Excellent point. Batman not only misquotes me and lies about Bush's past, but his hypocrisy is on full display.
But the US under Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a substanial difference between Clinton's limited preemptive military strikes and Bush's proposed conquest of Iraq. Are you still holding out hope for Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions?
True. All liberal voices were drowned out by the moronic screaming about irrelevant real estate investments in Arkansas, and, later, similar screaming about the presidential pecker. It was a very frustrating time for people interested in genuinely important issues and the real policy mistakes that were being made.
they fired cruise missiles...civilians died. read clinton's statements i put in bold above. tell me he isn't using the same rationale. the clinton administration was talking about regime change, too. you can't lay all of this at the feet of bush like he's a maniac cowboy. it's simply not the truth. b-bob-- come on! you can do better than that!
Yeah, B-Bob is correct. Whoever asked Clinton to tell the truth to a jury of his peers in Arkansas (in relation to civil rights violations) should have just shut the hell up. Presidents don't have time to tell the truth- we elected a President, not a Pope for God's sake!! (apologies to Barbara Streisand). oops, I take that all back! Please let's not have a Bill Clinton debate.
Preemptive? Ridiculous. We are already at war. Are We at War Yet? By Kevin Generous It is often assumed that the absence of a shooting war is something called "peace." In the abstract, "peace" exists before the shooting starts. When you send in the troops, and engage in combat, you are at war. Yet in reality, the absence of actual combat does not equal "peace." This reality is no more obvious than America's current raging domestic debate over "going to war" against Iraq. Here is a multiple-choice question: What event will future historians credit with initiating America's war against global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The sporadic, but linked, terrorist attacks on America and its citizens preceding Sept. 11th 2001; The September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks themselves; After America deployed combat forces to the Persian Gulf and called up 250,000 military reservists; When mobile air defense units began regular patrols of our nation's capital city; After the 18th UN Security Council resolution calling for complete Iraqi disarmament, or else. Take your pick. But recent historical events clearly indicate that we are already at war, and likely have been since before September 11th, 2001, even though most us didn't realize it. Some Americans are in a state of denial about this fact. Let me repeat: We are already at war. At least since September 11th America has been in an actual state of war against Islamic terrorists and its state sponsors. This includes the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is in our national interest to pursue this war as aggressively as possible. Our objective should be denying both terrorists and rogue regimes the means to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and use them against us. A careful reading of George W. Bush's post-September 11th speeches indicated that any decision to engage in military action in Iraq must be viewed as part of a broad war against terrorism and irresponsible parties seeking to acquire WMD. He draws no distinction between Osama Bin Laden, Saddam or other rogue regimes - as ample evidence exists that all are variously engaged in the support, funding, or execution of terrorist activities as well as pursuit and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The purpose of these weapons may vary, but includes intimidation of, or use against, those who present obstacles to their ambitions (i.e. us); or, most chilling, possible transfer to non-state terrorist groups with few inhibitions about actually using them (against us). Thus any future military operation against Iraq is merely another battle in an ongoing war against terrorism. Other rogue states and terrorist groups are watching these developments closely. Director George Tenet of the Central Intelligence Agency recently warned that various states are now racing to develop nukes. "More has changed on proliferation over the past year than on any other issue," he said. Over the past 12 months North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya have all moved to obtain equipment to produce weapons-grade nuclear materials and the means to deliver them as nuclear bombs, Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee Feb. 11. Why are they racing? Possession of nuclear weapons puts these nations into a different class of threats. Because of the West's kid glove treatment of North Korea over the last decade, these states know that the United States and the world will treat them with far greater deference once they possess the means to develop and deliver nuclear weapons. This helps explain the willingness of North Korea - already possessing at least two nuclear weapons and long-range missiles - to sell its weapons to anybody, flaunting international non-proliferation efforts. Do we really want to wait for Saddam to have this nuclear and missile capability as well? This represents a "clear and present danger" we cannot ignore. American leadership through action is required before this dangerous capability has further matured. To date, recognizing