Democratic Defection by Edward I. Koch (article) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 02-08-2004, 08:36 PM

Shh, the accepted meme is Democrats can't do national security.

Ustwo · 02-08-2004, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Rotten
That turns out not to be the case.

Starting in 1993, Clinton's storied obsession against terrorism

His own aids claim otherwise.

Clinton was obsessed by many things, but national security wasn't one of them.

Johnny Rotten · 02-09-2004, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
His own aids claim otherwise.

Clinton was obsessed by many things, but national security wasn't one of them.

I hope you're not basing that statement on Dereliction of Duty.

onetime2 · 02-09-2004, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Rotten
That turns out not to be the case.

Starting in 1993, Clinton's storied obsession against terrorism led to thwarted plots to assassinate the Pope, blow up twelve jetliners, the United Nations, the FBI building, the Isreali embassy in Washington. LAX and the Boston airport, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the GW Bridge. And CIA headquarters in 1996, which was supposed to have been executed with a commerical jetliner.

Let me explain how he was involved in this, rather than his administration merely being in office at the time of these events.

He tripled the FBI counterterrorism budget. Specifically counterterrorism. He also doubled overall counterrorism funding. Two anti-crime bills with specific and detailed attention to terrorism. A national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, his idea. Creation of a top-level security post to coordinate federal counterterrorist activity.

And the Republican legislature fought him every inch of the way, because they thought he was throwing money away. Isn't that ironic?

After the African embassy bombings in 1998, Clinton issued an executive order authorizing the assassination of bin Laden.

Richard Clarke was to be the man who would take the charge to the Bush administration and administer the holy terror of vengeance in repsonse to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. He worked furiously. He worked ambitiously. A strategy paper outlining systematic freezing of assets, breaking up al Qaeda cells, cutting off fake charities, and dramatically increasing covert ops in Afghanistan.

This was the hallmark of the Clinton administration. To quote John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's Office of Faith-Based Inititatives, "Every domestic [issue] drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighed politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, simulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge. That is simply not Bush's style."

They took Clarke's initiative and wiped their asses with it. They dragged on with meeting after pointless meeting, until September 10th, 2001, when Ashcroft sent him a note telling him his initiative was not going to be accepted. That day, he also sent his Justice Dept. budget request to Bush. None of the 68 items dealt with terrorism.

During this time, CIA Director George Tenet issued a paper to Bush entitled, cryptically, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." Former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued three security reports which championed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a castrated version of which exists today. The Hard-Rudman Commission decided unanimously that "the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."

In July of 2001, let's not forget Kenneth Williams, the FBI agent who reported concerns about some Middle Eastern students at an aviation school in Phoenix (a matter of which it can be arguably said at this point would never had been explored without Clinton's dominating influence). The concern was that the students had no interest in learning how to land or take off.

When the INS arrested Zacharias Moussaoui on August 16, 2001, the arresting agent said with chilling prescience, "he was the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."

...Now imagine if Gore, Clinton's right- hand man, had been in office this whole time, busily continuing his former boss's tireless war against terrorism.

And, remarkably, Al Qaeda was still able to scout the plane routes and targets, develop a plan to get flight training, come and go into and out of the US as they pleased, and build training camps cementing their foundation throughout the world during Clinton's tenure.

What about the communication between the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc? If he was so obsessed, why wasn't OBL taken when offered, or eliminated since he was such a growing threat?

Every administration in the last 20+ years has failed to take terrorism against the US as seriously as it should have been taken, Clinton's was no exception.

powerclown · 02-09-2004, 07:22 AM

Terrorism is unstoppable by nature. You cannot stop anyone willing to kill themselves to inflict damage upon innocents. If the Israelis can't stop it in their small country, then *nobody* can. Bush has only poured gasoline on the fire.

Seaver · 02-09-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Bush has only poured gasoline on the fire.

Really? Because I'm sorry, they haven't been able to pull off an effective attack since 9/11. We blew their training camps to hell, we decimated their funding support, and we turned the worst terrorist petrie dish in the world into a democracy.

Yeah a lot of people are pissed, but seems to me it's working. Look when a cop pulls you over for a traffic violation you're GOING to be pissed, but it's the only way to keep it to a minimum.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by powerclown
Terrorism is unstoppable by nature. You cannot stop anyone willing to kill themselves to inflict damage upon innocents. If the Israelis can't stop it in their small country, then *nobody* can. Bush has only poured gasoline on the fire.

