« WDC - "Evidence Free Zone" | Main | Cheerleaders for War »

Monday, August 22, 2005

Play It Again Sam -- Why Are We In Iraq?

OK, I just got done watching the "Inside 9/11" special produced by National Geographic and I just finished with a couple of discussions with my brother (TheChosenOne) about the whole blame game of 9/11 and why it happened in the first place. I'm dizzy, confused and most of all more resolute about asking -- why are we in Iraq?

I am fully convinced that 9/11 happened because of the failures of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton and ultimately George W. Bush. Why?

Because all of these administrations missed signs that could have ended this war before it ever began.

OK, the playing field is leveled, I admit that six administrations are accountable for where we are today.

Nope, it is not George W. Bush's fault that we are in the pickle that we were in prior to 9/11. He inherited these problems and ultimately -- 9/11 from his predecessors. But he is the HNIC and has a lot to answer for the sequence of events that have happened after 9/11.

George Walker Bush might not be responsible for why 9/11 happened but he has got to answer the question -- why are we in Iraq? None of the hijackers are from Iraq, none of the funding came from Iraq, the people that attacked us were not based in Iraq and most importantly, Iraq did not declare war on us.

So, with all this in mind -- why did we invade Iraq?

Faulty intelligence?

Not good enough (look at the DSM and Able Danger)!!!!!

Liberating Iraqi's from freedom hating tyrants?

Not good enough (look at Darfur, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan)!!!!!

So, just like Cindy Sheehan has been wondering, why her son had to die in Iraq (regardless of his voluntary enlistment)? I am wondering why do so many sons and daughters of America have to die for a President that cannot seem to answer -- exactly -- why the fuck are we in Iraq?

Posted by The Bastard at 12:06 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834584be369e200d83488fb7a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Play It Again Sam -- Why Are We In Iraq?:

Comments

Great post. It's good that you pointed out that GWB isn't being singled out for blame. And yet the question remains: why the F%$#@#%! are we over there?

When you ask the question you'll get called an Islamofascist and asked why you hate America and want our troops to die -- but you still won't get an answer.

Posted by: Tom Harper | Aug 22, 2005 3:01:11 AM

Second Tom--great post

I have been asking that question since some months before 3/9/03--the day the longest planned war was finally announced.

Nobody has ever answered it; something about patriotism and supporting our troops--but why are our troops there to begin with? Sorry you asked that question already

I mean we wouldn't be having this big debate about being patriotic or not, supporting our troops or not--if we weren't there.

So therefore I have to believe that this war was carefully planned to divide the nation to give Bush and company all the time that they need to implement their agenda.

Think about it: in Bush's perfect world we would have all been silenced by now. but this is still a Democracy and more people don't support the war than do now...

Posted by: pia | Aug 22, 2005 9:50:18 AM

It's funny that you have to get elected to try an silence people. I thought you got elected to speak for the people.

Something is very wrong when a President won't listen to half the country. "Hello, we are over here, you know, the other 49% that want an answer."

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ????????

Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 22, 2005 10:48:43 AM

TB better post then I've seen here in a LONG time.

I only wish you had seen the first 40 minutes of the show before I called you. Inside 9/11 part II is on tonight on National Geographic. Part one I believe replays first and then part II.

Dear Folks here at Bring It On!,

Have to take this opportunity to thank 'yall for letting me stick around and be hated and disliked for reasons I still do not know. (laugh my ass off every day). But for some reason unknown to me I love the treatment here. I've never felt more loved as I do here in a demented sort of way.

Since I began highschool in 1980 I've always taken a liking to history and current news. I have watched for way to long how our country has taken it up the ass from all these Islamic fundamentalists year in and year out with our leaders not doing much of anything to protect our way of life.

I really do not care how, what, why or finally when we ended up in Afganistan or Iraq. These Islamic fundamentalists wanted war, a jihad then that's what they shall get. As for the American people who are so concerned as to why we in Iraq I have this to say. First and foremost if you really can't figure out why we are there you are really blind. Secondly, if 'yall were told the truth as Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" It's my opinion that if you can't really figure out why we are in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time then you don't deserve the truth. Along with if the truth hit you square in the face you wouldn't even know it.

