PDA

View Full Version : Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun'



eg8r
06-08-2004, 05:53 AM
This article (http://http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm) is exactly why Clinton was a failure as far as fighting terrorism...everything is being left to the court system to screw up. Those soldiers should have killed Saddam.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, witnesses
Mon Jun 07 2004 20:22:25 ET

Prosecutors are struggling to build a case against Saddam Hussein because they lack both witnesses and evidence to prove the ousted Iraqi dictator is guilty of atrocities, according to a British official quoted by The Times on Monday.

Although the US-led coalition has caught 40 of the 55 people on its list of "most-wanted" Iraqis linked to Saddam's former regime, none of them will testify for the prosecution, the unnamed official said.

"It's the fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the other detainees know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's evidence', revenge would be taken against members of their families".

The newspaper's source also said the Iraqi dictator, ousted by the US and British invasion in March 2003, had hidden any written proof of his direct responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"Saddam was very clever at power-laundering, which meant that decisions were filtered down to junior levels, making it difficult to prove a direct line of responsibility", the source said.

Saddam has been in US custody in an undisclosed location since his capture on December 13, and is due to be tried along other members of his ousted regime by a special Iraqi tribunal.

He is likely to be tried for the persecution of the Shiite Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as for alleged war crimes against Kuwait.

Iran is also believed to be preparing a formal complaint against him for the torture of Iranian prisoners captured during the 1980-1988 war.

A 20-member defense team appointed by Saddam's family has complained about not being able to meet its client and accused the US authorities of holding him in breach of the Geneva Conventions. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-08-2004, 07:07 AM
I suppose Ramsey Clark will be his defense attorney /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chris Cass
06-08-2004, 09:07 AM
Hi Ed,

Does it really matter? Nope, that guys dead. He has no country and once the money stops his followers will be turning there heads. Someone will kill him whether or not it's the courts or someone on the street. I'm glad our soldiers didn't kill him. It would have made him stronger and now he's nothing but a common thug.

He won't like the way he'll die if it has anything to do with the way he lived. Hunted down like a dog is what the dog deserved and he got that. Now, lets see him get what he's got coming left.

Regards,

C.C.~~wonder how OJ got this far? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Ross
06-08-2004, 09:50 AM
That Clinton sure is an amazing man - here he is screwing up Saddams trial years after leaving office!

Ross ~ thought dittoheads were extinct
http://duelingbushes.tripod.com/conservative.html #143

eg8r
06-08-2004, 10:07 AM
Let me clarify what I said and hopefully you will refrain from putting words in my mouth...This is a great example of the policy Clinton believed in, which was completely useless and helped open the door to future attacks on American soil.

eg8r &lt;~~never heard of a dittohead

eg8r
06-08-2004, 10:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Does it really matter? Nope, that guys dead. He has no country and once the money stops his followers will be turning there heads. Someone will kill him whether or not it's the courts or someone on the street. I'm glad our soldiers didn't kill him. It would have made him stronger and now he's nothing but a common thug.
<hr /></blockquote> I guess it is just a matter of perspective.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-08-2004, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Let me clarify what I said and hopefully you will refrain from putting words in my mouth...This is a great example of the policy Clinton believed in, which was completely useless and helped open the door to future attacks on American soil.

eg8r &lt;~~never heard of a dittohead <hr /></blockquote>

I understood your point eg8r.

Clinton: "We'll try them in The Hague. They've broken International Law"

Dubya: "Dead or alive, don't matter to me" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally~~exaggerating just a bit

Ross
06-08-2004, 10:49 AM
Eg8r, I didn't put any words into your mouth. Demonizing the Clinton's and using them as the fall guys for everything wrong in the world was a favorite tactic of Rush and his followers, the so-called dittoheads. I just pointed out that the article you posted and the issue you raised (difficulty getting witnesses, evidence, etc. against Saddam) really had nothing to do with Clinton, yet you work his name into the discussion as if he is somehow to blame. Like dittoheads often do.

