I saw in an interview he goes into that in his book. I'd like to read it but it's too long and not trashy enough :p

It's been stated that Bush was informed of the bin Laden threat before Clinton had completely handed over the reigns. How much is in question. Clinton has stated that he made a very clear point of the eminent threat that was going to take place on U.S. soil. FBI documents support this knowledge and 1 ex official stated that when Bush was made aware of this he actually seemed disinterested.

In all honesty, we may never know what the "truth" is here. I'm all for exploring the past and attempting to find the truth, but I'd rather focus on aspects of this mess that are still in our control. Let's refocus on bin Laden and his cronies, so that we can bring them in.

Fred

asearching1,

Given that the extremists in question are Muslim extremists, or as some prefer to describe them, radical Islamists, then the notion of a “small minority” justifies serious response.

The Muslim population of the world is somewhere between 1.1 billion and 1.9 billion, depending upon the source. Taking a conservative (for the purposes of the discussion) estimate of 1.25 billion, one tenth of one percent of the male population produces a number of 625,000. Given that no more than half of that number would be available due to extremes of age, 312,500 potential recruits remain.

While it is true that this number is relatively small in comparison to the world’s Muslim population, it is almost twice the number of active US Marines. The events of September 11th vividly demonstrated what a few empowered individuals can do. We are all aware of other terrorist attacks for which Al Qaeda accepts responsibility.

These attacks against Americans and American interests would justify an armed response if they were carried out by a sovereign nation. What options exist when dealing with a supranational entity like Al Qaeda? Can there be, even in principle, justifications for the use of US Armed Forces against such an organization? If so, what would they be? If not, then what effective response exists for a nation state?

Your assessment of US involvement in the Middle East did not include the only long lasting peace treaty secured in that region, the 1979 Camp David Accords, agreed to by Israel and Egypt, and brokered by the US. Even then, President Carter said that the treaty was "a first step on a long and difficult road." He also said "We must not minimalise the obstacles that lie ahead." Should America withdraw from such efforts?

You included American involvement and support of the Shah of Iran among the reasons associated with the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. I believe that Ayatollah Khomeini declared an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979. At least three of the aircraft hijackers, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Abdulaziz Alomari, Waleed M. Alshehri, were born after the Islamic republic was created, and all of them were too young to remember the Shah’s regime. Unless ancestral hatred is admitted as a valid political position, this justification seems strained.

Before the world gets done bashing the Bin Laden family, I’d like to mention that I lived for almost 6 years in an apartment block built by Bin Laden Construction in Jeddah. They’re as regular folk as any extended family. Every family has its black sheep, although Osama has provided a new nadir.

The truth
 

First of all, lets get the truth out. The Bush admin. never claimed to have knowledge of an Iraq/911 tie. They claimed a tie to Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. When the 911 commission released its findings, it said that while there was no evidence of an Iraq/911 tie, there was however a tie between Iraq and Bin Laden/al Qaeda. I've heard liberals scream that Bush is a liar but not once have I heard a replay of President Bush or any of his administration say that Iraq was involved in 911.
Moores film does not speak the truth. I have no problem with a liberal view or a view against President Bush but make sure you speak the truth if you're going to cut him down. Moore makes the claim that President Bush knew about 911 before but wouldn't do anything about it for political gain. That is absurd. The war on terror/Iraq is not a political gain. It very well could be the reason Bush would lose. I also don't hold Clinton too responsible for not leading a war on terror. Without the backing of the people, no president can wage war. I don't believe Moore is honest, I believe that his hatred of the president should make people sick.

Oh, as for the WMD's...The president had his own CIA director tell him that is was a "slam dunk". He had Britian intel saying Iraq had WMD's. Russia even believed he had WMDs. I personally believe he had them. Maybe not to the extent of what was thought but he had them. Remember the hatred Saddam had for Bush? Saddam knew the political ramifications of the Bush claim of WMDs. It wouldn't be above Saddam to move them to Syria to try to hurt Bush. He had them, he agreed to get rid of them. He refused to provide evidence he had gotten rid of them. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not us. Ever been afraid of the police searching your car if you didn't have anything in it?

One more thing, quit worrying what all other countries think of the US. Germany is primarily responsible for 2 world wars and France has bowed down to them twice. Their opnion of us doesn't bother me too much and it shouldn't you either.

