Three dozen more people killed today-including 2 CBS embedded journalists

[Chadman]

gw, I admit I don't know if the choice to go into Iraq will be a good one or a bad one - time will certainly tell. We may all benefit from it in the long run, and I don't know how you measure benefit, cost, choices, etc. We all have to decide for ourselves the cost/benefit ration and what we support or are against at this point in time. I know how I feel regarding the decision to go there and where we are now. I was against it then, and I am even more against it now. I have no idea if history will prove anything to me or anyone else. Conservatives (and those leaning neither way, or liberals, for that matter) have every right to support it, and argue for it. It's what makes this country great.

We should all try to understand other positions and learn from them. When we shut out other opinions and label people - or ignorantly call them names because we have no good facts to substantiate our opinions, then we lose credibility and value to a discussion.

I don't care for the way you wrapped up your commentary much, though. Spewing crap about "a brave generation of proud Americans spawning a generation of weak willed liberal academia-indoctinated poofters" and saying that their main concern is which car to drive their daughter to practice in - is pretty weak, IMO. There are PLENTY of conservatives that litter soccer field sidelines sitting in either their Lexus wagons or Toyota Priusmobiles.

Again, insinuating that liberals somehow don't care about the troops or are unpatriotic. I care about the damn troops. I wish they weren't dying every stinking day because this administration decided it was important for them to die for whatever cause they decide to label it today. I am thankful they do what they do to make sure I get to go out and coach my stepson and see him grow up. I think they will do that wherever they are, and think it takes incredible courage to do what they do. I am not thankful that George Bush is the President in charge of those troops, however. I am embarrassed about that.

 

[smurphy]

If we can just find some way to overcome the human condition, we could create paradise.

Well said.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"You criticize Clinton for not taking care of Bin Laden, and give Bush a free pass for the exact same thing. Pretty hollow, if you ask me."

Hmm
What adjective would you use to describe someone who can't distingish difference between someone going to war--putting bounty on-- dead or alive--vs someone who wouldn't take him when offered despite overwhelming evidence he master minded attack on U.S. soil on his watch --

 

[kosar]

"You criticize Clinton for not taking care of Bin Laden, and give Bush a free pass for the exact same thing. Pretty hollow, if you ask me."

Hmm
What adjective would you use to describe someone who can't distingish difference between someone going to war--putting bounty on-- dead or alive--vs someone who wouldn't take him when offered despite overwhelming evidence he master minded attack on U.S. soil on his watch --

You should do a little research on that. It was unlikely that we would win a trial against Bin Laden for the 1993 bombing. Might sound silly, but it's true. Hindsight is 20/20. For example, if we knew Al-Qaeda was this dangerous we wouldn't have been financing them just several years before the first WTC bombing.

The ironic thing is that Reagan and Bush 41 supported Bin-Laden and what became Al-Qaeda in their fight with Russia in Afghanistan which is eerily similar to our current problem.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't find that ironic Matt--as back then Russia was our enemy and Al-Qaeda was fightening them--not us.
Circumstances and objectives continuely change.

UBL could have been convicted for numerous crimes in 93 if not the trade center--giving him free pass one day and lobbing missle at him the next---makes little sense to me.

or do you also think I am hollow in my view of two administrations taking totally different actions on similiar attacks on trade towers

P.S.4 dozen have died in detriot from use of bad heroin
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060530/NEWS06/605300322

 

[smurphy]

or do you also think I am hollow in my view of two administrations taking totally different actions on similiar attacks on trade towers

....You actually view the 93 and 01 WTC attacks as "similar". ....You are actually comparing them on nearly equal terms??? How can a logical discussion with you happen at all when you have this stance?

 

[AR182]

....You actually view the 93 and 01 WTC attacks as "similar". ....You are actually comparing them on nearly equal terms??? How can a logical discussion with you happen at all when you have this stance?

imo the intent in 93 was the same as 01...of course the result wasn't the same but the intent was...

 

[smurphy]

That's interesting, because I remember an awful lot of Clinton-haters criticizing him for taking some military action against Al-Qaeda training camps. ....So where were these Republican peaceniks after the 01 attack?

There is nothing remotely similar with 93 and 01. One was a flea and the other an elephant.

 

[AR182]

That's interesting, because I remember an awful lot of Clinton-haters criticizing him for taking some military action against Al-Qaeda training camps. ....So where were these Republican peaceniks after the 01 attack?

There is nothing remotely similar with 93 and 01. One was a flea and the other an elephant.

your confusing intent & result...

i believe that these thugs tried a car bomb in the wtc garage to see how much damage would be done.....

when they saw that the result wasn't what they had in mind they tried a different method....

both incidents had the same intent...

the criticisms against clinton was that all he did was lob missles from far away at the alqaeda camps & not attack more aggresively....

 

[smurphy]

why are wyou writing like weasel.......??

???...........

please........

one weasel is enough.................

The intent behind every terrorist attack is the same. DTB is implying however that the both attacks called for the same exact retaliations. If that was the case, then why didn't we see a swift rise in American flag bumper stickers after 93? He's somehow implying that Clinton would not ordered strong military action after the 01 attack or that Bush would have gone just as strong following 93 as he did after 01. It's ludicrous. Typical spinning that he loves to do rather than just discuss something.

 

[AR182]

i break up every sentence because i think it's easier to read......i'm always trying to help my fellow poster.....what's wrong with that ?...

i would like to think that all presidents would have ordered the same retalliations against those thugs after 9/11....even liberals....

the problem i have with clinton is the same i have with other presidents before him (including reagan) not enough was done after the first wtc bombing, the cole attack, & the barrack's attack, etc.....

if punitive action was done after those attacks then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now...

unfortunately past administrations left it to the next administration....

 

[smurphy]

It's not easier to read. The easiest style to read is regular, paragraph-based script. It's better than BEANTOWNJIM, but not by much.

Do you think Dubya would have let past attacks slide if he were prez then? All indications are that he's not special and would have been like everyone else. He barely wanted to go after Afghanistan is it was - took way too long to get there, never caught Bin Laden, used very few troops, and quickly turned attention to his real prize - Iraq.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

How do you figure they were not similiar--the only diff is one plan was a little short of objective.

I guess if only a few died at pearl harbor as in 1st trade bombing and they missed all their targets we should have let Japan slide?

I wish we had this forum back in Clintons era. I can guaratee you I would never have dissed him on any miltary effort--but would have climbed on with both feet when he withdrew and left our troops to be drug through the streets.

It might seem strange to you--but if I knew 20 more would die in effort to save one or retrieve the bodies I would go for it. Sound insane--not if you look at future lives to be lost in boost it gave the enemy to know we would run in face of adversity.

 

[smurphy]

Great. Yet another pointless WW2 comparison.

What do you think Bush would have done differently than Clinton following the 1993 attack?

 

[djv]

Clinton did not withdraw. But some stupid ass Captain or maybe even a General did. And should have been dismissed from the service at once. I don't know who planned that operation from the military but they were as bad as Rummsfeld.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't know what he would have done differently
I don't know what Bill would have done following 911

However it is evident what each did when same building in same city was attacked by same enities--the only diff between the 2 was fewer died due to botched effort.

DJV I applaud Clinton for going into Somolia--I don't fault him on botched effort --- he had no part in plan I'm sure--I wouldn't diss those that were responsible for tactics--I do fault all those responsible for not finishing the job-- you don't let them triumphantly drag our troops through streets setting them on fire as population cheers--and do NOTHING.

which brings me to another question--if you were in charge DJV and you watched women and children cheering as they burned a soilder alive and this particular soilder happened to be your brother--and we went back in next day and leveled the city--what would your attitude be if media/peace activist came out with stories the following day giving a few lines about our soilders that died and go on for weeks about the civilian fatalities???????

 

[smurphy]

I don't know what he would have done differently
I don't know what Bill would have done following 911

However it is evident what each did when same building in same city was attacked by same enities--the only diff between the 2 was fewer died due to botched effort.

Yeah, kind of a big difference, don't you think? I mean one was a headline for a few days and 4 people died. The other...., welll. No comparison.

You know this. Why are you spinning this in such a way? You are implying that simply because it was the same target, the military actions would have been similar - like Clinton would have barely done anything after 01 while Bush would have brought the nation together and invaded Afghanistan after 93. This comparison makes no sense at all. You know this, but still you spin.

 

[Chadman]

Little foggy on the '93 bombing, but I would agree that the intent was probably the same. In fact, the writeup on Wikipedia sounds like they were very close to succeeding in something a lot more major. I had forgotten the disruption of Manhattan that that attack caused. Of course, we had no real idea of what we were up against then, and there was no big motivation by either Republicans or Democrats to stage a large response towards Bin Laden at the time. From what I have read on short review, Bin Laden was not looked at as a driving force behind the attack at the time, and his role in it is considered to be tied in due to his assumed leadership role of Al Qaida. I can allow for that, but in no way are the two situations the same. Bin Laden became the main figurehead and public face in '98 when he announced war against the U.S. and Israel. In '93, the main reasoning given for the attack was Al Qaida's hatred of Israel and their activities, and we were looked at as supporters of Israel (which we are).

This ongoing comment about Bin Laden being offered up on a silver platter has been disproven, but if you want to continue to read essays put forth by Sean Hannity, that's fine. The 9-11 commission (unilateral, bi-partisan) found no offer of Bin Laden to the US by Sudan - which was officially a terrorist state at the time and was angling to gain favors from us. Reportedly, Sudan was offering up Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, and you can find commentary both for and against that being the real case. In ANY case, I certainly don't look at Saudi Arabia as being a loyal partner for us in the war on terrahrizm, considering the vast majority of terrorists that flew the planes on 9-11 were Saudis, not to mention ongoing financial support worldwide of terroristic activities. Hannity, of course, chooses to believe the Sudanese, as it makes a great soundbite and helps his ratings and book sales.

Clinton's situation was far different from Bush's. The Bush decision was completely supported by both sides of the aisle, most Americans (including me), and at least tolerated by most of the world. Clinton operated in a completely different time and environment in '93.

Not only that, there were plenty of people who were against going after Osama when we had the reports of his position by the drone. Some military officials, even. I have seen where not going after him there at the time is Clinton's admittedly biggest mistake, which I think shows some fortitude. Dubbya couldn't come up with one mistake in his debate against Kerry, which also shows some fortitude - and not in a good way. Nothing is ever admittedly his fault, which is sad to see in a "leader".

 

[Marco]

DTB.....you asked me to elaborate when I said that "In short, all they have to do to win is keep us there."

In August of 2005 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the costs of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years.

You can't continue a war indefinitely that costs over a billion dollars a week to sustain....they're finding out the conditions over there are brutally tough on equipment and most of it is in dire need of maintenence after a few short years....that doesn't figure the medical costs or the costs to private business having their workers on permanent retainer in the middle east.....

All the insurgents/terrorists need to do to win is keep us there, and keep us spending a billion dollars a week on a war that the American taxpayer is growing ever sour on.....It takes them a half a dozen people and a few attacks and car bombs to keep us there another week and spend another billion dollars on thousands of troops and the equipment and needs necessary to maintain that colossal military presence.

The insurgents will win by keeping us there.

 

[djv]

If I just heard right a bunch of kids were killed today. Like 15/16.
It's just a nasty place. And our guys are caught in the middle.