I need help battling a freep!

I questioned the will of this admin to "actually" keep us safe. I proposed that saying we should fear terrorists and he, alone, is keeping us safe is BS.

He asked what other admins have done to keep us safe. I can think of a couple of things...

1) Clinton going after bin laden (then the repubs attacking him for the "wag the dog" thing)
2) Other admins have had major diplomatic ties to our enemies, not just our allies.


OK, what else?

And anyone who tried to dynamite the WTC towers was tracked down, apprehended, tried and convicted. In fact, the perpetrators are sitting in jail to this very day. Where's Osama bin Laden?

excellent! Thank you!:hug:

Clinton caught and jailed the guys who bombed the WTC with a carbomb.

Clinton said Saddam had WMDs, and Clinton had them destroyed by airstrikes.

:hug:

creating insurgents in the process, all who hate us because of the asshat who started it.

That is one of the main points I'll try to make.

but you might ask him why he didn't fear terrorists until Bush was President?

thank you so much!

to bring the resources to their countries. If we would share what is left we would all be in better shape. What is to be gained by bombing the shit out of counties and wasting the needed resources to get MORE resources? How much energy have we wasted in the last 4 years, not to mention money that could have been used to develop more resources?

:loveya: thank you!

He is going to keep America/ns safe. Did you EVER hear ONCE say that he was going to preserve and defend our Constitution or OUR Bill of Rights? Yes, it's about power. The daddy factor.....Ohhhhh, please keep me safe!

Will we lose in Nov cause the sheeple want "daddy" to keep them safe?

remember this is not a national election. All they have to do is manipulate a couple of districts. I just don't see HOW they can allow us to win!

nuclear proliferation.

Other administrations never outed an undercover spy who dealt with nucks in a 'axis of evil' country. (Iran)

:yourock:

done to make us safer? NOT A DAMN THING. Make them prove different. Freepers love making you do all the work then responding with some BS they heard on FAUX or from LimpBalls.

The errors and frauds of this mis-administration are legion. Why should you be the one looking for what our side has done? Remember everything changed after 9/11/01 and we have not had a Democratic in control since them.

Since the clock starts at 9/11 when every thing changed what is the issue?

thank you!

...

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
* Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
* Passenger Profiling: $10 million
* Screener Training: $5.3 million
* Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
* Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
* Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
* Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
* Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
* Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
* Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
* Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
* Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
* Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
* Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
* Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
* Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
* Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
* Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
* Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
* Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
* Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.



...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

We win!

thank you so much!

Great stuff!

I might have missed it too had he not cross posted it here...

It must've taken some research to put all that together...

--- task force DOES NOT MEET until after 9/11.

...and as soon as bush took over he was no longer a priority...

:toast:

keep anyone "safe".

Safety is an illusion, and all the media incited panic doesn't change that. In fact, we are in no more danger today than we were in 1998, or 1988, or 1958.

Due to our insane foreign policies for the last 150 years or so, there have always been lots of people that hate us and would see us harmed. The WTC attack changed nothing and, unlike the previous 1000 attempts, was only successful because of this administration's gross incompetence.

a "frame" that I don't want to be in. I'll give the answers that you guys helped me with then reject the premise. Great point, thank you.

The Bush administration undid. They took FBI surveillance off of OBL, then made it easier for terrorists to launder money in foreign banks. They gave 32 million dollars to the Taliban and they shelved the Hart/Rudman report and Cheney declared himself in charge of terror, while doing nothing but schmoozing w/Enron over bilking CA and NV electricity subscribers in the months leading up to the 9-11 attacks.

:mad:

everything they wanted? Bin Laden stated he wanted US military out of Saudi Arabia - check Bush pulled them out in May 2003; wanted to install a fundamental Islamic government in Iraq instead of a secular (Saddam) one - check read the Iraqi Constitution; wanted to stir up the rest of the Islamic world and gain recruits - check Bush's little invasion has accomplished that mission.

The only reason I debate these guys every day on my local message board is because there are other people reading. If I can change some hearts around here (Tn - red state) then I will be happy. I won't win over some, but maybe others with you and DU!

warrents on Mossaui or his lap-top which the agent in charge asked for.

major faux-pas by shrub

the big hungover kid ass bastard in the whitehouse.