I know that arguing logically with you is a waste of time. I was just bored.

mred477
06-08-2004, 10:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
47. If, when asked to prove a "fact" you've spouted to be true, you say: "Well, you can't prove that it ISN'T true!"<hr /></blockquote>

Sounds more like the mark of a true liberal to me /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Read that Neil Boortz said that he hopes our special ops sees this article so that they'll make sure there's not the problem of no smoking gun with Bin Laden if they catch him. Not sure I would've agreed with him in the past as I wouldn't want Bin Laden the martyr, but if we can't even convict Saddam, then what hope do we have with Bin Laden?

Will

Ross
06-08-2004, 12:04 PM
I agree that the martyr thing is worse than a trial. I'm sure Saddam will ultimately be convicted - it's just going to take awhile. Surely he can pinned with at least one of the hundreds or thousands of crimes he has committed - gassing Kurds, mass killings of the marsh Arabs, torturing and murdering political enemies (including his son-in-law), invading and razing Kuwait, and on and on...

eg8r
06-08-2004, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I just pointed out that the article you posted and the issue you raised (difficulty getting witnesses, evidence, etc. against Saddam) really had nothing to do with Clinton, yet you work his name into the discussion as if he is somehow to blame. Like dittoheads often do.

I know that arguing logically with you is a waste of time. I was just bored. <hr /></blockquote> I do believe he is to blame as he is the primary reason bin laden was never taken into custody and dealt with. Is it easier for you to just ignore everything he did not do? Does it make you feel better to call names?

As far as you raising the issue that the article had nothing to do with Clinton, I never said it did. I was just unclear in stating the fact that Clinton was the champion of this type of action and it never got us anywhere. I surely would have thought you could have figured that out. I gave you too much credit.

If you are bored don't bother, your effort shows.

eg8r

Ross
06-09-2004, 12:36 AM
Well, the article you posted was about Saddam, not Bin Laden. And the biggest supporter of Saddam was Reagan, not Clinton. In the early '80's, when Iraq was having a hell of time with Iran, the U.S. secretely provided Saddam with intelligence and military support as ordered by policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. Reagan sent his envoy Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983 to let him know that he had our covert support, despite the fact we knew he was using chemical weapons on Iran, which we publicly condemned. (see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ for the story of Reagan's covert arming of Saddam). And Bush Sr. continued this support of Saddam right up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Before 2001, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Saddam. Bin Laden thought Saddam was an infidel like the king of Jordan, and other Arab leaders. The only possible way to drive Bin Laden to support Saddam was to take the action and use the rhetoric that Bush Jr. did - lump them all together as evil and then invade them both.

Now you blame Clinton for Bin Laden. But neither Reagan, not Bush Sr, not Clinton, nor Bush Jr., did anything militarily unless forced to by catastrophic events. Bush senior did nothing about the danger of Saddam until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bush Jr. was doing nothing about Bin Laden until after 9/11. At least Clinton did not actively support either of these evil guys. Can't say the same for Reagan or Bush Sr.

I'm not claiming that Clinton never made foreign policy errors - all Presidents do. However, he did pretty well with his leadership around the NATO intervention in Kosovo (ended ethnic cleansing, brought peace to the region, minimal loss of Nato soldiers) as well as ending the decades long IRA/Protestant terrorist bombings in Ireland (without military force, but totally through using the trust and respect he had earned from both sides to help broker the peace). These Clinton-led foreign policy actions were resounding successes as these things go. If either Bush had accomplished the same thing, you would be singing his praises. But the day I hear Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Coulter, etc., all of who have gotten rich with their Clinton/liberal bashing, show any evidence that they are "fair and balanced" by acknowledging the things that Clinton did well, I will personally apologize to you Eg8r for misjudging this brand of knee-jerk conservatism.

So contrary to the views of dittoheads who only see flaws if the President is liberal but forgive the same or worse errors for conservative presidents - all of the worlds ills do not fall at the feet of Clinton. And no, everything wouldn't be OK if conservatives were running foreign policy. In fact "ultra-conservatives" have a terrible track record of short-sightedly supporting ruthless dictators around the world - from Pinochet to Mussolini. We are reaping some of the "benefits" of the past prediliction of ultraconsevatives to support Saddam at this very moment.

