Because I Am A Dirty-Word
There’s a heated discussion going on here about the whether the Clinton administration did or did not do more to fight terrorism. Long-time poster tgirsch made an important point:
Bush is so concerned with getting bin Laden that he has a whopping 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, with the vast majority of them in Kabul and Kandahar, where bin Laden certainly isn’t.
Meanwhile, Clinton had permanently stationed a sub in the region so that if bin Laden’s whereabouts became known, immediate action could be taken. But hey, that’s “doing nothing,” right?
We report, you decide.
April 3rd, 2004 at 10:49 am
Well I’m not impressed. Stationing a sub off the coast is fine if you have the guts to order it to fire when you learn his location. But time and again he knew the location but by the time he reached a concensus with his cabinet or could be bothered with the information he was gone. That’s not leadership that’s covering your ass and thinking of your legacy.
April 3rd, 2004 at 6:44 pm
Nor I. That leaves only one option…missle strikes that have proven again and again to be useless. Too far overland for sub embarked SEALS
Subs are good if you need a tylenol factory whacked in the Sudan.
Predator drones firing Hellfires are controlled by a few of those 9000 troop. They have already in a short time killed more terrorists than blowjob bubba
April 3rd, 2004 at 6:54 pm
What is the source for the sub info? Just curious.
April 3rd, 2004 at 10:41 pm
Chevaline:
I was wrong about the sub. There were two subs:
By the way, the fact that taking out bin Laden by cruise missile was tried after the embassy bombings belies the repeated argument that the Clinton administration did “nothing” to retaliate for that. That whole linked article is a good read, and it dates back to August of 2002, so none of this is exactly breaking news.
Anotherthing2:
But time and again he knew the location but by the time he reached a concensus with his cabinet or could be bothered with the information he was gone.
Don’t suppose you can back up those assertions with anything resembling a mainstream news report, can you? And even if you can demonstrate that Clinton’s actions were woefully inadequate, as you seem to be implying, what does it say about Bush that he did even less until the terrorists attacked in our back yard?
Drake:
Predator drones firing Hellfires are controlled by a few of those 9000 troop. They have already in a short time killed more terrorists than blowjob bubba.
Yeah, and they’ve obviously hamstrung al-Qaeda in the process. This is why al-Qaeda hasn’t been able to pull off major attacks in Bali or Instanbul or Spain. Oh, wait a minute…
April 4th, 2004 at 12:44 pm
Bali and Istanbul killed more muslims more so than anyone else I recall. Soft targets not on US soil..if as an American I have to choose between a mass 9-11 strike or attacks farther away on foreign lands I will choose the latter.
Do you think Al-Queda would prefer to hit targets here or nail hotels and the like? Maybe, just maybe they can’t hit us right now because they are reeling from real military action, not token half measures.
April 5th, 2004 at 12:40 am
Drake:
Methinks you miss the point. Al-Qaeda has a history of taking its time. The last attack on US soil before 9/11 was seven years earlier. The embassy bombings in Africa were fully four years after the first WTC bombing attempt, and another two years between that and the Cole bombing.
It’s been just two and a half years since 9/11, and we’ve already seen several attacks across the globe, most seriously the Spanish rail bombings. So take your pick, from:
Take your pick. But frankly, based on the increased frequency of attacks (even if not against what Drake would personally call “important US interests”), I’d find it hard to describe al-Qaeda as “reeling.”
April 5th, 2004 at 8:19 am
Exactly. You see, parking two subs in the Indian Ocean meant that Clinton was Serious About Getting Bin Laden. Having ONLY 9,000 troops in WRONG PART of Afghanistan means that Bush IS NOT Serious About Getting Bin Laden.
April 5th, 2004 at 12:21 pm
Thibodeaux:
But as the neo-cons love to point out, “9/11 changed everything.” Since we’re talking about the 9/11 commission here, what’s relevant is what the two presidents did before 9/11. And before 9/11, Bush did exactly two things to combat terror: Jack and Shit.
In fact, the Bush administration even funded the Taliban as late as August of 2001, as part of the lovely war on drugs that’s been such a smashing success. But you’re right, it’s all Clinton’s fault.
April 5th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Hold up. I never said anything about Clinton. I’m not arguing about pre-9/11 or the 9/11 commission.
I’m just basking in the warm glow of your two sentences, and the obvious Bush-hatred they contain.
