Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (448874)	1/19/2009 11:43:20 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575181

If that's so great then Clinton must have been a genius, cause there were NO attacks on American soil between 1993 and 2001 and Clinton didn't have to spend $100 Billion to accomplish it. I understand the gist of your post, but it totally discounts what was going on with bin Laden and Al Qaeda during this time. At the time of the first WTC strike, AQ was still in its infancy. You will recall that the 1993 strike was carried out by Ramzi Yousef, et. al., with financing provided by KSM. The connection with Al Qaeda, while it existed, was somewhat tenuous at the time. It was only after the '93 attack that bin Laden took a keen interest in the second WTC attack, which was being pushed to him by KSM on behalf of Yousef. AQ gained prominence throughout the mid/late 90s (the Clinton years), ran multiple training camps where military-styled training was delivered to about 20K AQ soldiers. Under Clinton. So, when Bush took office, AQ was a fully formed terrorist organization which was capable of delivering substantial damage. Bush decimated AQ. Destroyed it. They can't communicate. They have no money. They are disorganized. But they are still desirous of attacking us. Even as late as September of 04, over half of Americans gave Bush DIRECT credit for us not having received further attacks, and another 25% gave him some significant credit -- that is, 75% of people in '04 believed that Bush was either totally or substantially responsible for our not having been attacked again. It is predictable that over time, without an attack, people will stop tracking the events. The bottom line is that your argument is specious. The 93 attack was not well-organized compared to '01, barely funded at all, and had minimal AQ involvement. By 2001, this picture had changed radically. There HAVE been terrorist attacks on Americans though, under Clinton AND Bush. Clinton had the Cole attack and those African Embassy attacks. Bush has had maybe 10,000 terrorist attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, it is true that some call those "attacks" terrorist attacks, but the reality is they are war engagements which really aren't "attacks" in the sense of 9/11. I think rationally you know that when we talk about "attacks" we're talking about attacks on American soil or against American civilians at home. Which we haven't had. Yet, we know that thousands of lives have been saved by thwarted attacks since 9/11/2001. To say that N. Korea and Iran aren't much MORE dangerous today than they were in 2000 is simply ABSURD and not worthy of discussion., Well, I appreciate your view, but saying it is "not worth of discussion" doesn't suggest you know what you're talking about. If you believe your position is correct, please explain on what you base it. I did.