Wally_in_Cincy
06-09-2004, 06:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
....neither Reagan, not Bush Sr, not Clinton, nor Bush Jr., did anything militarily unless forced to by catastrophic events. Bush senior did nothing about the danger of Saddam until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bush Jr. was doing nothing about Bin Laden until after 9/11......
<hr /></blockquote>

Why?

Because if they had done something the left and the media would be screaming to high heaven like they are now. (Well actually only if a Republican did it would they be screaming. They would have given Clinton a pass like they did when he bombed innocent Serbs and destroyed every bridge over the Danube, which to this day remains impassable to barge traffic BTW)

What if Bush 43 had invaded Afghanistan pre-emptively. It would be called an "illegal war". But at least they would not call it "War for Oil". How about "War for Dirt"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross, my apologies for quoting you out of context but I found it necessary.

eg8r
06-09-2004, 06:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the article you posted was about Saddam, not Bin Laden. And the biggest supporter of Saddam was Reagan, not Clinton. In the early '80's, when Iraq was having a hell of time with Iran, the U.S. secretely provided Saddam with intelligence and military support as ordered by policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. Reagan sent his envoy Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983 to let him know that he had our covert support, despite the fact we knew he was using chemical weapons on Iran, which we publicly condemned. (see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ for the story of Reagan's covert arming of Saddam). And Bush Sr. continued this support of Saddam right up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.
<hr /></blockquote> All of this is a big so what as far as this thread is concerned. Do you still not understand what the purpose of the post was? Is it this tough? The entire purpose for me to post this thread was to show that the court system gets caught up in itself and screws these things up every time. Clinton believed strongly that international terrorists should be dealt with through the court system. Why are you going into your big history lesson when no one is even talking about it. Stick with the subject (I guess you still do not know what that is) and you will be fine.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you blame Clinton for Bin Laden. But neither Reagan, not Bush Sr, not Clinton, nor Bush Jr., did anything militarily unless forced to by catastrophic events. Bush senior did nothing about the danger of Saddam until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bush Jr. was doing nothing about Bin Laden until after 9/11. At least Clinton did not actively support either of these evil guys. Can't say the same for Reagan or Bush Sr. <hr /></blockquote> I do blame Clinton for bin laden. Clinton did nothing but sit back and wait for bin laden to turn himself in after the WTC bombing in the early 90's. Then when bin laden was going to be handed to Clinton and sent to the US, Clinton did not think they had enough to keep him. Clinton let the man go free, and look what happened again. Your desire to bring Reagan and Bush Sr. in makes no sense, neither of them dealt with foreign terrorists committing terrorism on US soil. It sounds like you just want to ignore what Clinton failed to do, because you might not agree with the actions W has taken to fix Clinton's problem (as far as terrorism is concerned).

Anyways, go back and read Wally's post, he summed it up better than I have. Maybe his post will be clear.

eg8r

Qtec
06-09-2004, 09:44 AM
"This article is exactly why Clinton was a failure as far as fighting terrorism...everything is being left to the court system to screw up. Those soldiers should have killed Saddam".


Do you ever read any of your posts?

You are against the rule of law and are for political assasination!

Good values to export to the rest of the world!?


Q

mred477
06-09-2004, 09:57 AM
Not against the rule of law....against lawyers who screw it up.

Will

eg8r
06-09-2004, 10:06 AM
He is just looking to argue something that is not there.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-09-2004, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> .....You are against the rule of law and are for political assasination!

Good values to export to the rest of the world!?<hr /></blockquote>

Ronnie Reagan exported some values to Col. Kaddafi a few years ago and he shut his yap and put his tail beteween his legs as I recall.

Don't tread on me.

Qtec
06-09-2004, 10:33 AM
I,m not looking to argue at all. There is no point in argueing with you. Ross already said there was no point in argueing with you and I believe him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I dont think anybody can argue that I didnt make an accurate assessment of your quote.

