Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:17 pm    Post subject: What if... Reply with quote

What if Bill Clinton, in his 8 years as president had caught Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance?

I’ve heard it said that Bush would have been more popular, had he actually made any progress in finding Osama. But here is the way I look at it. Bill Clinton, like Bush had the same amount of time to capture the man but failed to. Even when his administration had the man in their sights so to speak, they let him slip away!

Now, the Clinton years had their fair share of issues. But it wasn’t like what Bush got in September of 2001! So really, the Clinton Administration arguably had more time, and more of an opportunity to find Bin Laden and yet they never captured the man!

9/11 took years to plan and set up that much is clear. It wasn’t just from January 20th (Bush’s Inauguration) to September 11th. So where was the CIA and the US DoD while Clinton was in office and Osama was roaming freely, able to set this up?

Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president Clinton and his advisors didn't respond.

Okay, so the above is a personal account. But there is more information out there on everything that was mismanaged. Read that article though, it details a lot.

Anyone see the TV movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473404 “The Path to 9/11” in 2006? – some food for thought. That details a lot of what Clinton staffers knew!

People have the nerve to say that 9/11 was Bush and Chaney’s fault. That’s a sack of crap. I blame Clinton, overall. It was his staff that dropped the ball from at least 1996-2001 (I would say 1993-2001 but either way…)

Yes, there were issues on 9/11 with the FAA, DoD, and other agencies. But come on, you can’t say that the blame is just on Bush. Clinton knew about Bin Laden and did nothing for his entire presidency.

Maybe he was too busy with Monica?

Anyway. If 9/11 hadnt have happened...Where would we be?
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

david wrote:
Quote:
Anyway. If 9/11 hadnt have happened...Where would we be?


Not sure, who knows 9/11 may have been a blessing in disguise :o .
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
david wrote:
Quote:
Anyway. If 9/11 hadnt have happened...Where would we be?


Not sure, who knows 9/11 may have been a blessing in disguise :o .


No. Just no.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

whats the old saying... good comes from bad?
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
whats the old saying... good comes from bad?


3,000 people dead and over 6,000 hurt. No good came from that. The fact that they increased security, that’s good. But it shouldn’t have taken about 9,000 people dead or in danger to do that. But Clinton's people missed the mark, even more so than Bush.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Quote:
3,000 people dead and over 6,000 hurt. No good came from that. The fact that they increased security, that’s good. But it shouldn’t have taken about 9,000 people dead or in danger to do that. But Clinton's people missed the mark, even more so than Bush.


Of course 9/11 by itself was bad but look at what it gave birth to, the war on terror (very good), increased homeland security (good) and it woke up the world to Islamic extremism.

Of course if I could take 9/11 out of history without that affecting anything else I would but the fact is that if 9/11 did not happen Iraq would have nukes today (very bad), if 9/11 did not happen then a different attack would later on (worse) and by erasing 9/11 from history a butterfly effect could take place that could be catosrophic!

What I originally said was "Not sure, who knows 9/11 may have been a blessing in disguise" and it is true one cannot fathom how one event changes history for the better or worse. I don't know if 9/11 will cause good or bad to happen (thus indirectly making 9/11 good or bad) nobody knows.
mr12387





Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 261
Reputation: 60.6
votes: 2
Location: Laval, Quebec

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:19 am    Post subject: Re: What if... Reply with quote

DavidK wrote:

Now, the Clinton years had their fair share of issues. But it wasn’t like what Bush got in September of 2001! So really, the Clinton Administration arguably had more time, and more of an opportunity to find Bin Laden and yet they never captured the man!


While I'd rather not got into who is more to blame because I think the case can be made either way, both failed miserably in terms of Bin Laden.

On the other hand, one thing that especially bothers me about the Clinton administration is that by choosing not to pursue Bin Laden, I feel Clinton was basically saying the blood of African nationals dying for America is nowhere near as important as the blood of Americans dying for America. Yes 12 out of the 223 killed in the US embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania were Americans, but I wonder if that number was not deemed high enough to make Bin Laden a priority. I feel as though those people died in vein and it sickens me.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
david wrote:
Quote:
Anyway. If 9/11 hadnt have happened...Where would we be?


Not sure, who knows 9/11 may have been a blessing in disguise :o .


I don't think it was. It created the political will to take out the Taliban, which was a good thing. However it also created the political excuses l to do lots of dumb things.

1) The war in Iraq, which bolstered the very forces Bush should have been trying to fight.
2) The massive deficits
3) A giant loss of international prestige and credibility for the US.

9/11 was nothing compared to the the foolishness of some of the reaction to it. It was sort of like a case of strep throat. It hurt, but it didn't last and is nothing compared to what happens when the body over reacts.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
1) The war in Iraq, which bolstered the very forces Bush should have been trying to fight.
2) The massive deficits
3) A giant loss of international prestige and credibility for the US.