that we are at war and are under attack, President Bush has taken prudent steps short of sending in the troops. But these steps are not "either-or." In wartime, good leaders never restrict themselves to a single weapon or method. Measures must also include offensive preparations, and if necessary, offensive operations. This is a war we did not seek, but we cannot deny exists. Have peace activists noticed that American and British planes have been nearly continuously engaged in the skies over Iraq? The fact that a decade after the Gulf War, Saddam's gunners are still shooting at our planes and resisting United Nations' efforts to disarm, as they agreed to do, should tell us something. Saddam himself is firmly on the record about this state of war. In nearly all his speeches he denies that Gulf War hostilities ever ended; for example in a Jan. 17, 2002, speech, he stated, "Allah has decreed that the Mother of All Battles continue to this day." He is not just "talking the talk." All indications are that he sincerely believes this. Since the tenuous ceasefire at the end of the 1992 Gulf War, he has "walked the walk." Provocative Iraqi actions include regularly firing on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones, a failed assassination attempt on a U.S. ex-president, actively resisting 17 U.N. disarmament resolutions, and the intimidation and humiliation of U.N. inspectors trying to enforce those resolutions. His intentions cannot be clearer. He continues to build and develop WMD in secret; he will not give up his weapons of mass destruction without a fight. Moreover, he has continued, within his existing means, to carry that fight to the United States. There is considerable, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Saddam has supported various groups engaged in terrorist operations against the United States and Western countries since the Gulf War. This includes providing instruction in document forgery and bomb making to al-Qaeda, as well as other shadowy contacts between international terrorists living both in Iraq and in Western countries. There are also indications that Saddam's agents provided support to those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Efforts to apply Western standards of criminal evidence to provide concrete proof - "a smoking gun" - are wrong-headed; indeed Saddam's purpose of using cut outs and surrogates to do his dirty work is to disguise what are actually wartime covert operations against the United States. As we have amply seen, obfuscation is something at which Saddam is very good. Yet the piling up of circumstantial evidence and the provocative pattern of violence is hard to ignore - especially given that we have already been directly attacked. As we have seen, the lack of a strong U.S. response to terrorist acts prior to 9/11 only encouraged bolder and more elaborate operations. To those who would argue that we should not "rush into war" we should ask: "Do we wait until the smoking gun becomes a smoking crater?" Or as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has stated, "A gun only smokes after it has been fired. When you see the gun smoking, it's already too late." But we already know that the "guns" exist, are being loaded and are pointed at us. Our conduct of World War II didn't begin with an extended national debate over smoking guns, material breeches or, as the French recently put it, "reasons for war." The attack on Pearl Harbor was itself the reason for war, forcing us to wake up to the global dangers swirling around us. We sucked up our collective guts, rallied round the flag and president, and got to work winning the war. In the aftermath of December 7th, we didn't immediately launch any major military operations. But we did take measures to secure the homeland, fight defensive rearguard actions, and build coalitions and position forces for offensive actions around the globe. When ready, we sent in the troops. This was the serious pursuit of war. Today, George W. Bush well understands - condescending lectures from the French and Germans notwithstanding - that war is a serious business. Warfare can take many forms: it can include aggressive intelligence operations, defensive actions to protect the homeland, limited operations to keep the enemy off balance (as in Afghanistan), coalition building, and diplomatic activities at the United Nations. All these activities have characterized U.S. actions since 9/11. But don't be distracted by wrangling over U.N. resolutions, NATO squabbles, or suggested self-defense measures to "duck (tape) and cover." Anti-war activists and "allies" - heads burrowed firmly in the sand - chanting "give peace a chance" does not make our current situation anything like "peace." We are already at war. Kevin Generous is the president of the non-profit S.A.F.E. (Safeguarding America For Everyone) Foundation and the author of Vietnam: The Secret War. A more interesting question would be: Will it be preemptive action when we take out the Yongbyon nuclear reactor (and possibly Kim's regime), since that particular war never officially ended? Or, will it be preemptive when we destroy Hizbollah and topple the mullahs, since they declared war on us 24 years ago? Debating whether or not action against Iraq would be 'preemptive' is sophomoric. We have been engaged in a low-key battke with Saddam for 12 years; w3e are simply going to end it now. Anyone who believes otherwise is either delusional or in utter denial of historical and factual reality..
