You’re right.  Soft on Terror.  That’s why nothing was done about the ’93 trade center attackers.  Oh and the Murrah Building – - – nothing was done about those bastards either.  Which, by the way, I was working in an oil processing facility less than 3 miles from the Murrah Building when that thing blew – - my roommate and I volunteered with the Red Cross for a week.  Nothing . . . soft on terror . . . made me scared for my country.

come on. 

Muhajadeen were freedom fighters. Once Russia pulled out UBL, Zawahiri, et al engineered a"night of the long knives" and killed all the seniour leadership in Afghanistan. Giving rise to the Taleban. And taking control of all opium production and export. Taleban leadership decryed the drug trade while making millions of dollars, which they funnelled into international terrorist organisations, such as the fledgling Al Queda. Also, they were operating in close co-operation with nation-state sponsored terrorist groups from Iran,Syria,Egypt,Libya,Saudia Arabia, and,,,wait for it,,,,,IRAQ!!! And this is not US Intel information. United Nations and Interpol!! Interpol haranqued US Intel agencies over their complete failure to take action on these issues. Bury your heads in the sand, that puts your ass right up where the Wahabists can screw it. Dumbshits.

Gramea:

SO you think the mujahideen were freedom fighters?

So, a lack of accuracy and ignorance of history are both prerequisites for your world view. Not everybody who was a resistance fighter against the Soviet Union was associated with al Qaeda (a group which came into existence after the end of Soviet occupation, and after the fall of its puppet government in 1992.)

Indeed, there were groups aligned pro and against the Taliban, and many who fought against the Taliban were secular groups. The Taliban did not come into power in 1996, when they overthrew the previous secular government. The increasing prominence of the religious extremists, especially al Qaeda, occurred entirely during Bill Clinton’s leaderships, and all of your bloviating to the contrary will not change that basic fact.

Not that a single person on this blog would expect relevant historical facts to sway your opinions. But it is useful for the rest of us to review pertinent facts before realizing what a serious f**k-up Bill Clinton really was.

 Your argument was that Al Qaeda was going strong because it had sick days, vac time, mission statement, etc… I was pointing out that that doesn’t necessary mean it is not struggling; hence the Enron reference.

 SO you think the mujahideen were freedom fighters?

No, my method of dealing with terrorists doesn’t guarantee defeat.  I supported going into Afghanistan . . . and I want to know:  Where is Osama Bin Laden?  I was promised that we’d have him dead or alive, that we’d hunt him down. 

I believe in the rule of law and I believe in treating murderer like murderers and thieves like thieves and not empowering them with talk of a holy crusade.

Where is the clause in our constitution which says that we can kill people for what they might possibly do or what they have the potential to do?   Because if that clause exists, you should do a comprehensive search on this very site for the term "and I’ll shoot them" . . .

There are terrorists (a whole lot more now than there were in 2001) and they want to kill Americans.  I don’t disagree with that.  We have to combat them.  I don’t disagree with that.  Outing CIA operatives working on intelligence gathering with respect to Nuclear Proliferation, specifically regarding Iran and burning a whole team of resources doesn’t help us with that.  Diverting personell away from an actual fight against those terrorists with the opportunity to capture the ringleader and admitted mastermind of the largest terrorist attack against the United States so that a nation can be invaded doesn’t help us with that.   

CV Rick: Nice talking points.  The rule of law is for our citizens, as is the constitution;  the terrorists are outside any national boundaries, and therefore outside any rules or any laws;  that’s the point of the war on terrorism.  You excuse Clinton for not getting UBL, but blame the present President for not directing all of our resources against him; curious!  We have exposed the terrorists since 9/11; before that, they enjoyed the legalistic benefits given to them by Clinton.  Killing UBL won’t end terrorism, but creating a modern state in the heart of Islam will be much more effective.  I’m sad that you and the other lefties see fit to ignore that out of your hate for the President.  We will survive anyway, because we now have a real leader.

Rob, you’re a relatively smart guy, right? I don’t know what Clinton’s position is, but doesn’t it ring a little alarm when there isn’t a single solitary quote in the story that supports the headline? The only other reputable source that seems to have the story at the moment is Voice of America, and they seem to have missed the part where President Clinton called for anyone to be convicted (which would be news), as has the BBC.

Whistler,

That’s not what I’ve said at all. 

GraemeA:  What does Enron have to do with this?  Just smear.  Reagan supported the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, if you remember. Remember the Cold War? Then they turned against us in the nineties, under Clinton, who took no action whatsoever, even though he knew what was happening. 

 So they had a mission statement. So did Enron before it collapsed, what’s your point?

 They prospered under Clinton? They were made by Reagan. He compared them to our founding fathers for christ sake.  

CV Rick: UBL was available, and Clinton did nothing to get him, citing legalistic reasons.  He was soft on terrorism. Whether or not he is still kissing the *ss of the Muslims who financed his Presidency is an issue, to be sure, but the sum of his (in)actions on terrorism are bad enough without this story.

Honestly,… I am not seeing where Bill Clinton or Rumsfeld were wrong? Our country is becoming more divided each day. Soon, we are going to have to stop and AGREE. We have a group of people who are not going to like a damn thing we do! We need to AGREE that it is necessary to come together and STOP the f#!!!g Political partisan BS. We are dealing with a group of people who would kill us just as soon look at us! Their tantrums and outbursts are to be expected and THAT IS WHAT THEY DO! … Cartoons you name it these people don’t need much coaxing to rile them up! George W. Bush is not evil. Being President of the USA is not a pleasent job and anyone who is in office deserves better treatment! The Pres. certainly can not please everyone. Whatever it takes we as the people of the USA need to stop the division before civil war breaks out! Take a breather stop the anger and hatred for each other. We have a big enough battle without having to fight our own selves. I am sure Clinton did not try to upset anyone!… However, Al Gore is an entirely different subject! My point is we have a war on like it or not! We need to support our country and do what we have to do! So snap out of it!

Well, Clinton didn’t take UBL when he had the opportunity, and sent US forces to bomb the Serbians in support of the Bosnian Muslims, so he is acting in character, IMO.  It could be a misquote, but it is consistent with his prior behavior.

likwidshoe, you are kidding, right?  The experts overwhelmingly agree that terrorism and terrorist recruiting is on the upswing, not decreasing.  Do you read Foreign Policy?   If not, I’d recommend it – their are several good articles over the past three years on the issue of terrorism and our response to it. The State Department’s report on Terrorism last year showed a sharp increase worldwide.

Iraq might be a focus for terror organizations now, but it wasn’t before we invaded. 

 Carrick and 2hotel9,

  Freedom fighters huh? They were a diverse group of fighters that once the soviets left, started fighting each other. The people welcomed the Taliban to stop the bloodshed from warlords. The enemies of the taliban formed the Northern alliance. The freedom fighters were quite a diverse group.

From the SFchronicle:

The group consists of communists, anti-communists and moderate Muslims who have only one goal in common: to oust the Taliban. Outside of that aim, the coalition’s members are so diverse that experts fear a new civil war if they manage to topple the Taliban.

Uzbek Gen. Rashid Dostum is known for his cruelty and reportedly has killed political foes by tying them to two tanks headed in opposite directions. During the chaotic conflict that ensued after the Soviet withdrawal, Dostum’s forces rampaged through Kabul, destroying much of the city with rocket fire, looting businesses and terrorizing women and children.

The alliance’s political leader is Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was driven from power by the Taliban but is recognized as Afghanistan’s president by the United States and other Western powers.

His deputy prime minister, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, is held responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims who reside mainly in northwestern Afghanistan, a minority he considers to be outside the pale of Islam.

Human rights groups have accused Sayyaf’s troops of committing large-scale summary executions and rapes of Shiites during the 1992-96 civil war. Sayyaf also backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War and has advocated war to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia, the site of Islam’s holiest shrines.

 Yes, the FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

Was Mohammed a warrior? I honestly don’t know? I don’t understand anything about these people accept that they have got terrible tempers ,rage, hatred in there hearts and need to be put to sleep!

Bat One,

I agree that this gets tedious.  But what you don’t realize is that your problem with terrorism isn’t with the "left" in America.  Your problem with terrorism is that while the left didn’t do much to decrease it, the right has made the situation, worldwide, grow exponentially.  

You might take that up with the Administration and quit blaming us. 

GraemeA: To start with, I didn’t characterize any of them as "freedom fighters".  However to take your argument to it’s conclusion, everybody in Afghanitstan is a bloodthirsty monster, because once you subtract off the Northern Alliance, who do you have left besides the Taliban and their allies, the Al Qaeda? Unless of course you feel like defending the Talabin of course!

It’s been my observation that so-called liberals like yourself are everybit as prejudiced, if not more so, against the Islamic community as those you accused of having closed minds. Interesting paradox.  I’m not the one trying to  paint everybody who lives in Afghanistan (or at least picks up a gun at least) a monster, afterall.

Foreign Policy magazine is the premier publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a decidedly liberal institution whose board of directors includes  former Clinton Defense Secretary William J. Perry (Clinton), former Clinton SEC Chairman, Willam H. Donaldson, former Democratic Senator and presidential candidate, Bill Bradley, Gregory P. Craig, a partner in the Williams and Connolly law firm (CBS/Rathergate whitewash), and the infamous Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General, vice chairman of FNMA, and author of the now-discredited Clinton-era “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement (an ironically appropriate description, when you think about it).

 

To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with reading up on contemporary liberal thought.  On the contrary, knowing what your opponent is thinking or planning is called intelligence, in both politics and real warfare. Had Clinton, Clark, and George Tenent actually been doing so, listening in on Al Qaeda instead of listening to Gorelick, 9-11 might have been prevented.

BatOne,

You forgot that it’s also one of the most well-respected policy journals in the world and has published papers from experts regardless their political leaning.

However, if you’d like something from a different side of the political spectrum, the journal Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations recently published a piece by Greg Gause which argued that increasing democracy in the region will not impede terrorism.  I believe it was in the 5th, or maybe the 6th issue of last year.

Your source nitpicking didn’t address the report by the State Department (that’s the BUSH State Department) and Terrorism is waxing, not waning.   

CV Rick: Sorry it took so long to get back to you.  My computer has been down all day.  I didn’t mean to be patronizing, but I was incredulous that you would use Israel as an example the way you did.  I don’t know what you were thinking.  I don’t give any mixed messages, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving them.  I don’t know the contents of your mind.  Everyone else has covered my points very well, but to sum up:  We aided the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, who were our sworn enemy in the Cold War at the time.  After the Soviets were driven out, after a few years, Al Qaeda came into existence, around 1992, the year of Clinton’s first election.  I don’t blame him for the path that Al Qaeda took, but I do blame him for not taking covert action against them.  It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to do that, but Clinton loathes the military, so he took no action against a growing threat.  I hold him indirectly responsible for 9/11.  The invasion of Iraq has concentrated the terrorist threat there, which was one of the purposes of going there.  I didn’t write the Koran, nor do I support any religion that requires its adherents to kill or subjugate all those who don’t practice that religion.  We are dealing with such people, who were allowed to grow and prosper, and that is who and what we are dealing with, and we have to take appropriate measures to defeat them, or they will certainly defeat us, with the willing if unconscious support of the "useful idiots on the left in this country.  It sickens me, to be perfectly frank.

So, rick, what is your BIG PLAN? How you going to save us from terrorism? Submission? You really think that is going to work, fiction writer?

Carrick,

The archive: here.

Last year’s (2004) wasn’t released to the public, so you have to read an article about it: here. 

This year’s (2005) is due in 2 months. 

CV Rick,  I have forgotten no such thing… although I will admit that I am less often impressed by reputation, than by my own analysis.

I am familiar with both Foreign Affairs and the Gause article you cite.  The problems I see with his conclusion are his short-sightedness (not a particularly uncommon disability in this field), and secondly, the obvious hopelessness of any other course of action.    Look, this is not going to be either quick or easy.  On the contrary, we are likely in the fight of our lives… and the lives of our children and their children, and their children’s children as well.   The world’s biggest supporter of islamist terrorism is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and the ideology which controls every facet of their lives, and those of their terrorist clients and supporters as well glorifies martyrdom for the sake of killing infidels.

During the Cold War, the doctrine of MAD worked (sort of…) because in the final analysis neither side wanted to be destroyed, nor to be responsible for the decimation of the other.  The enemy we face today operates from exactly the opposite paradigm.  And no amount of wishful thinking is likely to change that fact. 

The Oslo "Peace Process" accomplished nothing… other than to allow the foreign policy fraternity an opportunity to pat each other on the back in one round of smarmy self-congratulation after another.  Dialogue, negotiation, accomodation, and apologies have accomplished nothing.  Meanwhile, the nuclear clock keeps ticking.

thanks likwid, I don’t really know what I am doing

robert108,

 

That story about Clinton being offered OBL is an urban legend started by Newsmax and oft-repeated by Sean Hannity.  It’s not supported by facts. 

Stop it, please!  You’re killing me!!

"It is a leftist technique to tell the truth – and it’s a rightie habit to dislike that."

That is without a doubt the best one-liner since the deaths of Henny Youngman and Lewis Grizzard.  If you could manage about six or seven minutes more of that stuff, you could probably get a guest shot on the Letterman show… or maybe even the Simpsons.

As for our "friends" over in Saudi Arabia, they may not be "good for America" as you suggest, but then the same could certainly be said for the UN.

Look!  One more time.  Trading quibbles, or insults,  may do as a substitute for reasoned, thoughtful discussion on your side of the aisle… particularly when it come tiime offer something more substantial than the usual leftist diatribe… something like a reasonable, sentient solution to a problem.

The fact is that despite five years of petty one-liners in opposition, and the previous eight years of ponderous pontifications, all diligently processed through the requisite focus groups, the left has yet to offer one halfway helpful suggestion regarding the clash between Islamsit terror and Western civilization.

Your efforts here have not done anything to improve your side’s record of adolescent ineptitude. 

 

Sorry, rick, the Dept. of State and Dept. of Justice have both, seperately, admitted they had 3 different opportunities to accept custody of UBL and were told by the Administration not to do so, on the grounds the case was not sufficiently tight to gain conviction. A point which has considerable merit. Running UBL through our judicial system and then having to turn him lose would have been a less than optimum outcome. No one in either Administration had the courage to walk into the Ministry of Justice building in Khartoum and slit his throat during the initial interveiw and call it suicide. By all indications taking in UBL anytime after ’97 would not have stopped 9/11 or the Embassy bombings or the attack on the USS Cole. And which part of urging countries to convict publishers involved in printing these cartoons is not calling for the convictions of those publishers of these cartoons? It is in the first paragraph. I read the whole piece, and that is what he is claimed to have said, that and groveling&kissing feet to endear himself to Muslims.

CV Rick: One question: What did Clinton do in his eight years in office about Saudi Arabia and UBL?  Answer: Nothing.  In fact, he pandered to the Islamists, hoping to get them to like him.  Didn’t work, did it?  Now, we have a real man in the White House, and he is pissing them off, which is the right thing to do.  Leftie weakness and appeasement doesn’t work against tyrannical dictators.  Without Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union would probably still be in business.

ZZ: I know you didn’t ask me, but here’s my answer anyway:  In order to prevent the consolidation of power, this country was founded on the idea that partisanship was necessary.  The govt is supposed to be constantly wrangling and arguing over everything.  It slows them down in their thirst for power over us.  Hate is always bad, of course, and the constant hate directed at this President over the last five years has sapped a lot of time and money that could have been spent being productive and fighting terror.  I think it is always wrong to hate the person, but it is quite appropriate to hate their actions or the consequences of those actions, if they bring harm to us and to our country, like the terrorists, for instance.  No one seems to object to the hatred directed at UBL, for example.  It is well and truly deserved, but even then, getting involved in hating the person is counterproductive.  When we understand the entire process of how he came to power, we will know more about how to defeat him.  The same is true of terrorism.  We must study the real roots, not the politically correct version.

It seems Clinton is clearly against a free press. I hope he does not try to convict me then. You can find the 12 Danish cartoons at http://www.obber.com. I also created a game that begins with an introduction from "Prophet Bomb". It is called Shoot Gallery, and you can try to gun down Bin Laden for giving the West such a terrible image about Muslims.

CV Rick, I can see where you are taking it… I am not a Big Clinton fan myself. I don’t hate him.(his wife is another story!) BUT…I am feeling that partisan vibe in all of us. It is easy to be a critic. Even harder to see our country become more divided…

GraemeA:  This is not the place to explain it, unfortunately, but your idea about why the Soviet Union failed is not correct.  I recommend a first-year econ textbook, which will explain how the market works under the various systems. Because you believe as you do, your conclusion about what you call an economy more to the left is understandable. BTW, a safety net encourages risky behavior.  Just watch "Fear Factor" some time.

CV Rick: I reiterate: I don’t hate Clinton.  My objections to him and his administration are based on his perversion of American principles, nothing else.  I could care less about his personal habits.  He was an attention hog, so he cheerfully broadcast his peccadillos to the public, thinking it made him look cool, like a frat boy braggart.  It is true that he wasn’t the only President who ignored terrorism.  No President until this one has had the stones to tell the truth about what is really happening with worldwide terrorism, and to do something about it besides talk.  I think it’s pointless to debate strategy when so much needs to be done to address this threat.  We need to make a lot of moves;  Afghanistan was the first, Iraq the second, and on and on, until this threat is no longer.  I know it’s hard to take, but that is the truth.  Clinton needed to be loved so much that he would never have given us the bad news.  He was uniquely positioned in time to have erased Bin Laden, but that would have been the beginning, not the end, as you hope.  We just got a later start on the job that always needed to be done.   

"Killing UBL won’t end terrorism, but creating a modern state in the heart of Islam will be much more effective"

 We are creating terrorists. Al queda was on it’s last leg and we jump started it. They had been rejected by Muslim countries (except afghanistan, of course with our help) and now our Iraq invasion has done bin laden’s recruiting for him. The law enforcement option works.The Military alpha male chest thumping option of "taking it to them" further radicalizes the muslim world. Without the US occupation of Iraq, the cartoons wouldn’t have got the reaction they did. I am convinced of that.

When Clinton lost after his first term of governor he joined the choir in the Baptist church that had their services broadcast over the state of Arkansas. That way all of the good baptists could see him every Sunday.

 Bill Clinton uses religion to pander.  What’s amazing to me is that he get’s away with it when he’s so transparent at it.

CV Rick wrote, But, you don’t hate George Bush (sr. or jr.) for not taking him out.

What was Bush Sr. supposed to do? Osama was just then making a major name for himself and really wasn’t too big on the national radar. And Bush the junior is implementing policies designed to find and take Osama out, so I don’t really see what your criticism is supposed to entail.

You can see where i’m getting these mixed signals, right?

No.

GraemeA said, The free market works fine for a lot of things. Some things not so well.I am for a mixed economy, I just think the mix should be more to the left than the right.

How is that working in the European countries? They have stagnate and/or shrinking economies.

Safety nets in the market should be set up to favor the worker not the corporation.

How is that working in European countries? It is damn near impossible to fire workers in some European countries. This tells the companies to do business elsewhere where they have a bit more control over the content and production of their goods. Capital moves to where it is treated best.

There needs to be democracy in businesses too.

There is. The free market has already taken care of this. It is called the stock market. The premise is simple: you buy shares (ownership) in the company (this allows the democracy), become a stakeholder, and make your voice heard. The more shares owned, the bigger voice one has.

Hey! Why the update full of weasel words? Go to the source, dailytimes.com.pk, the story is right there. And that is what they reported, a qoute, from Willie Jeff, calling for the convictions, by EU states, of the publishers of those cartoons.

I’ve updated the post.  It appears as though Clinton didn’t call for conviction, but he did condemn the cartoons as blasphemous and said that he was against them.

Which is still the wrong position, as far as I’m concerned.  Pandering to these unreasonable Muslim sensibilities isn’t going to get us anywhere.