Random Bag Searches on the Horizon

ryanov wrote: If the government had done its job and dealt with the information it had prior to 9/11, there would have been no 9/11 as we know it also.

And to refresh the memory and/or enlighten the younger posters here, that would be the government led by Bill Clinton that ignored repeated warnings regarding al Qaeda and dismissed more than a few opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden.

FYI.

thebigc wrote:

ryanov wrote: If the government had done its job and dealt with the information it had prior to 9/11, there would have been no 9/11 as we know it also.

And to refresh the memory and/or enlighten the younger posters here, that would be the government led by Bill Clinton that ignored repeated warnings regarding al Qaeda and dismissed more than a few opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden.

FYI.

Effectively, the "government" remains the same no matter who is in office, and mistakes have been made by every president (and the unended bureaucracy that doesn't turn over as quickly as presidents do). I don't see the use in blaming 9/11 on the failures of the Clinton administration to capture or kill bin Laden; it only makes arguments partisan. Sure, Clinton screwed up, but so has Bush. I'd prefer to keep partisanship out of this discussion, referring to "the government" as one large entity rather than by a particular leader, because while the President is certainly an important figure in determining the course of the government as a whole, there are plenty of other people involved.

thebigc wrote:

ryanov wrote: If the government had done its job and dealt with the information it had prior to 9/11, there would have been no 9/11 as we know it also.

And to refresh the memory and/or enlighten the younger posters here, that would be the government led by Bill Clinton that ignored repeated warnings regarding al Qaeda and dismissed more than a few opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden.

Yeah. Guess you're right. This page and others certainly seems to agree with you. Thanks for clarifying things for all of the 9 year olds who routinely post in this forum.

ryanov wrote: Yeah. Guess you're right. This page and others certainly seems to agree with you. Thanks for clarifying things for all of the 9 year olds who routinely post in this forum.

I'm happy to help. For some posters, 1998 might seem like a long time ago.

I don't see partisanship as much as I see people forgetting who had the opportunity to address Islamic extremists. But they sure like to lambaste the guy who inherited the mess. Do we belong in Iraq? I have my doubts but I just hate to think all the casualties we've taken have been in vain. There are no easy answers.

For all of you who think we were successful with Afghanistan or Pakistan, I'd hate to see what a failure would look like. The London bombers were Pakistani. Pakistan has developed nuclear technology that may well be sold to other Muslim states. The US has a relationship with the current government of Pakistan, but Bin Laden is a popular folk hero there. In Afghanistan, the same guys who ran the country as the Taliban now run it under some other brand name. We can argue about whether random searches might have a slight deterrent effect on terrorists, or whether Bush's lies were worse than Clinton's sloppiness.
The fact is, the whole thrust of our Mideast policy, over many years, has produced a terrorist monster, against which we have virtually no defense. When some badguy ships a Pakistani or North Korean nuke to Port Newark in a cargo container--the Administration still isn't willing to pay for radiation detectors in our ports--and detonates it, which hapless third-world country will we invade then? And what good will it do?
Until we recognize that terrorism is in its own way a perfectly rational reaction to our foreign policy, and until we change that policy, what we are doing is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

David Telesha wrote: Take for example us being buddy-buddy with Red-China and now look at them - their General threatens to nuke us if we help Taiwan against an attack.

Well I can see appeasement really works. So far we're batting 0000.

Speaking of appeasement and Clinton's shortcomings, does North Korea ring a bell?

OK...this has mutated into another neocons-versus-everyone else in the USA thread, so it's getting locked. Please go here if you want to raise that debate...TIA.