Max: I don't remember too much outcry about Clinton's action back then either, but there was some. And it also wasn't a full scale invasion with the intent of regime change. At any rate the only reason you didn't hear outcry from me is that you didn't know me then and I wasn't posting in this forum. On Byrd's credibility: Look. Even though I actually do believe people can and should change and even though I would like to afford the possibility of redemption, I would not vote for him. I wouldn't vote for any candidate with a clearly racist past, which would include more than one sitting Republican senator. But that is not grounds for the stupid, easy dismissal you and heath employ regarding this speech. It's too easy. And I half knew this is what would happen in response to this speech, as it always does on this BBS. Instead of arguing the real, tough problems outlined in the speech, dismiss him and everything he says there because of his past. Instead of dealing with the REAL PROBLEM of how America (and even more, this administration) is viewed in certain parts of the world -- you know, that problem which spawned Bin Laden and will spawn more like him whether we kill him and Saddam or not -- spend two pages arguing semantics re: the surplus. I'd like to punch Robert Byrd in the face. Doesn't change the fact that he's stating hard truths, and those truths are going ignored by both parties in Congress, by the administration and by most everyone on this board. Iraq is a problem. So is North Korea. So is Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iraq and a lot of other countries and unaligned terrorists. But even if we deal with all those problems through the use of force, we will continue to ignore the real problem, which is that, right or wrong, we are viewed as imperialist pigs in certain parts of the world. As Byrd rightly stated, the Bush admin is making this particular (enormous) problem worse, not better, with his cowboy rhetoric. It'd be great if we were debating that topic, the central theme of the speech, rather than whether or not a former KKK member should be allowed to make a speech or whether or not the surplus was real. This surplus stuff should really be in its own thread so we could talk about the bigger fake economic boom of the 80s. johnheath: You're a twerp. I neither misquoted you nor lied about Bush's past. Nice deflection, though. I see that's your favorite tactic. It will take you far on this BBS. People here love to deflect from the real issue finding something, anything to complain about rather than actually dealing with the tough issues.
Fair point, Batman...I'll just say his opinion means less to me than it does to you. I wouldn't even take financial advice from an ex-KKK member, because I'd be sitting there thinking, "this guy's a freaking nutjob...he was out burning crosses? riding around in white sheets?? idiot." zero credibility
Yes, like engaging in character assassination of the Prez - instead of discussing the actual war... It certainly will take you far.
I never said Byrd had no credibility on all issues because of his Klan past. You made that up. You said that Bush was a cokehead, which is a lie. The American Press searched for 6 months in an attempt to prove Bush used cocaine, and they found nothing. In another thread, you claimed that the Republican Party embraced the most racist elements of our society. You are the extreme personality here, not me. When I make a mistake, I admit it. You should do the same.
I don't think the "discussion" thus far deserves any better, and that was my main point. Sorry. Thanks (seriously) for the vote of confidence though, whether I deserve it or not. Nice post, Batman. I'm guilty at times of this sidestepping you describe; it is an incredibly weak tactic. But who to blame? All successful politicians master it. Americans are bombarded by this tactic flickering from the talking heads on TV, and we are bombarded by a style of argumentation that values sonic volume over content. I wish I knew how to change that.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/crs98091.htm 98-733F Updated September 1, 1998 CRS Report for Congress Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress Terrorism: U. S. Response to Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania: A New Policy Direction? Raphael F Perl Specialist in International Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Summary On August 20,1998 the United States launched retaliatory and preemptive missile strikes against training bases and infrastructure in Afghanistan used by groups affiliated with radical extremist and terrorist financier Usama bin Laden. A "pharmaceutical" plant in Sudan, making a critical nerve gas component, was destroyed as well. This is the first time the U.S. has unreservedly acknowledged a preemptive military strike against a terrorist organization or network. This has led to speculation that faced with a growing number of major attacks on U.S. persons and property and mounting casualties, U.S. policymakers may be setting a new direction in counter-terrorism- a more proactive and global policy, less constrained when targeting terrorists, their bases, or infrastructure. Questions raised include: What is the nature and extent of any actual policy shift; what are its pros and cons; and what other policy options exist? Issues of special concern to Congress include: (1) U.S, domestic and overseas preparedness for terrorist attacks and retaliatory strikes; (2) the need for consultation with Congress over policy shifts which might result in an undeclared type of war; and (3) sustaining public and Congressional support for a long term policy which may prove costly in: (a) dollars; (b) initial up-front loss of human lives, and (c) potential restrictions on civil liberties. Whether to change the 1 presidential ban on assassinations and whether to place Afghanistan on the "terrorism" list warrants attention as well. This short report is intended for Members and staffers who cover terrorism, as well as U.S. foreign and defense policy. It will be updated as events warrant. For more information, see CRS Issue Brief 95112, Terrorism, the Future and U S. Foreign Policy and CRS Report 98-722F, Terrorism: Middle East Groups and State Sponsors. Background On August 7, 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. At least 252 people died (including 12 U.S. citizens) and more than 5,000 were injured. Secretary of State Albright pledged to "use all means at our disposal to track down and punish" those responsible. On August 20,1998, the United States launched missile strikes against training bases in Afghanistan used by groups affiliated with radical extremist and terrorist financier Usama bin Laden. U.S. officials have said there is convincing evidence he was a major player in the bombings. A pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, identified by U.S. intelligence as a precursor chemical weapons facility with connections to bin Laden, was hit as well. The United States has bombed terrorist targets in the past in retaliation for anti-U . S. operations (Libya, in 1986 following the Berlin Disco bombing and Iraq in 1993 as a response to a plot to assassinate former President Bush) and an increasingly proactive law enforcement policy has resulted in bringing roughly 10 suspected terrorists to the U.S. for trial since 1993. However, this is the first time the U. S. has given such primary and public prominence to the preemptive, not just retaliatory, nature and motive of a military strike against a terrorist organization or network. This may be signaling a more proactive and global counter-terrorism policy, less constrained when targeting terrorists, their bases, or infrastructure. 1 The same day as the missile strike, the President signed an executive order E.O. 13099, [63 Fed. Reg. 45167] which would freeze any assets owned by bin Laden, specific associates, their self-proclaimed Islamic Army Organization, and prohibiting U.S. individuals and firms from doing business with them. Bin Laden's network of affiliated organizations pledged retaliation; the State Department issued an overseas travel advisory warning for U.S. citizens, and security has been heightened, particularly at embassies, airports and domestic federal installations and facilities. On August 25, 1998 it was reported a federal grand jury in New York had indicted bin Laden in June 1998 in connection with terrorist acts committed in the U.S. prior to the embassy bombings. A "retaliatory" bombing at a South African Planet Hollywood restaurant in Capetown on August 25, 1998 killed one and wounded 24 persons. For information on the role of Sudan and Afghanistan in support of International terrorism: See CRS Issue Brief 95112, Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy by Raphael Perl, See also: Terrorism: Middle Eastern Groups and State Sponsors. by Kenneth Katzman, CRS Report No. 98-722 F Is There a Policy Shift and What Are Its Key Elements? The proactive nature of the U.S. response, if official Administration statements are to be taken at face value, can readily be interpreted to signal a new direction in antiterrorism policy. A series of press conferences, TV interviews and written explanations given by Administration officials reveal what appears that goes well beyond what could characterized as to be a carefully orchestrated theme one-time, isolated-show-of- strength -statements. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, in words similar to those of National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, characterized the response as "the long term, fundamental way in which the United States intends to combat the forces of terror" and noted that "we will not simply play passive defense." Secretary of State Albright stressed in TV interviews that: "We are involved in a long- term struggle.... This is unfortunately the war of the future.. " and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stressed in public media appearances that "You can't fight this enemy simply in defense. You also have to be prepared to go on the offense". In what some see as a warning to other terrorist groups who may seek weapons of mass destruction, President Clinton in his August 20' statement from Martha's Vineyard, gave as one of four reasons for ordering the attacks :" because they are seeking to develop chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons". 2 See for example: The Policy: We are Ready to Act Again, editorial by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, Washington Post, August 23, 1998, p. C- I and U.S. Hints at More Strikes at bin-Laden by Eugene Robinson and Dana Priest, Washington Post, p. A- I August 22, 1998. An excellent series of excerpts from press conferences and TV interviews by Administration officials which could be used to support the premise of a policy shift are found in the PBS television series Jim Lehrer Newshour report of August 25, 1998. See also: New Rules in a New Kind of War, by Peter Grier and Jonathan S. Landay, Christian Science Monitor, August 24, 1998, P. 1. Statements aside, the fact remains that this is the first time the U.S. has: (1) launched and acknowledged a preemptive strike against a terrorist organization or network, (2) launched such a strike within the territory of a state which presumably is not conclusively, actively and directly to blame for the action triggering retaliation, (3) launched military strikes at multiple terrorist targets within the territory of more than one foreign nation, and (4) attacked a target where the avowed goal was not to attack a single individual terrorist, but an organizational infrastructure instead. Moreover, in the case of the facility in Sudan, the target was characterized as one that poses a longer term danger rather than an immediate threat. Inherent in Administration statements