Hi basso, it's a fair question in general, but not to me specifically. If you look through my posts (unless I'm having a brainfart, which is always possible), I'm not criticizing Bush for his pre-9/11 work, and I've said repeatedly that the interesting portion of Clarke's testimony, to me, is simply his accounts of the administration's obsessions with Iraq immediately after 9/11. That's just alarming to me. So, hey, without hindsight, I'm pretty sure I would have thought a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan was a bad idea. I probably would have favored a real strong international coalition, and a lot of pressure for the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden, et cetera. As it turned out, after 9/11, I supported our actions against Afghanistan.
Andy, that's just not true, regardless of how many times Mikey Moore, Scheer & their ilk say it. The "money" was actually surplus food aid administered by the U.N. and other NGO's to help stave off a famine. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/index.cfm?docid=2928 Scheer is a horrible journalist, a dissembler & polemicist of the highest caliber.
I didn't get it from any of them, it was widely reported. Cato institute: http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html Common sense for drug policy: http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v01/n1692/a11.html I know common sense for drug policy might be a bit biased, but the Cato institute said, among other things: The CNN story about humanitarian aid was a nice cover, but the money went to the Taliban not even a half a year before 9/11. You can buy the government line if you like, but asking them for honest data regarding the drug war is kind of like asking Arthur Anderson to give honest data about the finances of the Mafia.
Nevermind, Andy. We never gave the Taliban $43M in cash. Again, it was additional food & relief aid for the people of Afghanistan. Believe what you want.
fair enough- is your problem psot 9/11 that the admin didn't do enough in afghanistan, or that they eventually broadened the war to include iraq? further, what is your take on the following statement, issued today by hamas after the state department said hamas has threatened retaliation on US interests after the Yassin assasination. "It's not in our policy to target Americans or American interests," Hamas political leader Sayed Seyam told Reuters. Hamas had vowed revenge against Israel for the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The United States is Israel's chief ally." can you imagine hamas making such a statement prior to the iraq war? remember, after 9/11 there was dancing in the streets of gaza and rampant burning of american flags.
clarke's criticism was that the president didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. you seem to support that view, yet, if bush had acted in the manner described, which is essentially what clarke says he advocated, you're not sure you would've supported it. is this not a contradiction? as far as clinton's actions, i never had a problem with clinton's lack of military service. i actually voted for the man the first time. i did think the sudan strike had a certain wag the dog flavor to it, mostly because the strike itself seemed so lame, and ultimately pointless. had clinton moved agressively against iraq in '98, had actually invaded or massed troops to put some pressure on, i would've been much more spportive than i was of the missle strikes. i find it interesting that clarke has much more of a problem with bush not acting against bin laden, than he does clinton not acting.
why is it that a 'real coalition' in this case is defined as "other nations in the region", yet the 140 nation coalition in iraq is somehow unilateral?
According to Bush's appointee David Kaye, that missle strike by Clinton was anything but lame. Kaye credits them for helping to destroy Saddam's WMD's. Also the policy that Clarke was putting on the table was not a full scale invasion, but using special forces.
why the necessity of working with allies? the threat is to the US specifically. if north korea were to launch missles at the west coast of the US, are you saying you wouldn't support a response absent security council approval?
same response as i gave franchise. a coaliton of the US and the scratchistans is "multilateral," why is the 140 nation iraq coalition "unilateral?"
wasn't the attack on the cole an act of war? wasn't the attack on our embassies in africa ana ct of war? what about the khobar towers bombings, and the '93 WTC attack? why wouldn't you support an invasion in response to an act of war? also, you seem to buy clarke's position on the inadequecy of Bush's efforts on al queda pre 9/11, yet not clarke's solution. why?