As far as President George W. Bush. He is overall responsible for everything that happens within the gov't under his watch. Even though he may have only been in office for 8 months before 9/11 he is responsible for all the inactions that happened. But for all listening it is very easy to be a Monday morning quartback with ALL the answers AFTER the game is over. President Bush did what NO other President since 1980 had done after an attack on our citizen's and country....He took action! Not short term action like all other President's have done since 1980.

I respect the opinions of the people here who want a "real reason" as to why we are in Iraq. We are no longer fighting Iraqi's. The Iraq war was won a long, long,time ago. We are now fighting the insurgents from many Islamic Nations on there soil and not ours. Make no mistake about that.

Will we be attacked again on our own soil. It's not even a question. Yes, we will be attacked here at home again. At least now we are attacking the enemy and not just taking it up the ass from them.

Since 1980 every President

Posted by: TheChosenOne | Aug 22, 2005 11:50:32 AM

There was a another good documentary on CNN last night called,” Dead Wrong," Which was about the intelligence failure and how Tennant caved, how Powell got screwed by the Administration and guys like David Kay got ignored. I'm sure it will be on again some time this week it’s worth the watch.

Now about that truth we can't handle: We have always and only had an interest in Middle East politics a means to secure the worlds oil reserves. Not just for our selves but also to deny them from our enemies, such as the former U.S.S.R. or those that pose a future threat to capitalist democracy I.E China. At the same time our enemies are also doing the same thing, either through economic or political maneuverings or occasionally through the use of force. For example It was widely believed that the reasons the Soviets invaded Afghanistan was actually to push on further south through Pakistan to the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian sea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where it would build a sea port to export its own oil for sale re-enforcing its economy, and potentially control traffic through the Persian Gulf which is vital to shipping the oil that America uses to support its own economy.

That’s what took us to Afghanistan the first time. Its also the reason why we got involved in the Iran Iraq war since allot of it happened in the Persian Gulf and Iran really did not like us because of what we had done trying to install a Shah. So it was vital for us that at the end of the day Saddam prevailed lest we lose our battle with the Soviets for economic/political world dominance again.

Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, and yes I accept that Gulf War I was a liberation of Kuwait, but I also see that we did not want Saddam to spread the conflict to his other neighbors and destabilize the entire region for not only us but Europe as well. Now this is the important part Gulf I ends an results in sanctions but after the sanctions end Iraq cuts development deals with every one accept the US that means that not only does Europe gain access to oil the, but also a very thirsty China with who we are currently engaged in a trade war with whether we realize it or not. Who in turn could actually have enough left over now to even send some oil to N. Korea. Considering that Iraq is supposedly on top of the world’s second largest reserve.

We did not go to Iraq to find WMD, or to fight Muslim extremists. That’s what you have been told to keep you motivated. In fact our presence in Iraq runs counter to preventing terrorism as we have created a knew training ground and have re-enforced the reason or motivation for young men to be recruited, And Finally it is now more likely than ever that Iraq and Iran will unite in a Shea Fundamental Islamic state after we leave Iraq and secularism will die. However by going back into Iraq we have legally nullified the previous contracts by eliminating the government that created them and all of its apparatus including its armed forces. We have also been able to benefit those families in America that hold interests in American Oil and Defense contractors. In the process we played 52 pick up with Iraq’s intelligencia some of whom did have knowledge of how to make some WMD but we don’t ever want to admit that most of these (Scientists) are thought criminals only while the remaining Baath party members helped negotiate the contracts. It is unfortunate that the regime was so brutal but that becomes an ancillary reason for liberation when you consider that even the new Iraqi government will be brutal, as that seems to be the way of government in the Middle East.

Posted by: Billion Year Old Carbon | Aug 22, 2005 3:15:45 PM

by George, I think you might be on to something. Do you suppose that lying sob went into Iraq to finish his daddy's work and get a little oil for his daddy's buddies who, by the way, put him in office? Have fun at the gas pump!

ps: so sad for the families of the troops who had to pay the ultimate price.