and actions are allusions to a terrorism policy which, in response to immediate casualties and a global vision of higher levels of casualties is: (1) more global, less defensive, and more proactive; (2) more national security oriented and less traditional law enforcement oriented, (3) more likely to use military force and other proactive measures, (4) less likely to be constrained by national boundaries when sanctuary is offered terrorists or their infrastructure in instances where vital national security interests are at stake, and (5) generally more unilateral when other measures fail, particularly if other nations do not make an effort to subscribe to like-minded policies up front. A policy with such elements can be characterized as one shifting from a long term diplomatic, economic and law enforcement approach to one which more frequently relies on employment of military force and covert operations. Implied in such a policy shift is the belief that though terrorism increasingly poses a threat to all nations, all nations may not sign up with equal commitment in the battle against it and bear the full financial and retaliatory costs of engagement. In such an environment, the aggrieved nations with the most at stake must lead the battle and may need to take the strongest measures alone. What Are the Pros and Cons of Such a Shift? Arguments in favor of a proactive deterrent policy. Such a policy: (1) shows strength and world leadership--i.e., other nations are less inclined to support leaders that look weak and act ineffectively; (2) provides disincentives for other would be terrorists-, (3) is more cost- effective by thwarting enemy actions rather than trying to harden all potential targets, waiting for the enemy to strike, and suffering damage; (4) may truly damage or disrupt the enemy--dry up his safehavens--sources of funds and weapons and limit his ability to operate, and (5) provides governments unhappy with the U. S. response an incentive to pursue bilateral and multilateral diplomatic and law enforcement remedies to remain active players. Arguments against a proactive military covert operations oriented deterrent terrorism policy: Such a policy: (1) undermines the rule of law, violating the sovereignty of nations with whom we are not at war ; (2) could increase, rather than decrease, incidents of terrorism at least in the short run; (3) leaves allies and other nations feeling left out, or endangered--damaging future prospects for international cooperation; (4) may be characterized as anti-Islamic, and (5) may radicalize some elements of populations and aid terrorist recruitment; and (6) may result in regrettable and embarrassing consequences of mistaken targeting or loss of innocent life. What Other Policy Options Exist? The U.S. government has employed a wide array of policy tools to combat international terrorism, from diplomacy, international cooperation and constructive engagement to economic sanctions, covert action, protective security measures and military force. Implementation of policy is often situation-driven and a military response is more likely in close time proximity to a terrorist attack when public world outrage is high and credible accountability can quickly be established. When combating non-state sponsors of terrorism like bin Laden's networks, direct economic or political pressure on sanctuary states and indirect pressure through neighboring states may be an effective policy tool in restricting activities and sanctuary locations as well creating a favorable climate for legal approaches such as criminal prosecution and extradition which is gaining prominence as an active tool in bring terrorists to trial. Working with other victim states through the U.N. and the Organization of African Unity are options which would build on the March 1996 Sharm al-Sheikh peacemaker/terrorism summit. Enhanced intelligence targeting of non-state "amorphous" groups and intelligence coordination and sharing among agencies, governments, and with the private security community is critical, but mechanisms to achieve such intelligence objectives must be in place. All agree that more effective human intelligence sources must be developed. In this regard, other nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kenya may be more effective in penetrating terrorist groups than the U.S. Another option is not to over personalize conflicts against terrorist organizations and networks. Publicly focusing on individuals like bin Laden (instead of on their networks or organizations) too often glamorizes such persons--drawing funding and recruits to their cause and misses the purpose of countermeasures --e.g. disabling terrorist capabilities. Enhanced unilateral use of covert operations3(see Covert Action: An Effective Use of U.S. Foreign Policy? CRS No. 96-844F) though not without downsides, holds promise as an effective long-term policy alternative to high profile use of military force. A seeming industrial explosion at a factory believed to be producing nerve gas chemicals draws less formal criticism and political posturing by other nations than an openly announced missile attack. The dangers here are that the United States is not especially competent at secret- keeping and that counter-terror can be misequated to terrorism. Effective use of covert policy alternatives requires institutionalization of covert action capability tapping into the best that each agency has to offer. In a world where state sponsorship for terrorism is drying up, private funding becomes critical to the terrorist enterprise. Terrorist front businesses and banking accounts could increasingly become the target of creative covert operations. To support such efforts and effective law enforcement oriented approaches to curbing money flows, assisting personnel in other countries in tracing and stopping money flows to terrorists, their organizations and front companies may warrant consideration. So-called "grey" area or "black" area information operations which bring to light vulnerabilities in the personalities of key terrorist leaders (i.e corruption, deviant sexual behavior, drug use), promote paranoia, and interorganizational rivalries, warrant increased attention as well. One can assassinate a person physically only once; but "character assassination" in the media can be done daily.4 See: Terrorism, the Media, and the Government: Perspectives Trends, and Options for Policymakers, by Raphael Perl, CRS rep ort No. 97-960F.) U.S. terrorism policy lacks a multifaceted information offensive aspect which is not merely reactive in nature. Issues for Congress Issues of special concern to Congress include: (1) U.S. domestic and overseas preparedness for terrorist attacks and retaliatory strikes, (2) the need for consultation with Congress over policy shifts which might result in an undeclared type of war, and (3) sustaining public support for a long-term policy which may prove costly in: (a) dollars; (b) initial clearly seen loss of human lives, as well as (c) potential restrictions on civil liberties. Whether the Presidential ban on assassinations should be changed and whether Afghanistan should be placed on the "terrorism" list warrants consideration as well.5 5 A key question here is whether Afghanistan should be on the terrorism list 'in light of the Taliban's enhanced consolidation of control over the country and its harboring of bin-Laden and associated terrorist groups, facilities, and individuals. Given the "wild west" nature of Afghanistan today, is it fair to hold Afghanistan liable as a viable country for state action? Also, would such action legitimize the Taliban government which so far only 3 nations have recognized? Many suggest that diplomatic initiatives and the threat of sanctions and further military retaliation against the Taliban's harboring known terrorists and supporting or countenancing terrorist training activity on their soil, will continue to prove to no avail. Should such assertions bear out, then a strong argument can be made that the Administration, pursuant to Section 6 0) of the 1979 Export Administration Act (P.L. 96-72) must place Afghanistan on the Department of State's list of countries supporting terrorism list. Imposed would be restrictions of foreign aid, and severe export controls on dual use and military items. See also CRS Report 98-722F, previously cited... An important issue brought to the forefront in the wake of the U. S. military response to the August 7, 1998 embassy bombings is that of US. preparedness for domestic and overseas terrorist and retaliatory attacks. There is no absolute preparedness; a determined terrorist can always find a soft target somewhere. Thus, advance intelligence is perhaps the most critical element of preparedness. Good working relationships with foreign intelligence services are important here. Other key elements of preparedness include: (I)the ability through law enforcement channels and covert means to actively thwart terrorist actions before they occur, (2) high profile physical security enhancement measures; (3) and the ability to limit loss of life and mass hysteria, confusion and panic in the face or wake of terrorist attacks. Particularly in situations involving weapons of mass destruction, effective mechanisms to minimize panic and ensure coordinated dissemination of critical life saving information is important, as is planning on practical matters such as how to dispose of bodies. Essential is the ability to maintain and promptly dispatch emergency teams to multiple disaster sites. A central issue of concern is Administration consultation with Congress over policy shifts which may result in an undeclared war. To paraphrase a familiar congressional adage: We need to be there for the takeoffs if you expect us to support you on the crash landings. It can be argued that given the need for secrecy and surprise, and given the fact that the Administration's timing of the military response was dependent to large degree on the configuration of events and the activities of terrorist operatives on the ground, the Administration made reasonable efforts to inform Congress in advance of the August action to be taken as well as the targets and rationale of the pending missile-strike-response.6 6 According to press reports, National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger briefed Mr. Lott and Mr. Gingrich on August 19, 1998 and Mr. Gephardt's office was briefed that day. Mr. Daschle, unavailable at the time, was briefed the following day. See: Clinton gets Hill's near- solid bipartisan support for strike, by John Godftey, Washington Times, August 21,1998, p. A13. Also, G1/2 hour before the attacks, phone calls were placed to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House National Security and Senate Armed Services Committees. The day after the U.S. counterstrike (August 2 1), Secretaries Cohen, Albright, CIA Director Tenet, and Chairman of the Joint Chief s Henry H. Shelton met with Senators and available House Members to discuss the planning and rationale of the bombings. House-focused follow up briefings are planned. Notwithstanding Administration efforts to brief Congress on the attack, has the Administration been remiss in its failure to consult with and brief Congress on any new policy or major change in policy emphasis or direction? Questions for Congressional inquiry might include: What is the policy; how exactly is it different; how does it fit in with other policy options; what consequences are foreseeable; how is it to be implemented; how is effectiveness to be measured; how is it to be coordinated; what funding, organizational mechanisms or legislative authority are required to implement it effectively, and how is international support for, and cooperation in, this strategy to be pursued? In justifying the U.S. missile response under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter (self defense), the Clinton Administration has invoked 22 USC 22377 note (otherwise known as) Section 324(4) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 Pa. 1041321 which provides: "The Congress finds that.... The President should use all necessary means, including covert action and military force, to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy international infrastructure used by international terrorists, including overseas terrorist training facilities and safehavens". Does 22 USC 2377, as passed by Congress in 1996, amount to the counter-terrorism analogue to the Vietnam era Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Some analysts suggest that such authority is too broad and open-ended and may pave the way for a quagmire of unconventional violent exchanges, and consequently amendment of the statute may be warranted. Others, however, feel that such broad authority is essential to allow a president maximum flexibility to counter mounting terrorist threats and stress that potential for abuse can be checked through active congressional oversight and reporting to Congress. Another issue involving presidential authority is how the presidential ban on assassinations (E.O. 12233) fits into any policy shift and if it should be modified or rescinded. A more proactive terrorism policy may prove costly in dollars [even in relatively quiet times] as well as in potential restrictions on civil liberties. Unresolved questions include: (1) what is the potential dollar cost; and is the public prepared to accept the loss of lives and other consequences of such a "war of the future?" In this regard, should there be a more active federal role in public education? An informed, involved, and engaged public is critical to sustain an active anti-terrorism response. The American public will be more likely to accept casualties if they understand why they will be sustained and that sometimes it is cheaper to pay the cost up front. [End] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to Terrorism - USIA
I didn't cite 1991. He did. Clinton was offered bin Laden a couple of times, I believe, and chose not to take him. Anytime beofre 9/11 would have been pre-emptive; we'd have a few thousand more citizens still alive and an economy that hadn't taken such a blow. If we fight this war by the old rules, we'lll lose it just as surely as Great Britain lost the Revolutionary War.
No, you said Byrd lost all credibility when he attacked a very popular president in a difficult time or something like that, which is equally stupid. For the millionth time it is PATRIOTIC to question your government when you disagree with their actions and it is the job Byrd was elected to do. So you didn't blatantly tie his KKK past to his credibility. You just blatantly inferred it when you called him "former KKK member" in the same sentence where you dismissed him for, again, equally stupid reasons. It was Max who dismissed him outright based on his past. You just suggested it and were the first one to bring that stuff into the thread as a deflective tactic. The fact that the AP didn't find hard evidence of Bush's coke use doesn't make it a lie. There are a lot of coke users in this country -- I'd venture it's the vast majority -- that didn't leave a paper trail. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Which is why it took a hell of a lot more than 6 months to find evidence that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. I could have come on here in 94 or whatever and said "Bill Clinton never cheated on his wife. That is a lie. The Associated Press looked for evidence for two years and never found it." It doesn't make it a lie. It's a pretty well accepted fact that Bush used cocaine on several occasions. Certain people who say they were there have alleged it and Bush has refused to answer the question. I don't think he should be obliged to answer it (just like I don't think Clinton should have been questioned about pot or infidelity), but most serious people believe he certainly did use illegal drugs and he definitely drove drunk. Saying it's a "lie" because the AP hasn't found hard proof is just dumb. I said that the Republican party sometimes embraced the most racist elements of their base, yes. That's why certain candidates have argued in favor of the Confederate flag or spoken at Bob Jones U even when they felt in their hearts it was wrong to do so. McCain said he made a mistake when he did that and that he was ashamed that politics made him do it. Lee Atwater expressed similar regrets re: the racebaiting of the Horton ad in 88. There are other examples as well, but these are the easiest. If you knew me at all you'd know that calling me extreme does not bother me at all. If it bothers you, that's your problem. Anyone who broadly supports the extreme Bush admin is an extremist. If you want to say I'm further left than you are right, I really don't care. I think it's pretty well known around these parts that I DO admit my mistakes. I haven't made any in this thread, with the possible exception of feeding the trolls.
.... or something like that. Wow. You don't want to address the real issue, do you? You misquoted me, and you can't defend yourself, so you go into another rant. "It's pretty well an accepted fact"? What does that mean? Are you saying because you and your circle of friends think Bush probably was a coke head, that is confirmation of your slanderous claim? Not ONE person is on record with a first hand account of Bush using cocaine. I guess if you tell a lie over and over, some people will believe it to be fact. ...sometimes embraced. This is shameless. Nice job of adding the "sometimes" to your newly revised statement. "Sometimes" sure changes the mean of a sentence, don't it now? Hmmmmmmm, I disagreed with your position, and you resorted to name calling. I ask you and anybody reading this post- who is acting like a "troll" here?
Batman, Stop feeding the troll!!!! Yeah sure it was fun to see the troll wrestle with logic the first few times, but now it is just getting pathetic. I am hoping if we stop feeding him he will just go away.
Yes, "or something like that." Forgive my egregious boo boo not going back and getting your exact quote. It was nearly exact if not exactly exact. That is what you said. You said SOMETHING LIKE (you go back and quote yourself if you want -- won't help you a bit) 'former KKK member Byrd loses all cred when he bashes a very popular prez at a time of blah, blah, blah.' I responded by criticizing you for deflecting with the KKK card. LATER, after Max said former KKK members have no cred on anything, I lumped you in with him as you were the one who brought the whole thing up. Now you can accuse me of being too scaredycat to argue semantics if you want, but don't say I'm dodging the issue. I started by calling you out on your stupid deflection tactic. When you tried to catch me in some kind of misquoting game, I followed up by calling you out on your woeful misunderstanding of patriotism. It's really very simple but I don't expect you to get it. As for my "shameless adding" of the word "sometimes," you are a loser. My exact quote was "sometimes even most racist." I didn't add anything to it. Don't you have anything better to do? As for the coke thing, no one and I mean no one has said this was a "lie" but you. Bush hasn't said it was a lie, Hughes didn't say it, Rove didn't say it, Cheney didn't say it, Barbour didn't say it. It is no more a "lie" than it is a fact. It's actually neither, but most people believe it to be true because when asked about illegal drugs, Bush's answer has been that he was guilty of youthful indiscretions. You can easily infer by that that he used illegal drugs. Most people think cocaine was likely the drug he was referring to, but if you want to think it was heroin be my guest. By the way, OJ Simpson was acquitted. If you think he probably killed Nicole you're a LIAR. My original beef with you wasn't that you disagreed with "my" position. It was that you derailed the thread by deflection. You didn't even "disagree" with Byrd's position. You just hammered away at the semantics of the surplus and reminded us all he was ex-KKK. Nice job. You successfully derailed what could have been a great debate. That's what trolls do best. Incidentally, I am perfectly capable of having a good (if heated) debate on the issues. Ask Refman, MadMax, Trader_Jorge or (and I'm going out on a limb here) giddyup. All very conservative posters whom I respect even though I almost always disagree with them. I know you're new here, but I've yet to see you engage in a respectful debate on the issues with anyone. And you've also been called a troll by others before I called you one. Your insinuation that I am a troll is the first time anyone's said that of me on this board. Some people on this board might disagree with me, some might not like the way I argue and some might just not like me, but I've earned a little bit of respect on this board. You've got a long way to go to do the same. Best of luck on that and get well soon. p.s. To No Worries: my apologies. That's the last troll feeding I'll be doing for a while. Tried to let that last post stand, but just couldn't do it. Happens to the best of us.
I love it when people chime in with the phrase "I haven't read this entire thread", so now I shall do the same thing. I haven't read this entire thread. In fact, I clicked on the 'last page' alink b/c the well respected Batman Jones has posted in here. Upon reading your last two posts Batman, I have to wonder if you aren't being a little hard on the beave. Also... it's true that logic teaches us that it is fallacious to throw in ad hominem attacks. However, in the world of chimpanzee politics, how often do logical arguments occur? When was the last time any of us rose to the occassion of formulating a well thought out, rational argument? And in the world of chimpanzee politics, appearances and character play a large role in what happens. Al Gore is one of the most intelligent men that has served this country, but he lost the Presidency b/c the Supreme Court voted along partis... oh wait, I'm digressing. Al Gore is one of the most intelligent men that has ever served this country, but he didn't beat Bush by the 30 million votes that he should have because he's a tweak. Being a good messenger means a lot. Do I listen to things that Byrd has to say? Of course not. I despise our illegitimate President... could the Clintorporate w**** sell Bush's inhumane agenda to moderates? Certainly. Bush was a horrible student and yet went to Yale on his father's and grandfather's name(s)... should he be the person championing the U Michigan case? Of course not. Identifying a personal attack is useful when you realize that someone with a horrid past is arguing some compelling point... but most of the time, I think we'd choose to stay away from those people whose credentials are so inflammatory. Next time, Byrd should mail his speech to someone else.
You guys crack me up! What is it with the heady power-trip that you get from identifying and (in your mind) disparaging someone by calling them a troll? Correct me if I'm wrong but I never see MadMax or Refman or TheFreak (maybe even Trader_Jorge-- not so confident there) labelling people as trolls. Even johnheath does it here only rhetorically and defensively? What is up with that?
