http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/73661.htm

I'm sorry, but this is more revisionist history. While, in hindsight, Bill Clinton certainly could have done more to confront global terrorism, until 9-11 it was not clear how big a threat it was. More importantly, the conservatives in Congress were not about to give the kind of free reign to Clinton that they gave to Bush. Can anyone really believe there would have been widespread support for Clinton to act militarily in the Middle East?

In addition, of course, there is no connection between Hussein and 9-11. I didn't think the UN should have allowed the inspectors to leave Iraq in 1998, and maybe Clinton should have done something at that time, but he was too busy dealing with the history that Newt Gingrich was making - namely the impeachment process.

Of course, Clinton did make history by ending deficits (albeit temporarily) and by being the first President to actually acknowledge the humanity of gays and lesbians. Those two achievements will not be matched in the present administration.

I'm sure he'll go down as one of the greatest presdients to Almost do something..

I can't use the quote function,but I was really struck by the accuracy of Cpt.Doom's obervation on conservative unwillingness to give Clinton free reign militarily in the region.I can still hear Rush and his cronies blathering about Clinton's illegal actions in Kosovo,and the very "audacity" of someone they considered a "draft dodger" using the US military to achieve his own ends.Yet strangely, when it comes to GWB and his administration full of people who, like Clinton, avoided military service, those same voices heap praise on the prez for his leadership and bravery. :confused: We've heard ad nauseum from the right wing on their belief that the opposition to invading Iraq was partisan,and that the same people who denounce Bush for the war would be leading the cheers if Bill and Al were calling the shots.Yet their (right wing) criticism of Clinton for ANY military action he undertook anywhere was unrelenting and some of the most partisan vitriol imaginable.These people, most of whom have no personal military experience themselves,were so outraged that Clinton was actually elected that they took it as a personal affront.Here's their mantra-criticism of Clinton is a patriotic duty,but criticism of Dubbya is treason.Talk about being disingenuous...

I supported Clinton in Kosovo 100%... as for a war on terror we dont know cause he never did anything about it.

Agreeing w/Tim 100%. The people who ranted for years about the evils of "big government" from Ruby Ridge to Bosnia are the same ones who gave us the USA PATRIOT Act. Reminds me of a line from Lewis Carroll: "The question is who is master. That is all."

NONSENSE. It was during Clinton's term that the people responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993--don't forget, those were Al Qaeda-linked poeple, who tried to destroy the WTC in a first run-through--were captured and tried. Also, during Clinton's term, the U.S. did repeatedly seek out Osama bin Laden, the U.S. captured several international terrorist operatives, and border agents prevented what would have been a domestic prelude to 9/11 by stopping an Al Qaeda operative who crossed the Canadian-US border aiming to blow up LAX. Also, we came perhaps the closest we ever have in recent history to a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians AND George Mitchell negotiated the historic peace in Northern Ireland, which has broken down and which W. has utterly ignored.

No Osama bin Laden yet, and now we hear that Saddam is also dancing about on cartops too?

AH, the Clinton Lingo "we came the closest to" LOL come on, is there peace in Isreal? If there isnt, then you did squat. Actually, the feeling is that we are the closest to having a peace process there now. New leadership is taking place for the Palistinians. Syria is on notice to keep out of it. Iraq's terrist training camps for these people are shut down. Iran is more cut of from directly sending their trained terrorists into Isreal as we literally surround them now on both sides.

The bomber for LAX, was he caught because of efforts to prevent terrorism, or for being a complete idiot and trying to drive across the border with huge amounts of explosives?

Clinton's contribution to gettin osama? We "almost" got him with the cruise missles... We almost had him in our hands, but didnt accept him. We tried to... we almost....

Having a trial and putting the WTC bombers in Jail, thats a nice sign. Really what did you try to do with the whole terrorist netowrk? nuttun. The USS cole? the 2 embassy bombings? Clinton did nothing to try to take the head off the leadership, merely went after few who were directly involved in the bombing itself. OH, he did alot of talking about doing it tho. Thats what clinton was good at, gettin his mug on tv and yapping. Made people feel really good but accomplished squat in this area.

