I think you're far too sensitive to JFK criticism, you seem infatuated with him. LBJ, for all his faults (and Vietnam was a big one), accomplished more than JFK ever did. With all due respect, of course.
ROXRAN, you're conveniently spinning the info and leaving out crucial points. NONE of Sanders's intelligence amendments ever passed. They were all resoundly rejected. There were 7 amendments pushed by Sanders from 1993-1999, all of which were rejected by Congress.
And what was the current Admin doing about OBL and terrorism the roughly 8 months since they were sworn in until 9/11? You sure do love to bash Clinton and I will agree he could've done more but 9/11 happened 8 months into the Bush Admin. so you're totally off base laying the main blame on the Clinton Admin. Anyway the Clinton Admin caught the masterminds of the first WTC, both the operational mastermind Ramzi Yousef along with the inspirational mastermind the Blind Sheik, fairly quickly. Last I checked while the current Admin caught Khalid Sheik Mohammed Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman Al Zwahari are still at large. On top of that your arguments that GW Bush is doing the right thing since there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since well after the first WTC there wasn't an Islamic terrorist attack on US soil for the whole rest of the Clinton Admin. Under your own standard Clinton was doing as good if not a better job than the current Admin..
That's interesting but that doc is dated in October 1963 JFK was assasinated on Nov 22nd 1963 and the end of 1963 was a little more than a month away and a 1,000 troops to be removed in an orderly withdrawl probably would be gradual so can you show that troops were actually being withdrawn? Further how many US troops, uh I mean military advisors were in Vietnam in late 1963? I don't have the numbers off of the top of my head but if I recall there were more than 10,000. A reduction of 1/10th is significant but not a withdrawl. I mean the force that invaded Iraq in 2003 was around a 250K and is now around 150K so since the Bush Admin. has reduced troop levels by a 100K does that mean that Bush has been looking to pull out of Iraq? This document shows that JFK might've agreed with a military analysis that not so many troops were needed in Vietnam but doesn't show that he intended to withdraw completely or that there wasn't an order anywhere else that countermanded this.
Weird...half the Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the Sanders amendment. Why do the democrats hate intelligence?
Not enough! But he had the right mindset after 9/11 and demonstrated it... I disagree with all my heart. Clinton should have had the right mindset after the 93 attack...He didn't. After 9/11, we have Homeland Security, Better VISA regulation and practices, a greater allocation and support on intelligence expenditure from the party in charge among many, many other initiatives...The examples cited should have happened after 1993 so long, long ago.... It's great that good people under the Clinton admin. caught the bad guys...It was a miracle considering they had a lot going against them with the mindset from the Clinton admin.,...Once agin you stumble on your words, and I hate to see that. My arguments is Clinton's reaction in the aftermath of attacks as ineffective, weak, or in the case of the Cole attack...downright non-existant...Too many successful attacks against U.S. interests = a failure mindset for 8 long years...
Were you up in arms shouting about going after Al Qaeda for 8 years? What stink did you make about it? How big of a threat did you really consider it prior to 9/11? Did you make any posts about it coming up to the 2000 election? After Bush was elected did you make any posts about it?
BTW, Sishir please excuse the rationale on this: According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Clinton and Berger told the Commission why they decided not to strike al Qaeda after the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000, which killed seventeen members of the ship’s crew and wounded at least forty. They decided to do nothing because they felt they lacked a “definitive answer” on who was responsible for the attack. The Commission Report stated that the CIA had presented their “preliminary judgment” that al Qaeda “‘supported the attack’ on the Cole, based on strong circumstantial evidence tying key perpetrators of the attack to al Qaeda.” (The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 6, p. 195). So this is "why" as stated in the report? How weak, ineffective, and non-responsive!...Why didn't the Clinton admin. realize the dangers and listen to the CIA? Why do the Democrats hate intelligence?...
And what did the Bush administration do with that same intel, and a longer period of time in which to act on it?
The problem with your argument though history didn't restart on 1/21/2001. The Bush Admin came in fully knowing that there was a threat yet did less than the Clinton Admin. for those first 8 months than the Clinton Admin. Your argument falls apart since they ignored the threat. This is the problem is that you disagree with your heart and not your head. Consider the differences in the scale of the two attacks. Only 6 people died in the first WTC, the towers stood, and most importantly the perpetrators were quickly caught. The two attacks aren't comparablenough in terms of scale and only comparable that it was an attack on the WTC. People react differently interms of scale. The first WTC was a pin prick on the US psyche 9/11 was a deep wound. How am I stumbling on my words? The proof is in the pudding. The Clinton Admin. moved quickly and caught the perpetrators that's a fact that shows that they moved quickly all you're offering is your own expost facto speculation. OTOH where's OBL, and Ayman Alzwahari? Successful attacks on US interests = a failure of mindset. There was a terrorists attack on the US embassy in Syria this morning a few on US facilities in Indonesia. Our allies have been bombed in London and Spain. Under your own standard this Admin. is failing too.