Re: The truth
 

The administration has been playing a clumsy game of semantics since this fiasco began. Bush may never said outright that Iraq had a hand in the 911 attacks, but the administration has stated repeatedly that there is a strong connection between bin Laden and Hussein, when in fact the two dispise each other and have completely opposite agendas. For the president to repeatedly state that this connection was there in a justification for a war during a time when the U.S. population was emotionally raw.... well it isn't too difficult for anyone to figure out what would be inferred by anyone who hadn't looked into it at all.

I saw the Moore film and don't recall him ever stating that Bush knew about 911 before it happened and allowed it. It has been reported by several internal and external sources that the president was made aware of the possibility that an attack on U.S. soil was being planned and that it simply wasn't a priority for him. Political gain? I doubt it. Sloppy? Possibly.

Bush has proven that he can continue a war dispite the vast majority of the world being against it. He has never wavered. Never questioned. Never, to my knowledge, even granted an audience to hear out these concerns and maybe give pause. That is what disturbs me the most about this entire situation. It almost comes across as a stubborn child stomping his feet and demanding that he is right, pointing at anything to distract while never really answering many of the questions posed to him.

I have never been afraid of the police searching my car and don't believe that Hussein was afraid. However, I have dealt with ignorant police officers that make unreasonable demands simply because they feel they have the right to based on their position. If not kept in check, my initial reaction would and has on rare occassion been to resist, become indignant and fight for my rights.

I'm not worried about what other countries think about us except to the extent that this simply gives radicals another excuse to say that the U.S. is a bully.

At the end of the day, I am simply concerned about my own conscience and I point out what I believe to be inconsistancies within our country's leadership. A "war on terrorism" being the excuse for war against Iraq? The guy was a murdering ass, killed his own people, but was not a terrorist. Inconsistancies also in looking at going to war with Iraq over North Korea (a country that has nuclear capability). A war with Iraq to ease suffering over there?.... what about the thousands and thousands being killed in the Sudan or a half dozen other African countries, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan both are havens for terrorists. This war was not about taking out a bad man.

I'm still amazed that it seems there was more time, energy and discussion spent examining a lie about a man's sexual choices and indiscretions than over a man who ordered a war waged and thousands of innocent lives lost.

Fred

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882).

Right or wrong,the thing that I liked best,was that finally someone
did something,besides threating to do so.As many of you already
know,I listen to Talk Shows,for most of the day.Before our current
President,I used to listen,almost every day,how the USA,wasn't
respected anymore,because other countries knew that,we
threatened,but never backed it up.The whole question,will never
be awnsered.People are going to believe,what they want to.No
ones mind will be changed,but at least we did something besides
threatening.I used to "enforce"for the old motorcycle gangs.I used to tell people that I was going to kick their ass.They would
say-Are you threatening me?I would tell them-No,I'm not threatening you,I'm promising you.
What I'm saying is that,if you won't back it up,don't say it!If you don't have your pride,you have nothing!As I said,it may be wrong,
but at least we did something. Irish
P.S.Saddam agreed to show how he got rid of his WMDs.He never
did.Were we just supposed to believe him,without proof?
P.P.S.My $.02.

Irish,

Not wishing to be accused of consistency, permit me to mention a few facts that the research staff of some of the talk shows seemed to have overlooked:

26-JUN-93 ~ Cruise missiles launched against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad due to plot to kill former President George Bush.

28-FEB-94 ~ First air attacks began in Bosnia against Serb planes in the no-fly zone, and demanded the removal of Serb artillery from the hills around Sarajevo.

03-SEP-96 ~ 27 cruise missiles launched into Iraq due to Saddam's attacks on the Kurds.

16-DEC-96 ~ Air attacks began against Iraq for failing to allow access to weapons inspectors; 300 cruise missiles fired in 4 days destroyed weapons plants, but Saddam Hussein remained in power.

20-AUG-98 ~ 70 cruise missiles fired at guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan and at a chemical plant in the Sudan reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire Osama bin Laden.

24-MAR-99 ~ A 78-day bombing campaign began against Serb forces led by Slobodan Milosevic who had continued "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians in Kosovo, refusing UN and NATO demands to withdraw.

