I wonder how many times American Presidents sent the same kind of message to a despot during the Cold War. That proves absolutely nothing, and proves nothing regarding an intent by JFK to begin putting hundreds of thousands of American troops into Vietnam, ala LBJ. Considering that the only comparable act by an American President after WWII, up until that time, was Truman and Korea, your argument has holes you could fly the Hindenburg through. That Kennedy was secretly planning to withdraw 1,000 troops days before that message doesn't give your argument any basis, either. Sishir, I think you have an infatuation with bashing, to use the parlance of our times, Jack Kennedy. Keep D&D Civil.
As I pointed out earlier though that doesn't imply he would completely withdraw either and there is no evidence at the time of his death that order was even being implemented. Possibly so. I wouldn't enjoy D & D so much if I didn't like bashing to a certain extent.
Wrong again...wrong, wrong. Clinton's blame is not reacting the way I mentioned previously in a manner which made sense with the info. available...In 1993, the dangers were apparent enough of the most ambitious attack ever that I would have done something more in line with what we have now from Bush: greater collaboration between intelligence and law encorcement, dept. of homeland security, VISA enhanced scutiny and regulation, NOT having half the House voting with severe cuts in the intelligence budget every year after 1993....C'mon. Stop jerking the curtain man! It's not so much the attacks, it's what Clinton didn't do after the dangers and the attacks as they should have for 8 long years... You slap the backs of far-lefters within your side for introducing severe budget cuts...every year after 1993, when intelligence was to be stressed the most! What the heck! I'm mad about this ffffffffreaking mindset. It's not acceptable!
My comment was a reference to the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" It was meant to point out the weakness of the argument that the Clinton Admin. deserves most of the blame for 9/11.
I don't think I've slapped the backs of anyone. I stated that both the Clinton and GW Bush Admins probably could've done muct more to address terrorism. The difference between my view and yours is that I recognize that 9/11 happened during the GW Bush Admin. and it would be a mistake to place most of the blame on the Clinton Admin. when the Bush Admin. also dropped the ball, especially when they had the same intel and even many of the same personel as the Clinton Admin.. The other key difference in our view points is that I don't really blame either Admin.. You seem to be more interested in looking for someone to blame. If you are I would suggest in the interest of fairness you consider what the Admin. that 9/11 occurred under was doing to prevent 9/11 also.
...and I already cited my discredit towards Bush on this...The differance is the length of continued events against Clinton. That is why I feel he deserves a lot of the responsibility...It is what he didn't do after 1993 and 1998 that condemns him...I already cited what should have been done by a President with the right mindset.
At that time I didn't think that anything like 9/11 was a possibility. Clinton didn't have the brief saying that Bin Laden was determined to strike inside the U.S. He couldn't have forseen 9/11. I seriously doubt at the time that you were calling for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you weren't in the business of protecting America, but the realization and the proper reaction should have been addresses by those that ARE in the business of protecting America...Intelligence cuts should not have been voted for by hald the democratic house every year after 1993...It made no sense...Clinton NOT addressing better communication as we have now with DHS, and VISA scrutiny as we have now made no sense, no sense after 1993. In addition the threat of attack from planes was made clear in 1998...Ineffective response, failure mindset as exemplary... On December 4, 1998, he received a Presidential Briefing that said, "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and Other Attacks." It added that "two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport." Let me ask others, is this the example of security you want from the Democrats?....Yikes!
Clinton actually did schedule training and preparation and tests involving hijacked aircraft. So he was right about that. Again you talk about the intel cuts. What are you referring to? Clinton doubled overall spending to combat terrorism, and tripeled the intel funding to cut terrorism. Let's look at Bush's terrorism intel funding. I know one of the "intel" was for an airforce satellite program that never launched and was failure. There was a vote to not fund an ambandoned program any more. That is smart spending and does not hampe our efforts to fight terrorism in the slightest. But some people will try use it against politicians anyway. Again looking at terrorism intel spending - Clinton tripiled it. So to talk about reductions just isn't realistic.
You do realize that Republicans held the house after 1994. Yet you continue to give Republicans a pass when both parties share the blame. At the same time you still haven't answered the question whether in 1993 you had a post 9/11 mindset? The first WTC attack wasn't anywhere near the scope of 9/11 and the fact that the perpetators were caught within about a month eased the worries of the American psyche. In hindsight should the government have done more yes but this is like blaming the Nixon Admin. for Katrina since they didn't develop a post Katrina mindset when Camille devestated the Gulf Coast in 1969.