I believe that Clinton's inactions were for the sake of the short term economy, and bushy is willing to take a hit in the short term for long term gains in fighting terror.

It's very sad these days... EX presidents usually do NOT get on TV and question new leadership. Did Carter get up and talk about Ronny? NOPE, did bush 1 get up and question Clinton? Did Ronny question clinton? Fact is that Clinton cant get out of the lime-light. Has to be on TV. That is why he gets all of these negative comments about him. Doesnt hurt that the Dems are a mess right now with no real leadership. He's all they have, but he's broken an unwritten rule about questioning the new leadership.

Not to be mean, but by that time "Ronny" had a hard time commenting on even his own administration.

Also, who are the ones making negative comments about Clinton speaking out? Bigoted Bill O'Reilly, the Rush/Savage/Hannity/Ingrahm ilk, Tom Delay, Newt, "critic" Howie Kurtz? There's some good company.

The Post editorial makes the ridiculous assumption that a president who is more willing to use massive weapons of destruction is automatically better than one who is more cautious.

It extends from a corporate mentality that one should not just sit there but do something, anything, which is how bad corporations get into trouble. President George W. Bush makes decisions on the fly based on fundamental, or fundamentalist, principles. That is dangerous.

Very good observations Sportinlife. Also, what have we really accomplished through the massive force doctrine? Have we ended Al Qaeda and captured Bin Laden? No. Have we given them even more reason to bring their fight back to our soil? Most experts feel we have. Have we taken Saddam? No. In fact, someone who experts think is him was seen on television yesterday. Have we found any WMD and ensured the disarming of Iraq? No. There has been zero evidence of WMD and most experts are now shaking their head at the administration's deception of the world.

So, just because we have a leader who is taking action does not mean anything is better. And war, tax cuts, pre-emptive foreign policy, etc. are not long-term strategies. They are very short-term strategies intended to make the most of a limited term in office. If you only have four years (guaranteed) in office, you have to pass out the dough to your friends in a hurry and regularly.

PhillyFan - You really need to get over you Clinton obsession. Its getting worse by the day.
Let it go man, let it go.

Todays "dead or alive" count":
580 days since the commander-in-chimp promised to get bin Laden "dead or alive"

I do not know whether Iraq had so-called WMDs at the time of the US invasion. I think it is probable that they had chemical or biological warfare material of some amount. These could be relavtively small and easily hidden or transported but capable of widespread harm if used with that intention.

Invading Iraq was not IMO the best way to find or eliminate those materials if they existed.

Our entire policy in the Middle East is based on irrational fear and cultural misunderstandings. However some principles of humanity in human interactions are universal.

I believe that Russia's communist system collapsed internally not because of force, either applied or threatened, simply because it's people saw their country being left behind by advances in civilization. Though the cultural divide between the west and Iraq is framed in religious terms rather than political, the same fundamental rules of human nature apply.

Over time, and less time than in Russia, the theocratic regimes in the Middle East (including Israel) probably would reform or collapse from within and we could be a positive force in creating an environment for that to occur, primarily through positive cultural exchange with humanistic elements within these regimes and fairer treatment of all parties concerned in conflicts around the world (many of which invovlve competition between equally unsavory actors).

Iran was already headed in that direction. Though its religious moderates did not intend it, the religious authority in Iran is under serious challenge from young, internet savvy modernists.

The invasion of Iraq has managed to slow, and perhaps temporarily halt, that natural pocess throughout the Middle East. Ironically it is only the US that has the military might to cause that kind of pause in the gradual reform of the region. It is also the US that has the most potential to accelarate such reform if it chooses to do so.

[ April 20, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by charliecstl:
[QB] Have we given them even more reason to bring their fight back to our soil? Most experts feel we have.


Well please explain how 9/11 happened? If invading Afgan gave them reason to bring their fight even more to our soil......