Well F.C. as you know well you and I share a different view on whether the war in Iraq was a good or bad thing so I just leave that argument at the door.

The massive debt... one has to look at what it was spent on, massive debt alone is bad but much of "Bush's" debt (5 trillion) was spent on relief and the war on terror. Now I don't suppose I'll get an argument from you F.C. that the money spent on aid was bad but that the money spent on the wars was bad and so again we have gone over our differences on this and I just leave it at that.

I agree with you on your third point though, it is a shame that the world fell for the terrorist propaganda. But I think the good may outweigh the bad here though as I have expressed on a above post.

PS. fiscal Con. I would be happy to elaborate on why the war in Iraq was good if you are interested.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
1) The war in Iraq, which bolstered the very forces Bush should have been trying to fight.
2) The massive deficits
3) A giant loss of international prestige and credibility for the US.


Well F.C. as you know well you and I share a different view on whether the war in Iraq was a good or bad thing so I just leave that argument at the door.

The massive debt... one has to look at what it was spent on, massive debt alone is bad but much of "Bush's" debt (5 trillion) was spent on relief and the war on terror. Now I don't suppose I'll get an argument from you F.C. that the money spent on aid was bad but that the money spent on the wars was bad and so again we have gone over our differences on this and I just leave it at that.



Wasteful spending ran all through the Bush administration. The massive tax cuts that he could not afford were another problem (tax cuts you can afford are a good idea).
A foolish military adventure in Iraq, and the needs in Afganistan were not the only problem.

The Bush administration was faced with problems that threatened the US's ability to remain a superpower. These include:
1) The impending social security collapse/aging population
2) The loss of both skilled and unskilled jobs to the third world
3) The approach of "peak oil" and the rise of "oil powers".

Not only did he ignore those problems or make them worse, he added the doubling of the federal debt. This 9/11 stuff gave him an excuse. That will be the real lasting damage from AL Queda.



Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

PS. fiscal Con. I would be happy to elaborate on why the war in Iraq was good if you are interested.


and I could elaborate on why it was one of the worst decisions since Hitler invaded Russia.....
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
Wasteful spending ran all through the Bush administration. The massive tax cuts that he could not afford were another problem (tax cuts you can afford are a good idea).
A foolish military adventure in Iraq, and the needs in Afganistan were not the only problem.


Wasteful spending like donating more food stuffs to developing countries than every other country in the world combined, yes bush did that. But their is no point me arguing with a person who could say something as stupid as this "and I could elaborate on why it was one of the worst decisions since Hitler invaded Russia.....". This statement is dumb beyond belief because not only was Hitlers decision to invade Russia a good idea (from a military point of view) but you are totally ignoring all the worse diction's since then.

Allow me to elaborate, Hitler got within eye sight of Moscow when the oil in his tanks froze because of the coldest winter in 50 years (unpredictable surly) had his oil not frozen he would have taken Moscow, Russia and possibly the world. Moscow was the key to Russia since every rail line went through it.

So fiscal con. not only is your main argument deeply flawed but I feel there is not much point in arguing our cases since I know I'm right and I also know that you are fool hardy. But if you insist I will oblige.
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1140
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidK wrote:
Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
whats the old saying... good comes from bad?


3,000 people dead and over 6,000 hurt. No good came from that. The fact that they increased security, that’s good. But it shouldn’t have taken about 9,000 people dead or in danger to do that. But Clinton's people missed the mark, even more so than Bush.


Rusty does have a point. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a tragedy to change bad laws, the way people think, and what gets done. But I think the memories of 9/11 are wearing thin on some portions of the Western world.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
Fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
Wasteful spending ran all through the Bush administration. The massive tax cuts that he could not afford were another problem (tax cuts you can afford are a good idea).
A foolish military adventure in Iraq, and the needs in Afganistan were not the only problem.


Wasteful spending like donating more food stuffs to developing countries than every other country in the world combined, yes bush did that]


Blah. Aid to Africa is a drop in the US budget. Besides, much of the food aid went to members of the "coalition of the willing".


Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

. But their is no point me arguing with a person who could say something as stupid as this "and I could elaborate on why it was one of the worst decisions since Hitler invaded Russia.....". This statement is dumb beyond belief because not only was Hitlers decision to invade Russia a good idea (from a military point of view) but you are totally ignoring all the worse diction's since then.


You need to read up on your history before you call things "dumb beyond belief". Hitler started a war with Russia before it had finished its war with England. England was defeated and could have been invaded if it faced the full weight of the German forces were applied to it.
The wise thing to do would have been to throw the full weight of the German war machine against England and defeat it, then turn to Russia and defeat it.
Instead he was left with two battles he could not finish (England and Russia).

As a result of the attack on Russia, Russia was given massive technological assistance from the west that made it a much more formidable opponent.

