Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
This is unquestionably the most incoherent comment I have read yet. First of all this post is about 9/11 or do you need to read things more than seven times.

Second, show me where I supported the concept of a Global War on Terror? It was a wrongly labeled war from the outset.

Third what does anything you just posted have to do with the subject?

And finally, I would like to know if you believe we are or are not at war. Anyone who does not believe we are at war with radical Muslim groups who use terror as their primary tactic is either ignorant of events or choosing to play retail politics with people's lives.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um no. My comment is specifically directed to this sentence which you wrote on this thread:

If Clinton did his job then all your rants over Bush this and that would be moot.

Is it the big words in my reply, or the really big sentences that you  find incoherent?

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The post has to do with 9/11 and not Katrina or the other issues you brought up. The point is basic. The day Bush took the oath of office, had Clinton done the most fundamental job of President (commander-in-chief) there would no longer be any need for a bin Laden unit in the CIA. And we are not talking about one lucky shot. We are talking about at least 8 certain chances of capture or kill. The issue is what would each of the current (or projected) list of Presidential candidates have done in the same situation? There will be one issue that will be paramount on people's minds in 2008 in the U.S. and before any discussion begins what will the candidate do to make sure there are no more 9/11's.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And you're missing other people's basic point -- that Bush, not Clinton, was at fault.  You are basically opining that Clinton did not break the law and assassinate someone.  It's been pointed out to you on this thread that people here don't support the notion that a president should break the law.  It's also been stated repeatedly that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously, something you keep denying in order to stay on your "blame Clinton" storyline.

Pre-9/11, the Bush administration was focused on funneling money to their cronies via "missle defense," a.k.a Star Wars, the largely discredited Reagan-era money-sink.  I'll provide another link, in addition to the previous ones you've ignored.

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

(...)The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

(...)The text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what you think the issue is. And I'm sorry, but you're just sadly deluded. The polls bear out that the main issue of concern for the US is getting the hell out of Iraq. Health care comes in next, then Illegal immigration. Finally, we get to 'terrorism'. Sorry you don't get that yet, keep watching the polls, especially that question "what's the most important issue to you?"

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 8-11, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Let me list some issues that have been proposed for the federal government to address. Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government. [See below.]" If more than one: "Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?"

 The war in Iraq 34  
 Health care 15  
 Illegal immigration 12  
 Terrorism 12  
 Job creation and economic growth 8  
 Energy and the cost of gas 6  
 The environment and global warming 6  
 Reducing the federal budget deficit 4  
 All equally (vol.) 3

Here's another in case that first was too complicated:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

 War in Iraq
 Gas/Heating oil crisis
 Health care
 Terrorism (general)
 President Bush
 Moral values/Family values
 Foreign policy

Here's another:

Gallup Poll. April 23-26, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide, drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. MoE ± 4.

"In your view, what one or two issues should be the top priorities for the President and Congress to deal with at this time?" Open-ended. Multiple responses accepted.

 Situation in Iraq/War 66    
 Poor health care/Cost of health care 20    
 Economy in general 14    
 Immigration/Illegal aliens 14    
 Fuel/Oil prices/Energy crisis 7    
 Environment/Pollution 5    
 National security 4    
 Education/Poor education/Access to educ. 4    
 Terrorism 4    
 Federal deficit/Federal debt 3    
 Social Security 3    
 Other 22    
 Unsure 1    

Furthermore, I think the Bush's obvious failure to prepare for another terrorist attack is driving whatever concerns remain about terrorism. The problem, in short, isn't what's happened. That's done. That was fucked up while Bush was president. What you really should be worried about is how much MORE dangerous Bush's actions have actually made the world--from 9/11 onward. And how much MORE vulnerable the rest of the world is as a result of the disastrous occupation of Iraq (where we've created the world's first continously non-stop disintegrating nation state devoted almost entirely to intercine warfare and terrorists training)  and the screwed up adventure in Afghanistan (where I hear the poppy crop is most excellent this year).

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 12:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I want to make this next answer succinct and simple:

We are an Illegal Occupying Military Presence In  Iraq. So, follow me now, we are not 'at war'. We are in an occupation. I don't know what you call Afghanistan, but it smells more like an failing occupation as well, day by day it seems more and more that way.

Click on the links if you want sourced and detailed information and arguments to back that sentiment up.

Okay, here goes sentence number two: We helped to create the 'radical muslim groups' you're worried about. You might have picked that up in the links I've offered to you twice so far or at least a half dozen comments on this thread. But just in case your mouse finger couldn't manage a click, previously, here's another link.

Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S. policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support for the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the Islamic revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of Jafaar Nimeiry during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led to the destruction of much of that country's civil society, resulting in the 1989 coup by hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew that country's brief democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the destruction of moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by U.S.-backed invasions and occupations from Syria and Israel--and later military intervention by the U.S. itself--led to a vacuum filled by more sectarian groups such as Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias that once carved up the rest of the country were disarmed by a revived central government and its Syrian backers.

The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the rise of radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the U.S. itself.

Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a justification for keeping a high military, economic and political profile in the Middle East. Yet it has often supported Muslim hardliners when they were perceived to enhance U.S. interests, as they did in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. A background report from a professor of MidEast politics can be found here...

So to ask whether we are at war or not isn't even the right question. The right question is why have we been more or less constantly invading, occupying, manipulating or warring in that region since approximately 1953? Riddle me that, batboy, and you'll work out the answer to your own question (See, I don't believe in intellectual welfare cheats: give a man to fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life!). But you'll have to do some reading on your own to get there.

If you still don't quite get it (understandable vis a vis your comment upstream), please click on the links for further edification...um...sorry  .... 'learning'.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series