Posted by: HIker Hobo | Aug 22, 2005 7:05:44 PM

This is why I like your site! You are not one of those wacko nuct cases that believe bush conspired 9-11 to drag us into a war. You ask questions relevent to the present that deserve to be debated.

Why Iraq?

Saddam Hussein, though not dirrectly related to 9-11, has terror connections. Saddam is the only person in the middle eastern hotbed to have gasses millions of his own people and our troops. This showed the Americans and the world population that not only did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction he was insane enough to use them.

What is worse then a terrorist? A terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction. Every political leader of every nation for and against our conflict with Iraq believed Saddam had an arsonal of weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Political Pie | Aug 22, 2005 7:41:22 PM

Political Pie, you wrote:
"Saddam is the only person in the middle eastern hotbed to have gasses millions of his own people and our troops"

If this were truly a valid reason to attack Iraq, then why didn't the US do anything when Saddam did this while we occupied the No-Fly zones in Iraq. We sat there and watched him take revenge in southern Iraq. And, the general in charge asked Bush (41) what we should do. He told the General not to do anything, just make sure that he didn't do anything to the allies...

This excuse is the only excuse left after the WMDs weren't found, and the terrorist links to al Qaeda weren't found.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Aug 22, 2005 7:51:15 PM

Other nations only believed it because the White house kept saying it with out doing a proper fact check with the CIA or ignoring the voices of dissent (Powell in the state Dept and others at the CIA) In fact it appears in retrospect that several memos including but not limited to DMS show that the British were sort of skeptical . It is well established at this point that there was no link to terrorism in Iraq until we invaded and created the right conditions for it. At any rate catch a viewing of the "Dead Wrong" documentary on CNN this week if you want to understand why other nations believed what they did. And while your at it check out the Washington think tank that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton and Wolfiwitz all belonged to when they advocated the invasion of Iraq before they ever got a chance to stand behind the the throne, http://newamericancentury.org

Check out the PDF titled rebuilding Americas Defences an look at page 70 and text search Pearl Harbor if you want to understand where the conspiracy theorys are coming from.

It is entirely with in the context of securing Pax Americana by controling the energy supply lines of the world. They took advantage of your fear. The only link between the Al Queda and Iraq is that we supported them during the cold war as a proxie armies protecting our energy supply lines while simultaneously denying them from our enemies and we abandoned them and any promisses we made when the threat was gone because congress and the higher ups always decide that it will cost too much to live up to the promisses made by our advisors in the killing fields who actually do care about the people that they work with. And its not just the Gulf this took place all over the world South America and south East Asia are rife with the same kind of plague.

Posted by: Billion Year Old carbon | Aug 22, 2005 8:18:31 PM

Great post Bastard...

I could do without the HNIC comment because that is pretty offensive.

Well, sure he went and finished the job for Daddy but should that give you doubt. Saddam killed a bunch of his own and aggressively attacked his neighbors. Was there a real threat to Saudi Arabia, where the bulk of Arabian comes from, who knows?

The only thing that's got me bugged is the whole constitution thing in Iraq. I fear that going south. If it works though, the reality may lead us to be better prepared to leave the country sooner than later. Too many questions with the WMD's are out there. Saddam did gas the Kurds, there is significant evidence of that but isn't it strangely odd that whole program is gone or had not been found? It existed before, but where'd it go? Did inspectors have "full access" and if they did would we have gone there? Weren't they violating UN Resolution after another that most members of the Security Council agreed with? Couldn't they go with the rest of the Bathists in Syria? There are tons of questions that we all speculate on and debate. We're always going to choose sides but do our answers always equal the right answer?

I find it interesting that though Bastard you cited all of those countries like North Korea, Iran, etc that you don't count the good things from the war on terror like Libya becoming a more friendly nation and coughing up WMD's or Lebanon or even Palestinians having Democratic elections. North Korea is talking to the west allbeit they still facsinate me with their news website. This adminstration has been successful in other areas.