You dont want to admit what you said.
Thats all.

Q

moblsv
06-09-2004, 01:19 PM
That was exactly what I read too. I just wasn't willing to start that argument.

eg8r
06-09-2004, 02:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think anybody can argue that I didnt make an accurate assessment of your quote.

You dont want to admit what you said.
<hr /></blockquote> Your assessment is completely wrong. It does not matter if I want to admit anything, what I said is out there and you can go read it, you do not need my admission to anything if I put it out there. Just don't twist what is there.

eg8r

Ross
06-09-2004, 02:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ...The entire purpose for me to post this thread was to show that the court system gets caught up in itself and screws these things up every time. Clinton believed strongly that international terrorists should be dealt with through the court system.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Ok, Eg8r, you are correct about me misreading your original post. You were saying that that you believed that Clinton's desire to use the court system for people LIKE Saddam was a mistake, not that Clinton was responsible for our current difficulties with Saddam, as I read it. Sorry about that - my bad.

eg8r
06-09-2004, 02:58 PM
No problem. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Rod
06-09-2004, 03:30 PM
What a load of crap, well at least he's behind bars.

Rod

catscradle
06-10-2004, 07:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This article (http://http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm) is exactly why Clinton was a failure as far as fighting terrorism...everything is being left to the court system to screw up. Those soldiers should have killed Saddam.
<hr /></blockquote>

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" Isn't the "justice" system wonderful?

highsea
06-10-2004, 01:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This article (http://http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm) is exactly why Clinton was a failure as far as fighting terrorism...everything is being left to the court system to screw up. Those soldiers should have killed Saddam.
eg8r<hr /></blockquote>

I'm more worried about Iraq's weapons getting scattered all over than Saddam. 20 SA2 missile engines turned up in a Jordanian scrapyard the other day. A bunch more turned up in the Netherlands. Can you imagine the havoc if Qtec got his hands on those? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think one of the problems is that the west just hasn't figured out a good way to fight terrorism. Treating it as a law enforcement problem is not effective. Legal systems were not designed for the scale of the terrorism situation in the world today. We are finally calling it a war, but how do you fight a war on terrorists when they exist in every country in the world?.

Maybe we should create a country just for terrorists. Some uninhabited island in the middel of the pacific or something. The rest of the world could deport all their terrorists there, and we could just bomb the sh*t out of it once a month.

-CM

Ross
06-10-2004, 01:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
....neither Reagan, not Bush Sr, not Clinton, nor Bush Jr., did anything militarily unless forced to by catastrophic events. Bush senior did nothing about the danger of Saddam until Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bush Jr. was doing nothing about Bin Laden until after 9/11......
<hr /></blockquote>

Why?

Because if they had done something the left and the media would be screaming to high heaven like they are now. (Well actually only if a Republican did it would they be screaming. They would have given Clinton a pass like they did when he bombed innocent Serbs and destroyed every bridge over the Danube, which to this day remains impassable to barge traffic BTW)

What if Bush 43 had invaded Afghanistan pre-emptively. It would be called an "illegal war". But at least they would not call it "War for Oil". How about "War for Dirt"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross, my apologies for quoting you out of context but I found it necessary. <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, you are right that there would have been a negative reaction from the left and most of Europe if Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan before 9/11. But personally I would have supported such an invasion just to oust the Taliban and Al Qaida, just as I supported ousting Saddam. Of course, I would like to have seen it done by a multinational force, and done for humanitarian reasons and not for trumped up WMD reasons.

But I don't think that the inaction of Bush Sr. and Reagan against Iraq can be blamed on the left. Bush Sr. and Reagan not only didn't do anything to stop Saddam prior to Kuwait, they both actively SUPPORTED Saddam. Similarly Reagan had helped arm Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets.

And when Reagan was provoked by the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, killing 243 Marines and 68 French soldiers, he did not invade - he quietly withdrew our troops.

Also there is no evidence that Al Qaida was even on Bush Jr.'s radar screen in his first few months of office. It took 9/11 to get him to respond to the threat as well.