Thank you!

but, I cannot fathom being so fearful for my life that I would give this administration
carte blanche over our lives to do whatever, whenever.

What a bunch of wusses.

I call them cowards, it's fun!

All the way back to Reagan there has been a surprising lack of willpower to do what would probably be considered necessary actions to combat terrorism. We have intentionally given passes to states that not only have tolerated terrorist group activities within their borders, in many cases we willfully ignore blatant evidence of sponsorship of terrorist activities, and for political and economic considerations.

Read "See no evil", by Robert Baer, a 25+ year veteran of the CIA. He was a clandestine case officer stationed in India, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq and other places. Basically Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are the principal actors. Iran's secret police was behind all of the hostage taking in Lebanon during the 80s (remember that?). The ruling family of Saudi Arabia has propped itself with a devil's bargain - it funds terrorism and terrorist groups in return for the groups not acting against the Saudi royal family.

Basically all of the evil things we claimed Saddam was doing, Iran has done in spades for decades. Unfortunately for us, Saddam was the most significant threat to Iran and acted to contain Iranian influence in the middle east. We handily delivered to Iran the greatest gift by eliminating Saddam.

Baer's account indicts all the administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr). The picture you get is of Presidents shaking hands and making deals with middle eastern leaders who then turn around and give money to terrorist groups to act against the US, and the President probably knows it at the time the deal is made. The overarching goal is to maintain the steady flow of oil at low prices (relative to prices that would be reached if we stood for our principles).

Warning for Clinton fans, its tough to read how the Clinton administration was bought and paid for by oil interests. Not that there isn't such influence in all administrations, its pretty stark in particular with Clinton.

Like a previous poster said, we have to reject the premise of any admin keeping us "safe."

Great post and a big hearty Welcome to DU!:yourock:

Clinton/Gore were ACTIVE against terrorism.

They were also ACTIVE against oil dependency and ACTIVE on alternative energy sources.

There is NO COMPARISON.

also had people working on just AlQuida...Bush's team dismantled these units and never had meetings or discussions on terrorism even after 9/11.

This is why I love DUers!! You guys have it goin on!!

They made this mess & they need to fix it. Dems hands are tied.
Having said that Dems would go after the terrorists which Bush
has ignored. As far as Iraq goes, Bush's plan is Stay & lose, that's
for the cut & run line.
Truth is when Dems are in office the world is more peaceful. You can't
wipe out terrorists, another will crop up. If you don't get the current
one you are doing nothing. Hope that helps.

Welcome to DU! May I ask a question, you don't have to answer if you don't want to and I'll understand, but what does your screen name mean? It looks like it would sound beautiful spoken.

More of an outrage than beautiful I'm afraid. :) Thanks for the welcome but I have been here a long time in and out. I just go for so long I lose a handle.

... you sure stay in the fight!! You GO, girl!!! :yourock:

I'll check the replies and see if there's anything I can add.

I talk to these people every day on a local high school sports message board that has a political forum. I live in Tn, so there are some real doozies here. I battle the same 5 or 6 men all by myself because they are so intimidating that no one really can stay in the fight. Today, a collegue entered the discussions and he is going to pulverize them. I may take a break for a while...but probably not, since they will say that I "cut and ran". I must stay in the fight because I know there are many people reading our discussions. I might be able to sway someone...that is what I'm hoping for.

It is totally awesome to be able to come here and ask questions of DUers when I get stumped. You guys always have answers and advice and I treasure you all so much! :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

Edit to ask: Do you think I'm asking too much? I haven't gotten the google thing down very well and I'm pretty well computer illiterate. You can be honest...am I asking too much or too often?

I know it must be frustrating, and it may seem like a small audience you're affecting -- but I think of it as tossing stones into ponds. You never know how far the ripples may reach. (Same with teaching and parenting! Are you a teacher and/or a parent?)

And I also think it's worth doing the same way I think of all work as worth doing ("work ethic"). It's good for others, and it's good for building our own character.