Posted by: steve | Aug 22, 2005 8:25:48 PM

Here is a story for you, during the run up to the War I was unemployed so I was able to watch a ton of CNN and CSPAN (I was even watching Fox I hadn't yet realized that they are just propaganda tools, I just thought they sucked as journalists) I watched the televised portion of Collin Powell’s speech to the UN.

About these alleged mobile labs that we have never found: it seemed plausible but as it turns out that piece of Intel was gleaned from an informant code named "screw ball" because sometimes he was a liar. A better code name probably would have been "lying sack of shit" but nobody told Powell or the UN this.

Then you have the Aluminum tubes: did you know that the person who adamantly suggested that these tubes where for a centrifuge was an engineer but had no real experience in nuclear issues? But he pushed it even the IEAE told us that these tubes where no good but we as a nation would ever accept it because a guy heads the IEAE named Mohamed. (Retards) Of course when we got to Iraq it turns out that these where for a rocket program not a centrifuge.

Then there was the now infamous Niger Yellow cake report that has led to Rove, Plame, Wilson, and a ton of other stuff but at the end of the day its forged plain and simple.

Then of course Powell held up a vial of Anthrax with the 2001 attacks fresh in our minds. Even I have to admit I thought that Iraq was responsible for that. Oddly enough the most likely suspect is an American virologist named Steven Hatfill who had worked in Zaire in proximity to a Greendale school (remember the address on the envelopes that NBC kept showing) according to at least on other documentary that aired on Discovery with in the past year. Hatfill however despite some great circumstantial evidence including suspicious equipment found in a pond near by his home has never been charged, and remains a person of interest to the investigation.

And finally there where some good old-fashioned telephone intercepts which sounded like two guys talking about trying to buy/sell a bag of grass but who where afraid that Saddam might have tapped the phone.

It is important to note that every last one of these talking points where handed down to Powell by the White House, not the CIA. Tennant of course is charged with taking the fall its something called, “Plausible deniability,” it was something that came into play during the Cuban missile crisis era, basically it means the agency takes the blame for presidential policy gone awry. Especially then things are fixed on the back water, but not for something like out rightly lying to the Congress or the UN. Always remember who deep throat was and that he took down Nixon from within because Nixon went too far.

Posted by: Billion Year Old Carbon | Aug 22, 2005 9:17:19 PM

Well sorry I was away all day but I have to say I agree with almost everyone here today. You know who you are if you know me well enough whether I agree with you or not.

But everyone seems to be missing the point. I want Bush to be accountable for the lies!!! The "they have WMD's" (which he stated that they knew for a FACT they had them). The "they are connected to Al-Qaeda" (which has yet to be proven, even thought they have their hands on millions of Iraqi documents and have almost the whole deck of cards captured). Oh no, you know what "We have decided to liberate the good ole' folks of Iraq" (which Dr. Forbush so nicely points out that we didn't give a fuck about them when we had the No-Fly-Zone).

So all I wan the chimp in office to say is "I was wrong". Is that so much to ask?

I do not disagree with fighting a war on terror. It's been a long time in the making and it was just a matter of time. What I disagree with is how we were lied to, flat out lied to. I'm more pissed with myself that I believed them at first!!!!

If we were really fighting this war on terror we could have done it in Afghanistan. We had reasons to go into Afghanistan!!! We did not have reasons to go into Iraq. Well we did, they did break some UN stuff but that would not have flown with the American public for justifying 1900 dead boys and girls. Not to mention the 100,000 of Iraqi's that have died from this war and 10 years of sanctions that we sat idle and watched these people die (mostly children).

So don't give me this shit that we care about their freedom. I just want a straight answer!!!

And steve, the HNIC, as offensive as you think it sounds fits perfectly. Bush is acting exactly like "Crazy" Joe. Can't get what you want then use an executive order. Don't like what you see then hide it from the public. He is fucking crazy and he is gonna get a lot more people killed with his reckless behavior. The only thing not fair about comparing him to Joe is that Joe was trying to save kids lives.

Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 22, 2005 9:41:16 PM

Excellent question. Why ARE we there? Glad to know that folks all over the bloggosphere are wondring the same thing. Now, what to do about it? We had our chance to do something about it in '04 and blew the crap out of that one!

Posted by: Kris | Aug 22, 2005 10:54:44 PM

What we do is exactly what bastard is suggesting hold those responsible accountable through all legal means availavbe. I am not just talking about a presidental impeachment I am talking about an entire administrative impeachment.. Of course if this happens we have some big trouble. But if it doesn't what are the other troubles that these guys can cause as our nation continues to unravel? no matter what happens next what ever it is it is important that the democratic party keep its cool. I believe that the Rove investigation is the first step in starting the administrative impeachment policy or at least putting the breaks on their potential march around the world

Posted by: billion year old carbon | Aug 23, 2005 12:12:31 AM

Other than asking why are we in Iraq, I think we need to back up a bit and ask ourselves, if W had not been elected would there still had been a 9-11 incident? That is, since 9-11 happened on his watch, could his selection as president been the green go light that the sleeper cells needed to board the airplanes? We can never tell, but it is an intesting theory, no?

Posted by: windspike | Aug 23, 2005 12:15:01 AM

Windspike,

Interesting question but I think it would have happened regardless of who was president. As I stated, I fully believe it was the policies of previous administrations that led up to 9/11. Bush cannot take full responsibility for the attack but as the face of the executive branch it would be his responsibility to be accountable for what has happened since 9/11. He owns post 9/11 lock, stock and barrel.

We as a sovereign nation have a right to attack whoever attacks us and we did that in Afghanistan. The last I checked none of the hijackers were Iraqi's but Bush doesn't think so, as stated yesterday in his speech,

"We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists -- by building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us fight and win the war on terror," he said.

Bush said the war in Iraq is part of a battle that began with the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil. Addressing the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the U.S. president said "a policy of retreat and isolation will not bring us safety."

And it has become abundantly clear that there were no training grounds in Iraq until the war began.

One reason the insurgency has grown so intractable, analysts say, is that Iraq, like Lebanon and the Palestinian territories before it, has developed a home-grown terrorist culture where little if any had existed before the war.

So the question is still out there, why are we in Iraq?

Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 23, 2005 12:36:13 AM

Bastard:

If al-Qaeda is now fighting in Iraq with Zarqawi, since it only makes sense since he has Osama on his side, is it safe to assume that if al-Qaeda wasn't there, there'd a whole helluva a lot more control of the country now? And if that was the case wouldn't it be safe to assume that it would be more likely that we'd have control of Syria and Iran's borders to Iraq and that they would not be porous to al-Qaeda that want to fight there.

Has it not been policy of the United States since 1991 to have a regime change in Iraq? There was UN Sanction after UN sanction. The guy played the system. He did nothing. He harbored terrorists like the bomb maker in the 1993 WTC Bombing. We had to bomb Iraq in 1998... There was the United States Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 approved by our government.

You ask for why we're in Iraq. There's the freaking reasons why. Where were you guys in the 1990's? Where was your voice? You were living the good life because the President was "cool" and there was a tech boom that drove the economy. Why can't you understand that Saddam "Shit Head" Hussein was a fucking criminal? How many times must we sit and wait while our entire economic existance from oil could be wiped clean by a rogue Middle Eastern nation by simply destroying pipelines. Why can't you people see that if al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization with no country, can single handedly infiltrate the US and destroy 3000 plus civilians and wreak havoc on our way of life in one morning, that there was an imminent threat from a dictator like Saddam. You guys are a bunch of whiny cry babies that didn't get your chance at the Presidency in 2000 and 2004. I got news for you. If Gore won in 2000 there'd still have been a 9/11. There'd be war in Afghanistan. There'd still be a "problem" in Iraq. This shit wasn't going away on its own. It was imminent. It's been imminent our entire lives. The time was now, we just have to live through it. This is why Sheehan's son died. Do you people get all this? Of course not. There will be a parade of commentary after what I have said here asking me why I hate America or calling me a "typical Republican" or whatever you spineless people can copy next. The fact is I really don't care what you think about me.

Looking up at Kris's comment:

You blew it in 04 because the liberal left continues to run candidates with no position, no backbone and continued advisarial political tactics that rational people don't get.

At least with Bush, America knows what there getting. Nearly ever speech he makes on a Iraq has the same theme: We will stay the course until our work is done. If Kerry were elected, there'd still be troops there and the right would be all over his ass because "he'd said they'd come home".

Posted by: steve | Aug 23, 2005 1:01:03 AM

Steve what about Chavez?

The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network said the United States should assassinate Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.

On Monday's broadcast of "The 700 Club," the Rev. Pat Robertson said, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

Chavez, who often expresses strident opposition to U.S. policies and influence, has spent the last several days in Cuba meeting with the island's communist leader Fidel Castro.

Calling the president of oil-rich Venezuela a threat to U.S. security, Robertson said assassinating Chavez would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." He added, "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and get it over with."
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4883839/detail.html

Posted by: John | Aug 23, 2005 1:57:31 AM

Steve,

Thats nice that you offer up the UN sanctions as the reason for going to war but again that was not the initial reason. Remember WMD's was the reason. On a side note, where was I in the early 90's, specifically 1991-1993, I was in The United States Navy. I was in the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So liberals do serve!!

As for oil, more than half our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. And a quarter of the worlds oil comes from one oil field in Saudi Arabia. The world has been doing fine without Iraq's oil. It's been doing fine without it becasue of years of UN sanctions. So your claims on us protecting that interest is nil.

You state that if Gore won the presidency there still would have been a 9/11. I agree, I said that, no argument there. And I also agree that there would still be problems in Iraq but under Gore I don't think we would be in Iraq so that cancels out your concern of Kerry being criticized for not being able to get the troops out.

The US Liberation Act of 1998 does not authorize the use of force to dispose Saddam. If you read it it is more of a collar on the president. We were to support an uprising if on should occur, which it did but we did not do anything near supporting it.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

And if this is the reason you are giving, why was this not brought up in 2000 when Bush took office since it was such a priority to get rid of Saddam?

Why was this not the original reason for going into Iraq after 9/11, remember WMD's were the original reason. Again, not only were there no WMD's but the 9/11 Commision concluded that Iraq had no links to terrorism as well.

Zarqawi was not Al-Qaeda originally. Remember he was fighting in Iraq before he swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda. The training base to the north was also not a reason for going in because that was not discovered til after the war had started. And it was found to not have been used in a long time.

So what, Saudi Arabia has training camps too. A lot more than one but you don't see troops in Mecca.

I think Kris was just stating that we lost. By "we" I mean America. Because liberals and conservatives alike have been lied to by this president. And to stand by him and protect those lies instead of question them is the most unpatriotic thing a person can do and it is an injustice to every soldier on the ground in Iraq.

So why could we not fight the terrorists in Afghanistan? We went into a country that had no terrorists to fight terrorists that only showed up after we invaded.

Why could we not have this fight in Afghanistan? And that brings me back to the question again -- Why are we in Iraq?

(And UN sanction violations don't cut the mustard. Because if you go with that excuse than we should have been in Iran a long time ago because of their violations. And again the UN sactions were not the original reason for going to war.)

Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 23, 2005 2:00:01 AM

I can't believe no one mentioned Reagan/Bush in all this. Remember "drugs for weapons"? There is, and has been for a long time, a culture of crime in american politics. Nothing is going to be fixed in the world-at-large, until we fix things at home. Tossing the current criminals out into the street (stoning optional) would make a good start.

Posted by: tunesmith | Aug 23, 2005 7:31:54 AM

Tunesmith: I'm assuming you would be talking about the current administration. Because lord knows us liberals object to locking up anymore casual pot smokers!!!

Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 23, 2005 8:08:04 AM

Once again I have to say it, the Clinton administration was working proactively to decapitate Al Queda after the embassy bombings and first trade center incident in the 1990's this is also now re-enforced by the revealation of the "Able Danger" task team. The Red Army with drew from Afganistan in 1989, while George Bush Senior was in office, the Soviet union colapses shortly after ward and the first Gulf War did not happen until 1991. Senior could have tried to help shape Afganistan after the first Afgan war, but did nothing of consequence, enter Clinton in 1992. Under his watch there were at least four seperate attempts to kill or capture OBL. At the end of his administration the several policy questions of how to take down Al queda were deffered to the incoming administration as evidenced in the now infamous Richard Clarke memo sent to Rice in January 2001. But the Administration did nothing for nine months which means that they really were not concerned with the previous administrations hit list, which I find rather irresponsible. During much of this W was hanging out on the ole Ranch B.B.Qing and chain sawing down trees.

In one of the previous comments some one made the suggestion that W's election may have been the trigger point for 911. Considering that Clinton/Gore where actively seeking to take down OLB and where well aware of Al Queda, and the incoming Budh Admin did nothing to follow up, this could very well be the case.

I also find the Rebuilding Americas Defenses PDF very interesting (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfawitz, and I believe Rice are supposedly all part of the think tank that created it and have long advocted invading Iraq) in the fact that on or around page 63 that it would take a new Pearl harbor type event to Galvinize the nation and implement the changes they are seeking. Is it possible that they realized inaction would eventually lead to such an event and there for decided to go on vaction until needed?

Posted by: Billion Year Old Carbon | Aug 23, 2005 10:36:42 AM

Billion, you are a complete fucking idiot if you actually believe the Clinton administration was "pro-actively" hunting BinLaden. I'm not even going to answer any shit you have to reply back with. Clinton had BinLaden's head handed to him on a silver platter multiple times and never acted upon it. Please save your breathe and time and don't reply to my post as for I have not time to listen to stupid shit like yours.

Posted by: TheChosenOne | Aug 23, 2005 1:54:12 PM

Thanks for the invitation but I'll decline, you don't have to defend what ever you don't want to . If you are actually familair with the attemps made by Clinton then You know that the first visible attempt to us was made through cruise missles shot stright into one of those caves. But most of us forgot that and said he was wagging the dog during the Ken Starr investigations. Another attempt put him dirrectly in our sites but there was a plane from the UAE on the tarmack and they are considered our allies since we did not know who we would be blowing away that day we did not do it . Yes there where several instances when he was in our sites at least four and there was an entire team dedicated to tracking him. But each time he popped up minus the cruise misssle icident there was an operational difficulty that would have blown the covert status of the mission or would have created an international incident. My point is this the Clintion administration was actually trying to do SOMETHING, the Bush administration did NOTHING that we have ever been told of for the first nine months and ignored all the warnings that where handed to them on a golden platter by the out going administration.

The major difficulty that our society has expierienced is that we as a whole have become divorced from our government in that the majority of us do not understand the relationships of one administration to the next let alone have a sense of history in terms of world politics, or even a basic understanding of how one office of government relates to the other. All we know as a majority is that we get to vote on election day and coulde care less about events in the third world. On top of that information is with held for the good uf us all. Sometimes the information is twisted for the good of us all. But ask your self this: If the Clinton Administration was not engaged in decapitating Al Queda then why was a team created at the CIA to track him? why did "able danger" exist ? and why where four attemps made on OBL's life? Now ask yourself why did the incoming administration through all of that on the back burner? Or better yet why did senior not take care of it when the oppertunity arose when these guys still got assistance from us?

You may not like the reality of what has happened but I assure you Clinton was far more pro-active in suppressing Al Qeuda than the current admin was in the first NINE months of 2001 and the history books will one day teach this. Curse all you want.

Posted by: Billion Year Old carbon | Aug 23, 2005 7:23:44 PM

Riddle me this batman:

If we are going to war in Iraq because it is our duty to fight the war "where they live so we do not have to fight it where we live"

AND

The White House claims the vast majority of the insurgents are from places other than Iraq (or else they woule not be terrorist - but you know maybe freedom fighters).

WHY THE HELL ARE WE IN IRAQ?

Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 23, 2005 8:27:42 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.