I already gave my answer to that...Clinton had 8 long years on the demonstration of failure...Bush did so in a matter of months...He got it right after 9/11...It should have been "gotten right" after 1993 or at the very minimum the postcedeing months/years...instead proposed annual intelligence cuts, weak, ineffective, or no responsiveness abounded for 8 long freaking years! Airport security certainly should have been addressed in 1998 at the minimum...VISA scrutiny and better coordination with law enforcement and intelligence should have been addressed in the Spring of 1993 at the minimum...Why?...Why?....
The attacks have not been successful to any significance...Please. Notice I said direct interests, not allies...notice I said successful...Please. Stop jerking the curtain...
The danger was intended to kill tens of thousands...Please. the danger was real...Let's focus on intelligence after the significant act of the first terro attack on U.S. soil,...the most ambitious.., yet the democrats don't give this much importance do they? cut, cut, cut... Also you asked where is OBL and the crew?...I dunno, but I do know this: Our first shot at bin Laden came in Feb. 13, 1998, when President Bill Clinton's aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama, using local Afghan tribesmen and to ferry him to the United States to stand trial. Why did they torpedo the mission? Because they worried that bin Laden might be killed! To quote the 9/11 Commission report:They worried that "the purpose . . . of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation — and probably recriminations — in the event that bin Laden, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive." The kidnapping was blocked because the Clinton people worried that it might be perceived as "an assassination." why?....nearly 3000+ families want to know...
Please stop repeating the BS about proposed intel cuts when Clinton doubled funding to fight terrorism overall, and tripeled the intel funding related to terrorism. I have posted that including exact numbers before. Again while Clinton didn't do enough he did more than any other president had done up until that point, and he faced opposition from the GOP. And he certainly did more than Bush did pre-9/11. Judging what Bush did post 9/11 and what anyone else did pre 9/11 isn't valid. It is silly to assume that other Presidents wouldn't have done as much or possibly more had 9/11 happened on their watch. It is also possible/probable they wouldn't have ignored terrorism like Bush did prior to it. Bush's post 9/11 mindset hasn't brought to justice the people responsible for 9/11. World wide terrorism has gone up. We are on worse terms with many of our would-be allies in the war, we brought an infestation of terrist activity to a nation where there was previously none. Mistakes have been made, and those that made them get promoted them while those that warned against them are driven out. Our nation's credibility has taken severe hits. Bush's post 9/11 mindset has had mixed results nothing near as effective as Clinton's post '93 mindset which thwarted numerous terrorist plots, got rid of Al Qaeda cells in more than 20 nations, and actually caught and brought to justice the people who did the attack.
This bears repeating He has beatup all the little kids that maybe friends of the guy but he has not Gotten the guy responsible and it seems at this point they ready to concede that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 Rocket River
I'm not infatuated with him. I admire the man and what he wanted to do. There is a difference. I saw him give a speech at Rice Stadium, when he said we were going to the Moon before the end of the decade. It was one of the most exciting things I ever witnessed. The man was an incredible, charismatic speaker. Is there some reason I should apologize for thinking that there was more to the man than being an incredible, charismatic speaker? Which is exactly what he was? I think he had a great many progressive ideas. He made some mistakes. Show me a President that didn't. Go ahead. LBJ took much of JFK's ideas and got them passed. He doesn't get enough credit for that, but he's always gotten credit from me. First off, please don't mention Bush in the same post as Kennedy. Give me a break. Kennedy was killed long before any of us could know exactly what he would do in Vietnam. LBJ is the President who went in, full bore, and micro-managed the whole thing into utter stupidity. And I admire Johnson for his social programs, and for passing what was largely Kennedy's agenda, but what was also something LBJ believed in himself. I think they both have gotten a raw deal... Kennedy, for Vietnam, when there is absolutely no proof that he would have done what Johnson did, and Johnson, because his actions in Vietnam so over-shadow his wonderful record with civil rights and attempting to do something for the poor and disadvantaged of this country. Keep D&D Civil.
And surprise surprise the perpetrators of that were quickly caught unlike: And those 3000+ families are probably wanting to know why the GW Bush didn't do anything for 8 months either. Unlike you though I'm not looking to blame any admin.. You somehow seem to believe that the Clinton Admin. had somesort of foreknowledge about 9/11 and choose not to act on it. If that is the case then why didn't the Bush Admin. either since they had the same intelligence and even many of the same staff did? The point is that both Admin's, Congress and pretty much everyone else underestimated the threat. Let me ask you in 1993 did you believe that 9/11 would happen and were you demanding for much stricter security measures? In other words did you have a post 9/11 mindset in 1993?
That's true we don't know for sure he could've pulled out or he could've ordered Hanoi nuked in 1966. What we do know as a fact is: October 24, 1961 - On the sixth anniversary of the Republic of South Vietnam, President Kennedy sends a letter to President Diem and pledges "the United States is determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence..." President Kennedy then sends additional military advisors along with American helicopter units to transport and direct South Vietnamese troops in battle, thus involving Americans in combat operations. Kennedy justifies the expanding U.S. military role as a means "...to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam which is in accordance with a policy our government has followed since 1954." The number of military advisors sent by Kennedy will eventually surpass 16,000. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html True its speculation that JFk wouldn't have pulled out of Vietnam but considering he sent in more than 16,000 troops indicates he was committed to going to Vietnam.