This is very similar to modern events. Bush had the Taliban and Al Queda defeated. Instead of finishing them off however, he took the resources and moved them to Iraq.
Now the Taliban is back, Bin Laden got away and the Islamists are on the rise all over the world.

Quote:


Allow me to elaborate, Hitler got within eye sight of Moscow when the oil in his tanks froze because of the coldest winter in 50 years (unpredictable surly) had his oil not frozen he would have taken Moscow, Russia and possibly the world. Moscow was the key to Russia since every rail line went through it.


Well, you can argue all sorts of what ifs. I could argue that Hitler was lucky that the initial Russian response was so confused I also think that loosing your army to Russian winter is hardly unpredictable. I thinks its happened before......
Also, the oil in the tanks thawed....yet he could not take Moscow then either.

But whatever the reason he lost, he would have had a much better chance if he was not tied down on two fronts.

Anyway, the main reason I brought that up was because it was a good analogy to what is happening here. It is really foolish to fight two wars at the same time when you can fight at different times.
Saddam was just a guy with a big mouth who was going to die of natural or other causes.
He had no weapons programs and was not really a threat to anyone. He was hated by Al Queda as much as he was hated by the Americans. Sure he was a jerk, but he was a jerk who could have waited.


Quote:

So fiscal con. not only is your main argument deeply flawed but I feel there is not much point in arguing our cases since I know I'm right and I also know that you are fool hardy. But if you insist I will oblige.


I don't remember insisting. I just remember you saying you could elaborate and I said I could elaborate as well. You were the one who spat back the big post about frozen oil tanks :-)
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fiscal con. you clearly don't understand how close Hitler came to annihilating Russia, as for the UK he could have taken that in a second all he had to do was move his army across the channel, as Britain had one machine gun/mile of beach. Hitlers decision not to invade Britain immediately after France was dumb. And Fiscal Con. Hitler had to invade Russia before it could set up defence's. Also how could Hitler have predicted that the year he invaded was going to be the coldest in 50 years. Any way enough with ww2 I think we can agree to disagree on that one.

Quote:
I don't remember insisting. I just remember you saying you could elaborate and I said I could elaborate as well. You were the one who spat back the big post about frozen oil tanks

You did not insist then but you just did :roll: oh well this particular argument is childish so in both of our interests lets stop about this one.


Quote:
Anyway, the main reason I brought that up was because it was a good analogy to what is happening here. It is really foolish to fight two wars at the same time when you can fight at different times.
Saddam was just a guy with a big mouth who was going to die of natural or other causes.
He had no weapons programs and was not really a threat to anyone. He was hated by Al Queda as much as he was hated by the Americans. Sure he was a jerk, but he was a jerk who could have waited.


Well before 9/11 the U.S military claimed it could fight 3 major wars at the same time, but I guess you would blame Bush for not personally checking the stats on that one.

Also Iraq was enriching uranium, by now they would have had nukes. The US now, because of the invasion of iraq has more power in that region and IRAN IS SURROUNDED!

Quote:
Blah. Aid to Africa is a drop in the US budget. Besides, much of the food aid went to members of the "coalition of the willing".


Ya anything the US does good is nothing but anything the US does wrong is horrific. This is classic US bashing. :roll:
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:


Any way enough with ww2 I think we can agree to disagree on that one.



Done!

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

Well before 9/11 the U.S military claimed it could fight 3 major wars at the same time, but I guess you would blame Bush for not personally checking the stats on that one.


I though it was 2 wars, but I could be wrong.
The US might have had enough tanks and planes to fight two wars, but things like drones and special forces were lacking once Iraq started. I remember quote from a US military general that they could fight two wars and the same time, but that the second one would not be high tech. It would a slogging it out like in Korean war.

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:

Also Iraq was enriching uranium, by now they would have had nukes. The US now, because of the invasion of iraq has more power in that region and IRAN IS SURROUNDED!


First of all...what evidence was there that Iraq was enriching uranium ?? They don't have a reactor (thanks Israel!) They don't have cetrefuges.

I would also disagree with your "Iran is surrounded" idea. They have oodles of influence in Iraq and to some degree Afganistan. They got Russia to the north (that sells them Uranium. On the other side they have (tick) (tick) Pakistan.


Quote:
Blah. Aid to Africa is a drop in the US budget. Besides, much of the food aid went to members of the "coalition of the willing".


Ya anything the US does good is nothing but anything the US does wrong is horrific. This is classic US bashing. :roll:


I was just pointing out that an increase in the minimal aid to Africa does not make Bush a great president. If you used that logic, Jimmy Carter's face would be carved into the side of a mountain.
I am also not bashing the US, just one of its citizens, and then more on his judgement than his intentions. I am sure he thought he would be welcomed as a liberator and that he could spread Democracy to the Middle East.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What if...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB