Letters to the Editor
shooter242
Published Letters: 1728
-
@-- Daniel_28
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The intelligence had no actionable dots to connect, no flashing red lights, no specific signs about what to do to prevent any possible attacks. There is no POSSIBLE way to deny this is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Correct.
Why do Republicans freely blame the 9/11 attacks on the previous Clinton administration?
Politics primarily, but there were additional factors that enabled the attackers. Two of the most immediate were the rout of Mogadishu that OBL cited as evidence of our vulnerability, and the opportunity for capturing OBL offered by the Sudanese. Clinton was later taped as saying legalities prohibited following up on that. Additionally, the aftermath of the Church hearings after Watergate heightened concerns about fourth amendment protections and the now infamous Gorelick memo detailed how they were going to restrict information sharing, even more than required by law. From there let me refer you to my letters page and a cite to the City Journal detailing how hard it made pursuing anything at all.
Did the folks at Clinton's NSA/FBI/CIA take all the intelligence they had on Al Qaeda and burn it?
There wasn't much to burn, the intelliugence gathering capabilities of the country were atrophied to the point of non-existence after the Watergate fiasco. For instance, there was the Torricelli principle whereby any asset (spy) had to be approved by DC and be of good moral character. Boys Scouts are not spy material.
If all the intelligence that Clinton had should have prevented the 9/11 attacks, how can it be that Bush, who had access to the same intelligence (plus more recent intelligence) was unable to act upon said intelligence?
WIthout specifics about an attack, how does one prevent it? The honest answer to all this is that with the exception of capturing OBL, nothing was going to stop people intent on suicide from succeeding. Clinton DOJ just made connecting the dots much less possible.
Why do we even have intelligence agencies if the proper response is bupkis?
It's not a case of "proper" response. It's a case of not knowing what was going to happen, without which one cannot have prevention.
And I DO think you are a coward for supporting a war you are unwilling to join regardless of whatever excuse you think you have.
And that is your right to say so. But consider the logical requirements of your position, only soldiers would have the right to determine use of the military ie. the president would have to be a soldier. In other aspects, if one were in favor of abortions, one would have to actually perform them. You may not like what I say, but that's the way it is.
-
@Ondelette
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That was perfect. Thanks.
-
daniel 28
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps you should reread my post and look for that same point I acknowledge. Truculence will only gain you entrance into left wing trolldom.
-
Dashed dreams. Darn.
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would just love it if the jury acquitted Padilla on all charges. What a slap in the face to the Bush admin that would be. Then he could sue the crap out of them for wrongful imprisonment, deprivation of due process and civil rights. That Bush's poster boy for TERRORISM, was acquitted would be just too delicious.-- Conservativeslayer
Time to come back to reality. It is very interesting that you obviously don't care about Padilla the person, just Padilla the instrument of your fantasies to damage Bush. Looks like you'll have to find someone else to be the avatar of your political perversions.
-
re: scooter goes
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Never comes back to either discuss or argue his point. Deathly afraid he'll lose the argument and will have to face reality or change his point of view. Stupid chickenblogger.-- Jim Montague
I had to go back to figure out what you were talking about, and I presume you are referring to "prunes". I consider him a "stalker" troll to whom I don't respond. You know, "don't feed the trolls"?
But I'll happily address his points to you.
It reminds me of war supporters view of Iraqi civilians: as long as you are remotely associated with terrorism, such as having the wrong skin/religion or being born in the wrong country, your life is frankly not worth preserving when balanced against easing our personal fears of people who look like you.
If this were true than I'd be advocating our immediate pullout of Iraq. The resulting civil war would be my best case scenario if I Prunes was correct wouldn't it? I happened to run across this article detailing how the biggest killer of muslims is other muslims.
http://www.examiner.com/a-883730%7EJohn_R__Thomson__Wh
I can't vouch for the figures but it sounds right. Perhaps it's the cut and run crowd that should be concerned with the label of "civilian killer".What exactly are "political perversions"? Are they deviations from hundreds of years old legal traditions, like habeas corpus, banishment of torture, and Constitutional government?
Ah yes, the laundry list of how we are equivalent to Cuba or Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Well happily, we still have Habeas Corpus, interrogation procedures sanctioned by Congress, and the Constitution will certainly hold up under the charges that the President legally fired his USAGs. If we ever get a Democrat President it will be interesting to see what it's like to try and impeach it for legal behaviors. Apparently it's a good time. Meanwhile this is all proof positive that "ignorance is bliss."
-
Yeah, yeah.
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The President surely wouldn’t dream of saying this unless he realized, at least subconsciously, that he is sending kids into combat for an objective they cannot achieve. When I saw this on television, even after everything else, I was stunned.-- bakkcj
This is classic projection of what you think, coloring what someone else has to say. Obviously, you can't accept the idea that he is telling the truth. That's your problem not his.