You are NOT asking too much! I think it's good for DU to hear what the battles are out there. (Some of us find it really difficult to confront the opposition on the internet. Hm, that's probably a topic in and of itself, for another day!)

PM me if you want help with Google.

I think there's a troll technique of saying, "Help me out -- aren't we Democrats really appeasing terrorists, and weak on everything and isn't that why we're so DOOMED to lose elections forever? I need help refuting this!" or similar lame things. So people can get suspicious and defensive in a knee-jerk way. But don't worry -- I think you're known and trusted here, accusing people of being "trolls" is against rules, and whenever I'm here, I'll have your back!! (Just explaining why some may seem rude -- you aren't doing ANYthing wrong.)

I think it's great you're engaging in the debate with these people. I know how good they can be at confusing discussions with "revised facts!" Ask your questions here ANYtime!!! :hi:

This is a pet peeve of mine, because I was battling it out on the STUPID AOL boards throughout 1999-2002 (as well as the old CNN chat that used to exist).

The other popular phrase against Clinton's focus on terrorism, besides "wagging the dog," was "inventing terrorist bogeymen." Those of us who supported him were also called "Scare-o-crats."

As SOON as the Chimp took office, he started making noises about the threat of "ICBMS from rogue nations" -- we went STRAIGHT back to the Reagan/Bush era, ignoring everything that had happened inbetween. It was amazing, and yet it fit with the recycled cabinet he appointed (or who appointed him!).

I TOLD the AOL and CNN idiots (H2S used to come in and chide me, "Are you talking to morons again?!?") that TERRORISM was the threat now, not "ICBMS from rogue nations." They just parroted talking points. "So it's okay with you if a nuke lands here?" That is NOT the threat, I said -- the real threats now can be carried in a suitcase. "Oh sure, like rogue nations don't want to launch ICBMS at us," they said. "It's not about NATIONS -- we can retaliate if they did that, and they know it -- it's about terrorist networks. They are loosely organized groups that transcend countries." "Oh yeah, you see black helicopters outside your house, I bet!! We'd kill them if they tried anything!" "They don't leave return addresses or wear uniforms or have symbols on planes like Japan did," I tried to explain, ENDLESSLY, to choruses of "scare-o-crat! inventing terrorist bogeymen!" blah blah blah....

In August of 2001, Tom Daschle made a GREAT speech that I WISH had been brought up by Democrats later, but never was. I kept the link, posted it and excerpts over and over again. He was WARNING that the BushCo defense budget was screwed up in terms of priorities -- again, that "ICBMs from rogue nations" were NOT the threat, and we could do MUCH more to secure the country, with much less money than the newly-revived, failed "star wars" Reagan fantasy, if we'd continue the Clinton/Gore focus on counter-terrorism and secure ports, borders, chem/nuke facilities, etc...

But they laughed it off -- suddenly, "everything old was new again," as the song goes.

H2S and I talked about this between ourselves extensively. We debated who "rogue nations" were, and quickly decided it was about Iraq. I warned the "morons" that if Bush took office, he'd start a war in the Middle East, and my guess was it'd be in Iraq. They ridiculed me.

So this CRAP you're getting from them PISSES ME OFF no end!!

I'm not giving you very concise talking points here, but there is no doubt, first of all, that this administration couldn't wait to get rid of Clinton so they could revert straight back to where they left off -- funding defense contractors (contributors) for their stupid "star wars" experiments, scaring people with old rhetoric about "ICBMs from rogue nations," and waging war in Iraq. They TOTALLY ignored the threat of terrorism, and heeded NOTHING they were given.

Second, remind them of the "1996 Gore Commission on Airline Security" (later referred to as "A 1996 commission on airline security" to take Gore's name off of it) which forsaw the potential for an attack like 9/11 and recommended measures for prevention -- including terrorist databases, secure cockpits, screening cargo, etc. -- and it was LAUGHED OUT OF COMMITTEE by the GOP. Never even made it to the floor for a vote. And why? Because it was expensive. The Republicans made financial calculations about its likelihood (not likely, they said) and the cost per person for these measures to be enacted. I can't recall the figures now, but whatever it cost per person was just WAY too much. (I think they said it was $34,000 for each person who might be killed, but don't quote me -- I can't recall exactly.)

There's probably less available info on the net about their opposition to it now -- back then, there were many quotes from Republicans ridiculing it, no doubt now scrubbed. (Their "talking point" back then was to quote one woman on the committee or who testified or otherwise participated, who didn't like the outcome, or how Gore dealt with it, or something. Supposedly that made it okay for them to ignore it all.)

Third, on that note, remind them that Clinton was dealing with a GOP Congress who thwarted MOST of what he tried to do on counter-terrorism! (I think that was cited in the truthout link someone posted above.)

Fourth, and finally, tell them to read the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's report -- $9.95 in paperback.

Sorry for going on so long but as I said -- this strikes a NERVE in me, given how I argued about this back then, and how they've changed their tune.... GRRRR!!!!! :mad:

Edited to add: The Hart-Rudman Report. Has anyone mentioned that yet? Clinton/Gore ordered it, BushCo got it in early 2001, and IGNORED it. It warned in no uncertain terms of the terrorist threat.... Google it or I'll look it up for you!!

or did it just grow out of the Gore Commission? I get them confused.

to keep this country safe - they just don't mind shredding the pesky Constitution to do so.

Democrats kept America safe and secure for over forty years while they controlled Congress. It has only been under Republican leadership that America has turned into a Trembling Quivering mass afraid of it's own shadow. Republicans exude fear and loathing. Democrats exude Peace and Prosperity..

:yourock:

"Clinton was offered Osama twice" argument, but I do know this: Not only did the actual mastermind of the FIRST WTC attack get caught, tried, convicted, and imprisoned ON CLINTON'S WATCH, it was bush who let Osama get away when our troops had him cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. They had him. They had him cornered. And then bush decided to divert them and everyone else to Iraq. They had him cornered. bush let him get away instead of stepping back and letting our guys move in for the kill. That wasn't on Clinton's watch, as I recall. It was after bush had started bombing Afghanistan in late '01. I THINK Clinton was long gone by then, and the so-called "adults" were back in charge...

executed (McVeigh) and jailed (Nichols) the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City attack. Anthrax guy -- Bush's domestic terrorist -- is still out there, like bin Laden.

Thanks!

Anti-Terror measures implemented under President Clinton:

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."




In stark contrast, here is the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record:


-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

outstanding.

the bombing of the Cole and the attacks on our embassies in Africa with all the bloody details. That's what happened to me when I wrote a LTTE citing some of what you listed, to dispel the notion that Clinton was weak on terror. How do you deal with that?

For one, I would point out that, as mentioned in the list regarding the first WTC bombing, Clinton never tried to cast the blame on the previous administration. Second, as mentioned in the list, every response by the Clinton administration to any terrorist activity was loudly and viciously denounced by the GOP led congress as a 'wag the dog' tactic or a frivolous use of the military.

Basically, when the Clinton administration wanted to (and did) fight terrorism, the GOP opposed his every move. Ever since Clinton has been out of office - or more to the point, ever since 9-11 - the GOP has complained that he didn't do enough to fight terror. Classic republican revisionism and hypocrisy.

self delete

I think I'll keep that around for the next time, as well as this time. You know, you have to tell freeps over and over again the way things are. Over and over and over and over and over............

They don't like facts to interfere with their mindset, so you have to keep repeating yourself hoping that something useful sinks in.

Do you mind if we forward it to freeper friends and family when they send annoying shit to us?

and doesn't help us as caringly as they once did, Bush is to blame for that, and that hurts all aspects of governing.

Do something productive ;-)

Too late to add recommendations, so what I can do is kick this!

I am sure it was posted before or at least it's contents were. It's a very years old but some very good stuff in there.


http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-99

This one's good, too!

I might could pop on over and deliver a swift backhand or two . It could be fun....it doesn't take much to torment them.
As I see it, these freeper types are perfect emulations of the steaming piles that are stinking up our government. They don't care about truth; they don't care about honesty. It's all about power for them... And power for them means putting you down. They just don't CARE what you think, so legitmate disourse is impossible.
So why waste your humanity on those who would hang you from a tree if they thought they could get away with it ?