Israel could successfully do it, fortunatly or unfortunatly however (matter of perspective) they get fought every step of the way.

Seaver hit the nail on the head though. Sadly we haven't caught OBL yet, but he hasn't been able to get a solid night's sleep in a long time nor has he been able to pull anything off in the U.S.

powerclown · 02-09-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

they haven't been able to pull off an effective attack since 9/11.

Bali, Indonesia October 2002
The Bali bombings killed 202 people -- most of them young Australians -- and injured more than 300. Dozens of victims were burned beyond recognition or simply blown to pieces by the power of the massive blasts..."An investigation by CNN, based on regional intelligence documents, has uncovered the links between Bali bomb suspect Amrozi, and terror groups Jemaah Islamiyah and al Qaeda."

Kenya, Africa November 2002
Bush: Al Qaeda linked to Kenya attacks
Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed when three suicide bombers detonated a car bomb outside the Paradise hotel in Mombasa. Within minutes, the airliner taking off from the Mombasa airport with 271 aboard was brushed by two shoulder-fired missiles.

Casablanca, Morocco May 2003
-- Five explosions, including three car bombs, rocked the heart of Casablanca on Friday night, killing at least 20 people and injuring several others, according to Morocco's interior minister.

Jakarta, Indonesia August 2003
-- A powerful car bomb exploded Tuesday at the JW Marriott Hotel in central Jakarta, Indonesia, killing at least 10 people and injuring more than 100, police said. "...and suspicion has fallen on the Southeast Asian militant group Jemaah Islamiyah, which has been linked to al Qaeda."

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia November 2003
Suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Saudi official blames Riyadh attacks on al Qaeda.

Istanbul, Turkey November 2003
Powerful explosions ripped through the British Consulate and a London-based bank near a popular shopping area Thursday in Istanbul, killing at least 27 people and wounding more than 450 others, Turkish officials said. Among the dozens killed at both sites was British Consul General Roger Short. The Turkish government has received a joint claim of responsibility from al Qaeda and a Turkish Islamic militant group that also said it carried out Saturday's attacks.

Baghdad, Iraq Today, Feb 9
-- A 17-page document seized at a suspected al Qaeda safe house in Baghdad appears to have requested al Qaeda's help in sparking a civil war in Iraq, setting Shiite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, U.S. officials said Monday.

Depends on your definition of "effective". Was it 3,000+ people? No. Was it in some circumstances dozens? Yes.

onetime2 · 02-09-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by powerclown

Depends on your definition of "effective". Was it 3,000+ people? No. Was it in some circumstances dozens? Yes.

The War on Terror's primary goal is to protect the US. Were these in the US? Nope.

Johnny Rotten · 02-09-2004, 07:53 PM

I have to say I'm a little nonplussed at how unwilling some of you are to begrudge the man (Clinton) any credit. Sheesh.

powerclown · 02-09-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

The War on Terror's primary goal is to protect the US.

Protect the US who? US soldiers? US Allies? US citizens? US companies abroad? The US has interests/citizens/soldiers/embassies all over the world last I checked.

The point is that the "War on Terror" hasn't eliminated or weakened the enemy. 911 was a watershed event, unprecedented in scale. For something like it to happen again in the following 3 years would be unlikely in the extreme. The fact that another event like 911 hasn't occurred (yet), is not proof of a successful foreign policy. Indeed, one need only take a look at whats going on in and around the world to see a climate of unprecedented hostility towards the US. This does not contribute to improved US security here or anywhere else, but to the contrary imo.

Lebell · 02-09-2004, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by powerclown
Terrorism is unstoppable by nature. You cannot stop anyone willing to kill themselves to inflict damage upon innocents. If the Israelis can't stop it in their small country, then *nobody* can. Bush has only poured gasoline on the fire.

The Israelis can't stop terrorism because their hands are frequently tied by, ironically, the US.

We lost the Vietnam war because we were unwilling to commit to doing what needed to be done when it needed to be done.

Now we have a pack of democratic presidential candidates that would hamstring us in the war against terrorists.

When will we learn?

Quote:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine the 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

-Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Paq · 02-09-2004, 11:48 PM

umm...not to jump in and go wayyy off topic, but did you actually SEE starship troopers...not exactly something i want to emulate. It seems as if they were making light of the armed forces and just making a commercial for war.

at any rate, i really really don't think a pack of democratic candidates will hamstring us in the war. I just think this "war" is being fought along the wrong terms with the wrong tactics.

I'm sure ben franklin's "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither..." is pretty apt in this case.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2004, 12:53 AM

Policy and negotiation doesn't work when dealing with those Camel fuckers like Saddam (thank you Big Lebowski), only force. So on that note fuck the U.N. they are nothing but a bunch of bureaucratic pussies. America needs someone that is willing to take action for its own interests and safety as we see fit, not as others deem necessary or acceptable. Bush does that. As for Al Qeada, aslong as they are blowing up shit else where I don't care, America is only responsible to defend its sovereigns.

Lebell · 02-10-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
umm...not to jump in and go wayyy off topic, but did you actually SEE starship troopers...not exactly something i want to emulate. It seems as if they were making light of the armed forces and just making a commercial for war.

at any rate, i really really don't think a pack of democratic candidates will hamstring us in the war. I just think this "war" is being fought along the wrong terms with the wrong tactics.

I'm sure ben franklin's "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither..." is pretty apt in this case.

Just to answer,

Yes, I saw the travesty that nominally shared a title and little else with Heinlein's work.

Now, have YOU read the book?

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by powerclown
Protect the US who? US soldiers? US Allies? US citizens? US companies abroad? The US has interests/citizens/soldiers/embassies all over the world last I checked.

The point is that the "War on Terror" hasn't eliminated or weakened the enemy. 911 was a watershed event, unprecedented in scale. For something like it to happen again in the following 3 years would be unlikely in the extreme. The fact that another event like 911 hasn't occurred (yet), is not proof of a successful foreign policy. Indeed, one need only take a look at whats going on in and around the world to see a climate of unprecedented hostility towards the US. This does not contribute to improved US security here or anywhere else, but to the contrary imo.

The primary focus is Homeland Security, hence the department bearing that name. We certainly cannot protect every ally or every citizen. What we can do is minimize the chance that a 9/11 or other fear inducing attack impacts our citizens.

The War on Terror has absolutely weakened the enemy. How many terrorists have been taken into custody? How many documents have been uncovered detailing their plans? How about intelligence that has been developed which pointed to cells within the US and other allied countries? How many funding sources and accounts have been frozen to deny terrorists resources?

The attitude you point to around the world has been growing for years if not decades, it is not solely related to the War on Terror.

powerclown · 02-10-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

at any rate, i really really don't think a pack of democratic candidates will hamstring us in the war. I just think this "war" is being fought along the wrong terms with the wrong tactics.

I would say the same. I also agree with Heinlein.

02-09-2004, 07:53 PM	#50 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	I have to say I'm a little nonplussed at how unwilling some of you are to begrudge the man (Clinton) any credit. Sheesh. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

02-09-2004, 11:48 PM	#53 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	umm...not to jump in and go wayyy off topic, but did you actually SEE starship troopers...not exactly something i want to emulate. It seems as if they were making light of the armed forces and just making a commercial for war. at any rate, i really really don't think a pack of democratic candidates will hamstring us in the war. I just think this "war" is being fought along the wrong terms with the wrong tactics. I'm sure ben franklin's "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither..." is pretty apt in this case. __________________ Live. Chris

02-10-2004, 12:53 AM	#54 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Policy and negotiation doesn't work when dealing with those Camel fuckers like Saddam (thank you Big Lebowski), only force. So on that note fuck the U.N. they are nothing but a bunch of bureaucratic pussies. America needs someone that is willing to take action for its own interests and safety as we see fit, not as others deem necessary or acceptable. Bush does that. As for Al Qeada, aslong as they are blowing up shit else where I don't care, America is only responsible to defend its sovereigns. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-08-2004, 08:36 PM	#41 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Shh, the accepted meme is Democrats can't do national security.

02-09-2004, 07:22 AM	#45 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Terrorism is unstoppable by nature. You cannot stop anyone willing to kill themselves to inflict damage upon innocents. If the Israelis can't stop it in their small country, then nobody can. Bush has only poured gasoline on the fire.