We never did anything to them on previous attacks. They became more daring until the came over to this country to do it. That is crazy if you think you can DEAL with this people any other way than to end their pathetic lives.

As I recall, Clinton did respond to the embassy bombings (the Cole happened a little late on his watch to do much about), but that response has been dismissed on this very board as nothing more than "lobbing a few missles" or something to that effect. Anything more he couldn't have gotten away with, what with those vital impeachment hearings and all.

The truth is prior to 9-11, America was pretty smug and self-confident that foreign terrorism wasn't a threat. After all, the original WTC bombers looked like the proverbial gang who couldn't shoot straight, and the very fact that we stopped the millenium bombing plot seemed to demonstrate our superiority over terrorists.

In fact, I don't recall the issue of terrorism even being brought up in the 2000 presidential election - it certainly wasn't a big campaign issue. Mr. Bush himself did not do anything about terrorism (see the Cole, above, bombed in October 2000) until we were attacked, and our self-confidence was shattered. In fact, the Bush Administration was trying to work with the Taliban rulers up until just a few weeks before the attack, because they wanted to build a natural gas pipeline through the country. Given the circumstances - isn't Bush the one who waited for history?

As for the people whose "pathetic lives" we will be ending - do you mean all Arabs Phillyfan, or just the terrorists? Because you see, it is difficult to know who is a terrorist if their first calling card is a suicide attack.

It was said the invading a nation causes the terrorists to want to come here and encourage them. All Clinton did was lob a few missles at an asprin factory, not invade a nation... yet, 9/11 happened. So how does invading iraq/afgan cause them to NOW want to bring the fight here? I thought they already did that?

Dont try to turn the "they need to die" into all arabs need to die. You dont Deal with terrorists, you kill them before they kill you.

My point was, philly, that you don't know who "terrorists" are until they have acted. To insist that "kill a terrorist before he/she can kills you" is the only strategy for dealing with terrorism is short-sighted, and likely a failure.

As for invading countries - yes the terrorists struck in the US prior to our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (but not before our government apparently threatened military action against the Taliban if they refused to let us build a gas pipeline), but what many experts have warned is that invading Middle Eastern countries is a great way to reinforce and strengthen, rather than defeat terrorists - it simply gives them another argument in favor of their political position. It is likely we will face MORE terrorist attacks having invaded Iraq than we would had we gone with a peaceful and/or UN-led solution.

Bush may be "making history" right now, but what kind of history? and will that history be better or worse for Americans than had he chosen otherwise? These are the questions that are not being asked in this country, and they need to be.

You're saying that 9/11 was caused by a pipeline?

Please explain to me how you have a "peaceful" solution with people who think that you are the devil and deserve to die? Better yet, please tell me anything the UN has ever done to combat situations like this? Maybe we can get them to come over to a peace demonstration.. we call all hold hands, flash the peace sign, and sing songs by the fire... Too bad the world doesnt work like that.

Why do you think that 9/11 happened? Have you really thought about it as all? It was not because previous administrations coddled the likes of Bin Laden and others.

The primary reason why people resort to terrorist actions is because they feel powerless to elicit change from the people they are attacking. The US is seen around the world as a country that is so powerful that it does what it wants and does not consider the impact on people of other religions, cultures, or beliefs. The fundamentalist factions see that they have no diplomatic or military options to challenge the US and its policies. So, they do the one thing they believe can get attention.

So, if you feel powerless and have incredible hatred for the US and its bullying tactics, how are you going to look at the Iraqi invasion? You may decide you have to be more careful. However, you are going to dig in and find new ways to hurt the people of the US.

You can club people over the head and try to get them to behave the way you want. In the short-term it produces limited results. In the long-term you just make them even more determined to act out.

Our terrorist foes do not differentiate much between Saddam torturing religious prisoners and the US invading Iraq and killing/maiming thousands of people because we don't like the way they think. The day we learn that focusing our resources on working with others to create a better environment rather than trying to beat the crap out of people who disagree with us, is the day the world becomes a safer and more productive place.