I really don't want to read any of the bickering on the previous two pages of posts. Bill Clinton is kinda a hero of mine... so I want to say this:

 

Blaming anyone for not doing enough for 9/11 is partisan hackery. Stop it. Nobody understood or appreciated the threat of Al-Queda attack. If they had, we would have invaded Afganistan in 1992 or 2000 when either Bush or Clinton got into office.

 

This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.

 

 

The reason I like to attack Clinton so much is becuase of all he did to de-construct that very same intelligence gathering industry. Its like I said, I would be glad to agree with you that Clinton was a good president if he had done more about the gathering terrorist threat than lob a few bombs into empty training camps.

I really don't want to read any of the bickering on the previous two pages of posts. Bill Clinton is kinda a hero of mine... so I want to say this:

 

Blaming anyone for not doing enough for 9/11 is partisan hackery. Stop it. Nobody understood or appreciated the threat of Al-Queda attack. If they had, we would have invaded Afganistan in 1992 or 2000 when either Bush or Clinton got into office.

 

This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.

 

Excellent post. The time for blame is done, the time for doing is here.

An opinion on clinton's reasons for his anger in the interview

The reason I like to attack Clinton so much is becuase of all he did to de-construct that very same intelligence gathering industry. Its like I said, I would be glad to agree with you that Clinton was a good president if he had done more about the gathering terrorist threat than lob a few bombs into empty training camps.

 

This is precisely the type of post I was writing about. Its dumb to blame anyone.

 

When the USSR fell, the paradigm changed. Bush Sr. and Clinton made cuts to military and intelligence programs. The need for large expenditures diminished and this was reflected in budget cuts approved by a Democratically controlled Congress until 1994 and a Republican controlled Congress from 94-2001. For 50 years, the central role of the CIA was to monitory Soviet military and political forces. The Agency had focused heavily on spying on an institutional enemey that suddenly collapsed in the late 80's. De-militarization was approved by both parties as the logical response to the political failure of our most feared enemy for 50 years.

 

So blame is dumb. Its about scoring political points... its a waste of time. We'd all be better off if in this election cycle Dems quit b****ing about the 9/11 report and Condolezza Rice and Republicans would quit b****ing about Clinton.

 

We all blew it... Dems and Repubs. 9/11 happened. We weren't ready. Get on with it.

This is precisely the type of post I was writing about. Its dumb to blame anyone.

 

When the USSR fell, the paradigm changed. Bush Sr. and Clinton made cuts to military and intelligence programs. The need for large expenditures diminished and this was reflected in budget cuts approved by a Democratically controlled Congress until 1994 and a Republican controlled Congress from 94-2001. For 50 years, the central role of the CIA was to monitory Soviet military and political forces. The Agency had focused heavily on spying on an institutional enemey that suddenly collapsed in the late 80's. De-militarization was approved by both parties as the logical response to the political failure of our most feared enemy for 50 years.

 

So blame is dumb. Its about scoring political points... its a waste of time. We'd all be better off if in this election cycle Dems quit b****ing about the 9/11 report and Condolezza Rice and Republicans would quit b****ing about Clinton.

 

We all blew it... Dems and Repubs. 9/11 happened. We weren't ready. Get on with it.

While I applaud your desire to take the petty politicizing out of things, I have to disagree with your sentiment on getting on with it. I think it is in fact crucial that we analyze our shortcomings and why missed this. As I stated earlier, there are lessons to be learned, and yet we continue to avoid acting to change those things.

While I applaud your desire to take the petty politicizing out of things, I have to disagree with your sentiment on getting on with it. I think it is in fact crucial that we analyze our shortcomings and why missed this. As I stated earlier, there are lessons to be learned, and yet we continue to avoid acting to change those things.

 

Yeah... thats a fair point: One I considered momentarily before I added the post. I'd ask you to consider the final line of my previous post:

 

This is the bullsh*t that cheapens the political process and detracts from legitimate discussions on salient political issues. I am Dem, and my party is just as guilty (probably more so) than the Republicans. I hate it... I wish they would avoid talking about so-called "pre-9/11 failures" except in an effort to constructively improve our intelligence gathering industry.

I will entirely blame the Bush administration, for failing to respond to the Cole attack, blowing off Richard Clarke, ignoring the PDB about "Bin Laden determined to attack in America", reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after the attacks happened, failing to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora - their failure list grows everyday.....

I will entirely blame the Bush administration, for failing to respond to the Cole attack, blowing off Richard Clarke, ignoring the PDB about "Bin Laden determined to attack in America", reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after the attacks happened, failing to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora - their failure list grows everyday.....

 

 

..........and you will be entirely wrong.

 

..........and you will be entirely wrong.

 

Well, he is actually right in blaming Bush for those SPECIFIC failures. And failures they were. But to blame Bush entirely for 9/11 is ridiculous.

I will entirely blame the Bush administration, for failing to respond to the Cole attack, blowing off Richard Clarke, ignoring the PDB about "Bin Laden determined to attack in America", reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after the attacks happened, failing to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora - their failure list grows everyday.....

 

i know! nevermind the 8 years under clinton during which he did f@*# all. bush should have taken care of it completely during the first 8 months of his administration.

Do we have to keep going back and forth on this?

Do we have to keep going back and forth on this?

I would expect nothing less from a thread subtitled "Suck it, Clinton!"

 

Pointless.

An opinion on clinton's reasons for his anger in the interview

I've come to expect this from William Kristol and the GOP hacks at the Weekly Standard. It's the ol' fallback; when in need of material, do a hatchet job on the Clintons.

Well, he is actually right in blaming Bush for those SPECIFIC failures.

 

not really.... but i'll just leave it at that.

 

i agree with Balta, this argument isn't going anywhere productive.

Caught just a quick bit on Scarbourough tonight that said Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Rumsfeld in 2004 FWIW.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215779,00.html

 

Condi fires back on Slick Willie.

This little hype job is lovingly covering up the fact that the compromise that the Republicans against torture agreed to with the President allows US Citizens to have rights of habeas corpus suspended at his will.

This little hype job is lovingly covering up the fact that the compromise that the Republicans against torture agreed to with the President allows US Citizens to have rights of habeas corpus suspended at his will.

Excuse me?! Could you elaborate on that? And I really don't see how that would stand up to Constitutional muster in any case.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

 

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."

 

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" -- rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States -- the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

 

Martin noted that "the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen" and "held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties." She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

 

Nothing in the proposed legislation -- which mostly concerns the creation of new military panels, known as "commissions," to try terrorism suspects -- directly addresses such CIA apprehensions and "renditions."

 

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

The Washington Post

The Washington Post

Hm. So the key change is lowering the hurdle of declaration from "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to "unlawful combatant". For US citizens within the U.S., I'd suspect that change is immaterial. For those outside the country, that subtlety may have an effect in fringe cases.

 

Either way, I don't see where this is going to be very problematic. Since it doesn't speak of citizens or not, I am fairly sure that any U.S. court would find against the government if it detained a U.S. citizen outside the judicial or military legal process that had not shown clear hostile intent towards U.S. interests. Therefore, to me, its only problematic in that its symbolic of the continued desire of this administration and its Congressional brethren to erode freedom whenever possible (all the while parading the term "freedom" as a clever marketing mask).

 

I suspect your main fear here is if federal officials ever used that clause to detain a citizen for actions that were only incidentally hostile to the U.S. (i.e. some kid in a foreign country protesting near a U.S. embassy or something). Standing law and precedent have been set pretty clearly on cases similar to that I am sure, so I don't think that would stand a challenge. So I'm not too concerned.

 

Unless you have some other fear or concern that I am not seeing. Do you?

The Washington Post

 

 

Bravo. Implement it now.

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding

 

 

And the problem with this is......?

 

I'm all for protecting liberties and freedoms, but much like the wire-tapping issue, if you have no link to them you have no worries. The purpose of both is to detain those that aid terrorism, not those that steal cable or smoke some pot at home. If it makes the country safer (which the wire-tapping has already done) then i'm all for it.

 

Yes I know Ben Franklin has a wonderful qoute about not sacrificing liberty for security (as have many prominent American icons), but he probably never envisioned suicide bombers or plane hijackers that target civilians and not militias/armies.

And the problem with this is......?

 

I'm all for protecting liberties and freedoms, but much like the wire-tapping issue, if you have no link to them you have no worries. The purpose of both is to detain those that aid terrorism, not those that steal cable or smoke some pot at home. If it makes the country safer (which the wire-tapping has already done) then i'm all for it.

 

Yes I know Ben Franklin has a wonderful qoute about not sacrificing liberty for security (as have many prominent American icons), but he probably never envisioned suicide bombers or plane hijackers that target civilians and not militias/armies.

Show me an instance where the wiretapping (not any wiretapping, but the kind argued on this board as being questionable) did anything to make this country safer.

 

And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are so spoiled by their freedoms living in the U.S. that they use the "I have nothing to hide" argument when this administration chips slowly away at the Constitution. Ironically, it is often these same people who yell and scream that we must vigorously defend our freedoms at any cost... when they want to go to war with a country that represents zero danger to us. I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.

Show me an instance where the wiretapping (not any wiretapping, but the kind argued on this board as being questionable) did anything to make this country safer.

 

And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are so spoiled by their freedoms living in the U.S. that they use the "I have nothing to hide" argument when this administration chips slowly away at the Constitution. Ironically, it is often these same people who yell and scream that we must vigorously defend our freedoms at any cost... when they want to go to war with a country that represents zero danger to us. I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

Riddle me this NSS. How can you demonstrably show the effectiveness of a classified program? You cant. You have to trust the government that they are using it properly. Are there going to be abuses? Of course, but I believe that they have been and will be so few and far between, in spite of all the "sky is falling" leftists rantings, that it simply does not warrant taking this tool out of the governments tool box.

Edited September 26, 200619 yr by NUKE_CLEVELAND

Riddle me this NSS. How can you demonstrably show the effectiveness of a classified program? You cant. You have to trust the government that they are using it properly. Are there going to be abuses? Of course, but I believe that they have been and will be so few and far between, in spite of all the "sky is falling" leftists rantings, that it simply does not warrant taking this tool out of the governments tool box.

Well, there is definitely some truth to that - its hard to know if it worked or did not work. But there are certain things which I am just not willing to trust the government with. Wiretaps with no warrants, even after the fact, are just not OK with me. Neither are gun registries. In both cases, those tools would help law enforcement. Also in both cases, abuses would probably be rare. But both those things, to me, stand in direct violation of what their particular Constitutional protections are meant to provide. And I therefore am not comfortable with them.