But only Clinton is criticized for inaction? Why is that? Actually it is even worse, IMO. The "left" and Clinton (guilt by association) are being blamed, not only for Clinton's perceived inaction, but for the inaction of Bush Sr. and Reagan, and Bush Jr. prior to 9/11?

I think most conservatives have bought into a myth that our problems are all due to the fact that the "left" has handcuffed the nation so it can't respond. This ignores the reality of all of the devil's bargains that conservative administrations have made with despots throughout modern US history.

And Wally, don't worry, I didn't feel my quote was taken out of context, since you quoted enough to be true to the meaning of what I was saying.

Ross

Barbara
06-10-2004, 01:36 PM
Ross,

Reagan ordered the bombing of Beruit after that incident. The USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) performed the mission.

Barbara

eg8r
06-10-2004, 01:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm more worried about Iraq's weapons getting scattered all over than Saddam. 20 SA2 missile engines turned up in a Jordanian scrapyard the other day. A bunch more turned up in the Netherlands. Can you imagine the havoc if Qtec got his hands on those? <hr /></blockquote> I just read about this today. We don't have to worry about the stuff found in the Netherlands, those people are too doped up to know what to do with it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
06-10-2004, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I would like to have seen it done by a multinational force, and done for humanitarian reasons and not for trumped up WMD reasons.
<hr /></blockquote> I am confused on how you would define multinational? Do you mean, including the countries of Germany and France? Was the US the ONLY country fighting in Iraq. I don't want to sound argumentative, but this is said over and over and it is absolutely wrong. The US was not the only country involved, in fact that was even more than just the US and the UK. Why does the media, and now you, completely ignore all the countries that were on board with the US.

Prior to going to war, the US was going to be given the go ahead, however France stepped up and said if that happened, then France would veto it? Does that sound like only the US was on board? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also there is no evidence that Al Qaida was even on Bush Jr.'s radar screen in his first few months of office. It took 9/11 to get him to respond to the threat as well.

But only Clinton is criticized for inaction? Why is that? Actually it is even worse, IMO. The "left" and Clinton (guilt by association) are being blamed, not only for Clinton's perceived inaction, but for the inaction of Bush Sr. and Reagan, and Bush Jr. prior to 9/11?
<hr /></blockquote> Since you are choosing specific point in time for Bush Jr., why are you including him? The others you mentioned are being blamed for their inaction AFTER an attack, yet you want to include W prior to any attack. This is even after you earlier said W would have caught flack for anything done pre-emptively. So what gives?

[ QUOTE ]
I think most conservatives have bought into a myth that our problems are all due to the fact that the "left" has handcuffed the nation so it can't respond. This ignores the reality of all of the devil's bargains that conservative administrations have made with despots throughout modern US history. <hr /></blockquote> While it might be tough to say, I believe you are correct here.

eg8r &lt;~~Not sure why it is so hard to agree with Ross on that last point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross
06-10-2004, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Of course, I would like to have seen it done by a multinational force, and done for humanitarian reasons and not for trumped up WMD reasons.
<hr /></blockquote> I am confused on how you would define multinational? Do you mean, including the countries of Germany and France? Was the US the ONLY country fighting in Iraq. I don't want to sound argumentative, but this is said over and over and it is absolutely wrong. The US was not the only country involved, in fact that was even more than just the US and the UK. Why does the media, and now you, completely ignore all the countries that were on board with the US.

Prior to going to war, the US was going to be given the go ahead, however France stepped up and said if that happened, then France would veto it? Does that sound like only the US was on board? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

<font color="blue"> You are correct, technically we have a multinational force in Iraq, although in reality the US is calling all of the shots and only the UK is providing more than token help. What I meant was that the US should have worked toward building an international consensus for interventions based on a morally consistent stance.

Part of the legacy of the currently much-heralded Reagan was convincing most in the US to think US interventions should only happen when they are in service of some short-sighted "US interest" and that protecting human rights is naive Carter-think. This thinking allowed us to support Saddam, Bin Laden, the contras, etc. It has make us look like hypocrits around the world, because, in reality, we are. We say we believe in freedom and democracy, but then turn around and arm and financially support mass murderers and despots when we mistakenly think it is in our interest.