President Clinton used American military power as he thought best. You may find it useful to think of it this way; President Clinton was very conservative in his use of the armed forces, while President Bush uses them very liberally.

In re the thread subject, commercial products such as talk shows and docutainments are produced to make money. They do so by knowing and playing to their audience. Boring talk shows are replaced, and their hosts find other employment. Controversy sells, even if the political cant hides what might otherwise illuminate. Keep in mind that half of the voters in America voted for Bush’s opponent in the last election, and is likely to do so again. It is unsurprising that people take advantage of that – from both sides of the aisle.

I wish politics would go away. I'm sick of it already. As far as the movie goes ... it's crap. But then it's hard not to be when you're offering political opinions. :rolleyes:

Maybe,I didn't express myself correctly.I don't just sit & listen to the radio.I have it on to talk shows,because I'm usually doing
something around my land or in my garage.If I miss something,
who cares?I'm not saying that my values are the same as everyone elses.Politics bore me also,but MY sense of values,may be different than others.As far as the war goes,France & Germany
were never going to approve,of it.They had private deals with
Saddam,& were not going to get paid,the enormous amount,that
he owed them,if he was not in power.I don't know,what is true &
what's not.I only know,what I believe.After the "cold war" was over with,the military budgets,were cut so badly,that I believe
that's why people say that we don't have enough troops on the
ground.I don't know the exact amounts,but I remember that the
Navy was cut by 39%. Irish
P.S.As I said,to me politics are not the most important thing.To me
,it's taking care of my family & providing a reliable service to my
clients.That's why my motorcycle shop is named "Reliable Cycle"
Can you tell that I made up that name?When you're a rider &
owner,you take much better care of your clients,then if you were
just an owner!

"We Didn't Start the Fire" (Lyrics)
History Summary from 1949-1989

Harry Truman, Doris Day
Red China, Johnny Ray

South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon
Studebaker, Television

North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H-bomb
Sugar Ray, Panmunjom

Brando, The King and I
And The Catcher In The Rye

Eisenhower, Vaccine
England's got a new queen

Maciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov
Nasser and Prokofiev

Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Cohn
Juan Peron
Toscanini, Dancron

Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock

Einstein, James Dean,
Brooklyn's got a winning team

Davy Crockett, Peter Pan
Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest
Alabama, Khrushchev

Princess Grace
Peyton Place

Trouble in the Suez

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Little Rock, Pasternak,
Mickey Mantle, Kerouac

Sputnik, Chou En-Lai,
Bridge On The River Kwai

Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle,
California baseball

Starkwether, Homicide,
Children of Thalidomide

Buddy Holly, Ben Hur
Space Monkey, Mafia

Hula Hoops, Castro
Edsel is a no-go

U2, Syngman Rhee
payola and Kennedy

Chubby Checker, Psycho,
Belgians in the Congo

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichman
Stranger in a Strange Land

Dylan
Berlin
Bay of Pigs invasion

Lawrence of Arabia
British Beatlemania

Ole Miss, John Glenn
Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X
British Politician sex

J.F.K. blown away
What else do I have to say?

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh
Richard Nixon back again

Moonshot
Woodstock
Watergate, punk rock

Begin
Reagan

Palestine
Terror on the airline

Ayatollah's in Iran
Russians in Afghanistan

Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride,
heavy metal, suicide

Foreign debts
Homeless Vets
AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz

Hypodermics on the shores
China's under martial law
Rock and roller, cola wars,
I can't take it anymore

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

BigJohnson9,

Wecome to Pixies Place sir.

Cool intro. Thank you.

Bowling for Columbine - entertaining? The only TRUTH that was in that movie is that Moore directed/produced it, period.

Please don't tell me you took any of that for fact.

People are entitled to express their opinions and beliefs, whatever they may be, without being told that another's opinions and beliefs are the ONLY truth.

If you are getting your information 2nd hand, you actually KNOW nothing. And is why most conversations like this fail to be productive (especially in a sex forum). Because people purport to KNOW that the information they have encountered from other sources is truth, when in fact, unless you were actually involved in the decisions and situations, you have no real knowledge of anything, you are simply stating an opinion, which is filled with presumption and bias, regardless of how informed you feel your opinion is.

Lilith,

Interesting point. How does one know what one purports to know? Is knowledge limited to experience?