
Click to expand...

Swampland in Florida for sale...cheap, too...

If he said "We gotta go find this problem and eliminate it before something real bad happens", do you know what some in the American public would do?

The exact same thing they're doing now with Iraq!......Whaaaaaaa!:cry:

Right now there are hundreds and hundreds of rumors, innuendos, and "credible" sources that are telling the FBI, CIA, and all of the other Departments about terrorist conspiracies...The question remains, "In what order are they taken...IF taken at all?"

An important person in the DoD? That's it? Lightning strikes a tree and you outlaw clouds?

Tell you what.....If an important person in the DoD tells you the Devil Rays
are going to win the World Series this year, bet the house...Then get back to me....
 
Last edited:
cnredd said:
Swampland in Florida for sale...cheap, too...

If he said "We gotta go find this problem and eliminate it before something real bad happens", do you know what some in the American public would do?

The exact same thing they're doing now with Iraq!......Whaaaaaaa!:cry:

Right now there are hundreds and hundreds of rumors, innuendos, and "credible" sources that are telling the FBI, CIA, and all of the other Departments about terrorist conspiracies...The question remains, "In what order are they taken...IF taken at all?"

An important person in the DoD? That's it? Lightning strikes a tree and you outlaw clouds?

Tell you what.....If an important person in the DoD tells you the Devil Rays
are going to win the World Series this year, bet the house...Then get back to me....
Click to expand...

Just because something's true doesn't make it cheap. I'd bet the American public would have been enthusiastic about it after the government reminded them about the WTC bombing, embassy bombings, and USS Cole bombing. Iraq is absolutley irrelevant to this argument..THERE WAS "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. It would have been the same reaction as is was to Afghanistan and what a coincidence. Besides, Bush didn't seem to mind using shakey evidence when he invaded Iraq. Which had NOTHING to do with the war on terror until after we invaded and the terrorist began flooding into the country as a result.
You're right I left my self open with the DOD comment because I didn't bother to say that he had VERY CREDIBLE evidence to go along with the kicking and screaming. I didn't think I had to mention it..it's common knowledge. Ever turn on the history channel? It's all WW2. If an important person at the DOD tells me we're going to be attacked I'll believe him.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Just because something's true doesn't make it cheap. I'd bet the American public would have been enthusiastic about it after the government reminded them about the WTC bombing, embassy bombings, and USS Cole bombing. Iraq is absolutley irrelevant to this argument..THERE WAS "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP" BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. It would have been the same reaction as is was to Afghanistan and what a coincidence. Besides, Bush didn't seem to mind using shakey evidence when he invaded Iraq. Which had NOTHING to do with the war on terror until after we invaded and the terrorist began flooding into the country as a result.
You're right I left my self open with the DOD comment because I didn't bother to say that he had VERY CREDIBLE evidence to go along with the kicking and screaming. I didn't think I had to mention it..it's common knowledge. Ever turn on the history channel? It's all WW2. If an important person at the DOD tells me we're going to be attacked I'll believe him.
Click to expand...
What most of the left will not accept is that Iraq never needed to be connected directly to Al Qaeda in order to justify military action. Iraq was unfinished business 12 years in the making and long overdue. Everything that led up to the 2003 invasion was justification enough IMO.

I would tend to heed the warnings of the DoD as well. Although, govt warnings will be criticized ad nauseam. Many of the same people screaming that we should have more warning about potential terrorist attacks are whining about the color coded system of warnings being a scare tactic.
 
wrath said:
What most of the left will not accept is that Iraq never needed to be connected directly to Al Qaeda in order to justify military action.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose the pro-war folks tried so hard to sell the idea of a meaningful connection between the two?
 
Navy Pride said:
Come on. quit spinning address this
Click to expand...
Wherein lies the spin?


From the 9-11 commission's report:

The CIA official who ran the Sudanese portfolio and met with the Sudanese on numerous occasions told us the Sudanese were not going to deliver, and the perceived moderates "were just flat-out lying." Mark interview (May 12, 2004).
In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan. The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate. Mansoor Ijaz interview (May 7, 2004); Janet McElligot interview (Oct. 20, 2003). But these offers were dismissed because the NSC viewed Sudan as all talk and little action. U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses, including trips to the region by U.S. officials, for their own political purposes. See Joint Inquiry interview of David Williams, June 26, 2002.Today, Sudan is still listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

​
Are you saying we should have accepted a bullshit offer from known liars trying to wheedle concession out of the US?
 
VTA said:
It's been my understanding from what I've read that Berger was something of an obstacle when it came to getting bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to share. This is the appropriate time and place after all.
 
wrath said:
What most of the left will not accept is that Iraq never needed to be connected directly to Al Qaeda in order to justify military action. Iraq was unfinished business 12 years in the making and long overdue. Everything that led up to the 2003 invasion was justification enough IMO.

I would tend to heed the warnings of the DoD as well. Although, govt warnings will be criticized ad nauseam. Many of the same people screaming that we should have more warning about potential terrorist attacks are whining about the color coded system of warnings being a scare tactic.
Click to expand...

:rofl The fact that none of the other reasons for war withstood investigation so invading Iraq was declared part of THE WAR ON TERROR doesn't require that Al Qaeda be involved? I've never heard such flawed logic. The terrorists only showed up after we invaded.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Why do you suppose the pro-war folks tried so hard to sell the idea of a meaningful connection between the two?
Click to expand...

By "meaningful" I assume you mean direct or clearly defined.....yes? If so, please direct me to where this direct connection is stated by the current administration because I missed it.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The fact that none of the other reasons for war withstood investigation so invading Iraq was declared part of THE WAR ON TERROR doesn't require that Al Qaeda be involved? I've never heard such flawed logic. The terrorists only showed up after we invaded.?
Click to expand...
Let me try this one more time for you!
Before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003, it was NOT necessary for anyone to convince me that it was part of the war on terror to justify it as I was well aware of the circumstances leading up to the decision which by-the-way were much more involved than WMD's or any possible ties to Al Qaeda. Since that time, many terrorists have set up shop there in an attempt to destroy any possibility of a democratic Iraq. So now it has become a central part of the WOT and rightfully so.
 
wrath said:
By "meaningful" I assume you mean direct or clearly defined.....yes? If so, please direct me to where this direct connection is stated by the current administration because I missed it.


Let me try this one more time for you!
Before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003, it was NOT necessary for anyone to convince me that it was part of the war on terror to justify it as I was well aware of the circumstances leading up to the decision which by-the-way were much more involved than WMD's or any possible ties to Al Qaeda. Since that time, many terrorists have set up shop there in an attempt to destroy any possibility of a democratic Iraq. So now it has become a central part of the WOT and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. Saddam did not allow terrorists to set up shop in his country precicely because of the fundamental islamicism. He was afraid that the terrorists would turn against him and he wanted to keep Iraq a SECULAR state. Can you name ONE terrorist organization that was blowing up school children etc PRIOR to our arrival there? And please..provide evidence.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
That isn't true. Saddam did not allow terrorists to set up shop in his country precicely because of the fundamental islamicism. He was afraid that the terrorists would turn against him and he wanted to keep Iraq a SECULAR state. Can you name ONE terrorist organization that was blowing up school children etc PRIOR to our arrival there? And please..provide evidence.
Click to expand...
Sigh........no disrespect intended but you're just not getting it here.
I said:
"Before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003, it was NOT necessary for anyone to convince me that it was part of the war on terror to justify it"
- Meaning - The absence of foreign terrorists in Iraq was not a consideration for me as to whether or not Saddams removal was justified. I agree, Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism pre-invasion. Now it is and I'm not surprised in the least..... are you? Does that make me reconsider my position, again, not in the least.
 
wrath said:
Sigh........no disrespect intended but you're just not getting it here.
I said:
"Before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003, it was NOT necessary for anyone to convince me that it was part of the war on terror to justify it"
- Meaning - The absence of foreign terrorists in Iraq was not a consideration for me as to whether or not Saddams removal was justified. I agree, Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism pre-invasion. Now it is and I'm not surprised in the least..... are you? Does that make me reconsider my position, again, not in the least.
Click to expand...

Again, you said yourself that Iraq wan't a hot bed of terrorism so what exactly makes it a part of the war on terror? No it's not a suprise that it is now considering the fact that Bush didn't finish the job in Afghanistan before going to Iraq. If you squeeze a lemmon without a peel the juice comes flying out. When you let go the juice seeps into areas which did not previously have juice. The fact that America brought terrorists down upon Iraq doesn't make you reconsider your opinion? The Iraq war involved ignoring a genocide in progress whos victims were screaming for our help and that doesn't make you reconsider your opinion?
 
Before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion on 3/20/2003, it was NOT necessary for anyone to convince me that it was part of the war on terror to justify it"
- Meaning - The absence of foreign terrorists in Iraq was not a consideration for me as to whether or not Saddams removal was justified. I agree, Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism pre-invasion. Now it is and I'm not surprised in the least..... are you? Does that make me reconsider my position, again, not in the least.
Click to expand...

The govenrment reiterated again and again taht IRaq was part of the war on terror. That is the reason for the war for most Americans who support it. No one sees it as unfinished business. THey believe we invaded Iraq because there are terrorists in the country. This is why people think it is justified. this is why I believe the Bush Administration lied. Even if Iraq was unfinished business, don't you believe that the war on terror was more pressing than Iraq? If we were to invade a country, wouldn't more progress have been made by invading a country that was actually terrorist-friendly?
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Again, you said yourself that Iraq wan't a hot bed of terrorism so what exactly makes it a part of the war on terror? No it's not a suprise that it is now considering the fact that Bush didn't finish the job in Afghanistan before going to Iraq. If you squeeze a lemmon without a peel the juice comes flying out. When you let go the juice seeps into areas which did not previously have juice. The fact that America brought terrorists down upon Iraq doesn't make you reconsider your opinion? The Iraq war involved ignoring a genocide in progress whos victims were screaming for our help and that doesn't make you reconsider your opinion?
Click to expand...
Are you old enough to remember the first gulf war? We forced Saddam out of Kuwait but only back into his border because the UN would not support anything beyond that. We urged the Kurds and any other Iraqi's to resist saddam and we would support them. We didn't and many of them were slaughtered by Saddam for it. Had we gone in then or any other time for any other reason, islamic terrorists would have made their way to Iraq and we would have had to deal with them then just as we are now. Do you think Iraq would ever be free of Saddam without a fight? Do you think that making good on our promise could have been accomplished without terrorist attacks? Are you saying if one has to fight for their freedom then it's not worth having? So NO, I do not reconsider my position because I think being free of Saddam and islamic extremist cults like Al Qaeda is worth fighting for.
 
wrath said:
Are you old enough to remember the first gulf war? We forced Saddam out of Kuwait but only back into his border because the UN would not support anything beyond that. We urged the Kurds and any other Iraqi's to resist saddam and we would support them. We didn't and many of them were slaughtered by Saddam for it. Had we gone in then or any other time for any other reason, islamic terrorists would have made their way to Iraq and we would have had to deal with them then just as we are now. Do you think Iraq would ever be free of Saddam without a fight? Do you think that making good on our promise could have been accomplished without terrorist attacks? Are you saying if one has to fight for their freedom then it's not worth having? So NO, I do not reconsider my position because I think being free of Saddam and islamic extremist cults like Al Qaeda is worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

Thats my point entirely. The Iraqi's aren't fighting for their freedom, WE'RE handing it to them on a silver platter and a mound of dead bodies. I'm saying that if one doesn't fight for their freedom then then don't deserve it and aren't ready for democracy. That applys to everyone including the Iraqis. We aren't fighting for America's freedom.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Thats my point entirely. The Iraqi's aren't fighting for their freedom, WE'RE handing it to them on a silver platter and a mound of dead bodies. I'm saying that if one doesn't fight for their freedom then then don't deserve it and aren't ready for democracy. That applys to everyone including the Iraqis. We aren't fighting for America's freedom.
Click to expand...
I could not disagree more. Our military is doing everything it can to train Iraqi's to fight in the shortest time possible. Iraqi's that are capable are fighting along side us. After decades of knowing the wrong words will get you in one of saddam's torture chamber's, it's taking time to get Iraqi's out of that mindset of fear.

So if Iraqi's need help then they don't deserve freedom?......wow. I'll just agree to disagree with you there.

The French helped us in the Revolutionary war. We're we undeserving?
 
The French helped us in the Revolutionary war. We're we undeserving?
Click to expand...

We were actively fighting for the freedom, thats the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom