I never said that it was an either-or option. It is a question of primary focus.
Huh? Here's what you said:
The important lesson is that handling it as a law enforcement matter does not work.
More divisive BS from the RNC. The military solution does not always fit the bill. Especially when you take you eye off the real terrorists and go after Saddam. Really screwed up by not focusing on Al Qaeda with the military. I have been saying this for a year. I'm pissed off at Bush for not putting 100% of the effort after bin Laden. Going after Iraq to get to Al Qaeda makes as much sense as attacking Mexico to get bin Laden.
Until terrorists havens are eliminated, focusing on law enforcement and intelligence is one of re-action, instead of pro-action. To coin a phrase, it is swatting at flies.
More divisive double talk. Swatting at flies is exactly what Bush did in Iraq. He missed Al Qaeda all together.
You might want to think about who looks dumb here.
Trust me I have...and you don't look so good. <g>
Here you have plain evidence that that the approach Clinton took, one of primarily law enforcement (and one presumes intelligence),
More BS. Clinton was using all the tools in the fight on terror. He was more focused on the fight against terror than Bush was. It took 9-11 to blow Bush off the pot...talk about reactive!
... for it let the man responsible for 9/11, the Cole, the Embassy bombings et al get away.
That's right...Bush has let bin Laden get away so far. But let's get it straight...for once.
After the embassy bombings, Clinton did attack bin Laden, and then he was trying to get a bead on him to take him out. The primary message that the Clinton administration tried to get to the Bush administration was the Al Qaeda was a huge threat...and intel indicated an imminent threat. Bush did nothing.
The Cole happened late in October 2000. The CIA and the FBI were not able to attribute the action to any one group till March of 2001...on Bush's watch. But Bush rejected any retaliation for the Cole bombing...it was not added to the plan for retribution until after 9-11...again reactionary...nothing proactive here.
And your comparisons of body counts would be silly, if the subject were not so serious.
No one in the congress or in the OMB or in the media was taking Al Qaeda seriously...only 35 Americans dead in 8 years.
I guess America woke up when Bush lost more than 3,000 on his watch, and all in only 8 months.
The Bush policy, prior to 9/11 was almost identical, although they were in the process of making it one of elimination of Al Qaeda v. rollback.
Simply not true. The Bush policy before 9-11 was no policy at all. then they quickly adopted Clarke's policy after 9-11...the same one he delivered to Condi Rice in January 2001.
I could also compare the number of al Qaeda attacks against American interests, but that would be dumb too.
Yeah...pointless...so what's your point?
So now, Kerry is proposing to go back to the policy that was pre-9/11. That is the dumbest thing yet.
Yeah that is the dumbest thing you've said yet. Kerry will bring a new focus on Al Qaeda. He will get some international help in Iraq. He will heal the wounds between America and the world. I see great things to come with Kerry. With Bush all I see is the same bankrupt policies which left us open to attack on 9-11 and which mis-lead us into Iraq when we should have been focused on bin Laden.
When Bush leaves office it will be a day of celebration for all Americans.
Orca |