April 5th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
I have never tried to mask my contempt for Bush. I’ve been open about that all along. Does this somehow disqualify me from commenting on his policy?
Pre-9/11 is relevant, because that’s what the commission is discussing. And it’s indisputable that Clinton did far more about terror pre-9/11 than Bush did. Since you have no answer for that, you instead decide to paint me as a “Bush hater?” (Which I am, but that doesn’t take away from my points…)
Post 9/11, the most important issue is whether the Iraq war is an important part of the war on terror, or a distraction from it. More and more officials (most recently Clarke), are coming out saying they believe it’s a distraction. And these aren’t anti-Bush Democrats, either. These are Republicans questioning Bush’s tactics.
April 5th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
You still don’t get it.
April 5th, 2004 at 4:53 pm
You’re right, I absolutely do not. If something I’ve said is laughable, factually inaccurate, whatever, by all means point out what it is and why.
April 5th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
Your quote that I posted was indeed laughable. As for why, re-read my first comment in this thread.
April 5th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
Thibodeaux:
Ah, now I get it. When you completely divorce my quote from its context… That’s the part I was missing. I was being an idiot and looking at my quote in context. Silly me! 🙂
April 5th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
Thibodeaux:
You see, parking two subs in the Indian Ocean meant that Clinton was Serious About Getting Bin Laden. Having ONLY 9,000 troops in WRONG PART of Afghanistan means that Bush IS NOT Serious About Getting Bin Laden.
Now that I have the frame of reference correct, I can address these more appropriately. First, understand that I was responding to people who seemed to be of the opinion that Clinton did nothing (or, at least, nothing worthwhile) about terror, whereas Bush is doing a brilliant job fighting terror. It was these two assumptions that I was attacking.
Parking two subs in the Indian Ocean was not the only thing the Clinton Administration did vis-a-vis terror. You may not agree with everything they did and didn’t do, but the fact remains that when the Bush Administration took control, they did far less until after we were attacked on US soil.
As for Bush in Afghanistan, his initial actions were indeed correct, but then he largely bailed out to wage his sideshow in Iraq. Our 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, where Bush is “doing something” about terror, are exceeded by our troops in Japan (43,000), South Korea (37,000), Western Europe (116,000), and of course, Iraq (146,000).
So you’ll forgive me if I don’t think 9,000 troops in Afghanistan is a significant deployment, when compared to our deployments in “peaceful” regions.
In sum: Prior to 9/11, Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than Bush did. Post-9/11, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after an unrelated enemy (Iraq) instead of finishing the job that needed to be done (going after al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Mullah Omar; and stabilizing Afghanistan).
April 5th, 2004 at 6:40 pm
Those numbers seem to be somewhat out of date. The latest numbers I can find indicate roughly 8,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 250,000 in Iraq.
April 5th, 2004 at 8:45 pm
So you’ll forgive me if I don’t think 9,000 troops in Afghanistan is a significant deployment, when compared to our deployments in “peaceful” regions.
What exactly are your qualifications to comment on that? What about the logistics problems involved in supplying troops in Afghanistan? Do you know WHICH troops are in Afghanistan? What types of troops do you need to operate in the mountainous areas? Would heavy, mechanized infantry be better, or would light infantry (e.g., a “Mountain” division) be better? How many do you need to “go after al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Mullah Omar; and stabilize Afghanistan?”
No, I’ll wager you don’t know.
April 5th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
Thibodeaux:
What exactly are your qualifications to comment on that? What about the logistics problems involved in supplying troops in Afghanistan? Do you know WHICH troops are in Afghanistan? What types of troops do you need to operate in the mountainous areas?
No, I’ll wager you don’t know.
You’re right. I don’t know. But I do know that every major intelligence agency in the world says al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq prior to our invasion there. You may not call that a distraction, but I do.
Also, the reason we (purportedly) went into Afghanistan was to take away al-Qaeda’s safe haven. Do you really think 9,000 troops is enough to secure the entirety of Afghanistan such that al-Qaeda can find no safe haven there?
Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. Maybe 9,000 US troops is more than enough to secure Afghanistan. Maybe finishing the job in Afghanistan has been a priority for this administration, and they’re just not talking about it. Maybe every major intelligence agency in the world is wrong about Iraq and al-Qaeda. Just seems unlikely to me.
April 6th, 2004 at 8:35 am
Fair enough.