In the long run, the US's fundamental ideological stance should be that the civilized world powers have a duty and an enlightened self-interest in ending despotism and protecting human rights around the world. Free and happy people make better, and safer, neighbors, and will contribute to the welfare of the rest of the world rather than detract from it. Saddam, the Taliban, and Al Qaida posed particularly egregious threats to human rights and, as such, needed to ultimately be removed from power by the civilized world. In the case of Saddam, if the US came from that morally consistent human rights stance (rather than the bogus "imminently dangerous WMD's" or the "hiding terrorists" claims that most other countries were rightly skeptical of), a politially-savvy statesman President who didn't suffer from an extreme ideological contempt for the UN could have rounded up support for a truly joint action by most, if not all, of the civilized countries.

The US President has a gigantic pulpit from which to lead and influence world opinion. He also has an arsenal of carrots and sticks at his disposal to use behind the scenes to help build consensus. An effective leader knows when and with whom to alternately use his tools of persuasion, personal charm, arm-twisting, compromise, or behind-the-scenes sweetheart deals to get other countries to work with him. Germany, France, and Russia (and hence the UN) could have been brought into the fold to support the US as it pursued its interests by a more skilled and less ideological US President. I think the result would be fewer Americans and Iraqis killed, a more united international front against terrorism and despotism, and more support for US actions in the future.
</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Also there is no evidence that Al Qaida was even on Bush Jr.'s radar screen in his first few months of office. It took 9/11 to get him to respond to the threat as well.

But only Clinton is criticized for inaction? Why is that? Actually it is even worse, IMO. The "left" and Clinton (guilt by association) are being blamed, not only for Clinton's perceived inaction, but for the inaction of Bush Sr. and Reagan, and Bush Jr. prior to 9/11?
<hr /></blockquote> Since you are choosing specific point in time for Bush Jr., why are you including him? The others you mentioned are being blamed for their inaction AFTER an attack, yet you want to include W prior to any attack. This is even after you earlier said W would have caught flack for anything done pre-emptively. So what gives?
<font color="blue"> I wasn't really blaming Bush Jr for inaction during this time period. I was just pointing out that it is inconsistent to blame Clinton for not being more proactive in getting Al Qaida and then give Bush a free ride for ignoring Al Qaida until 9/11. I think the extent of the attack on 9/11 caught everyone by surprise. Monday morning quarterbacks see everything in retrospect, but that is too easy. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I think most conservatives have bought into a myth that our problems are all due to the fact that the "left" has handcuffed the nation so it can't respond. This ignores the reality of all of the devil's bargains that conservative administrations have made with despots throughout modern US history. <hr /></blockquote> While it might be tough to say, I believe you are correct here.

eg8r &lt;~~Not sure why it is so hard to agree with Ross on that last point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Hey, keep doing it. You might get to like it! </font color>

eg8r
06-10-2004, 09:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't really blaming Bush Jr for inaction during this time period. I was just pointing out that it is inconsistent to blame Clinton for not being more proactive in getting Al Qaida and then give Bush a free ride for ignoring Al Qaida until 9/11. I think the extent of the attack on 9/11 caught everyone by surprise. Monday morning quarterbacks see everything in retrospect, but that is too easy.
<hr /></blockquote> The two are still different. Clinton is not blamed for not being proactive, this might be the confusion...it is his lack of reaction that is the problem. I don't think I have said anything about Clinton not doing enough prior to 93 WTC bombings. The problem was the way he dealt with it afterwards. W would be held in the same regard as Clinton prior to the 93 WTC bombings. This is why you cannot compare the two, when limiting the time frame for W. It is hard to ignore the difference between Clinton and W when you compare equivalent time frames (post terrorist attacks on US soil). Sure W should have been doing more prior to 9/11(hindsight 20/20) but it still does not make the two comparable?

eg8r