Asturian-American Migration Forum

Hace tiempo tuvimos una discusión en este mismo foro, muy animada, entre detractores y defensores del actual presidente de EEUU.

Yo estaba en la categoría "detractores" y creo que el tiempo nos dio la razón. Para mi Bush es una persona intelectualmente limitada, un no-inteligente "solemne" parafraseando al líder del PP. Los numerosos "buchism" son prueba de ello. Me diréis que nosotros también tenemos una buena cantidad de no-inteligentes entre nuestros políticos. Así es, pero obviamente los nuestros no representan un peligro para el mundo ni se pasean con un maletín con el "botón" nuclear.

Sabemos que en el tema de la guerra de Iraq, todo fue mentira. Ni había armas de destrucción masiva, ni Sadam apoyaba el terrorismo de Al-Qaeda, ni tiene muchas trazas el país en convertirse en una democracia donde se respeten los derechos humanos.

Guantánamo y Abu-Graib tuvieron muchos niños, y medio mundo tiene cárceles secretas de la C.I.A. donde se encarcela a gente sin protección jurídica, se tortura, y quizás se mate. Obviamente Bush está al tanto de todo.

Ben Laden sigue vivo y libre. Todo apunta a que los atentados del 11-S, como los nuestros del 11-M se debieron a la ineficacia del estado para proteger a sus ciudadanos.

Con excusa del terrorismo, no solo EEUU no respeta al mundo y sus ciudadanos, se permite encarcelar alemanes inocentes por una equivocación, como si de la película Brazil se tratara, secuestrar personas en territorio italiano, sino que incluso machaca vuestras libertades permitiendo que la N.S.A. escuche vuestras conversaciones, lean vuestros correos electrónicos, etc.

(Por cierto, ya que seguramente un funcionario de la N.S.A. celoso estará leyendo este mensaje : que te de un dolor de muelas. Traducido, mira que soy bueno que ahorro dinero al contribuyente estadounidense : I wish to have a toothache).

Mi pregunta es la siguiente :

¿Quienes apoyasteis a Bush seguís haciéndolo, o por el contrario os diste cuenta de la catadura del personaje.

Claro que la visión que se pueda tener difiere mucho según se tenga de EEUU o de Europa. Que en vuestro país entran en juego conceptos como el del patriotismo. Pero a pesar de eso, me cuesta entender que gente siga apoyando a semejante persona.

¿Qué opináis?

Otro debate interesantes sería : ¿qué es prioritario, la seguridad o la libertad?

Un saludo.

P.S. : Por cierto, como venganza podéis criticar a nuestro jefe de estado.

P.S. 2 : He cambiando el vocabulario que ofende a determinadas personas por uno más políticamente correcto. Los cambios en negrita. 15-1-05 Berodia.
-----------------------
trans. Art

Some time ago we had a discussion in this same forum, a very animated one between detractors and defenders of the current president of the USA.

I was in the "detractors" category and I believe that time has proven us right. To me, Bush is an intellectually-limited person, a "solemn" but unintelligent person, paraphrasing the leader of the PP. The numerous "Bushisms" are proof of this. You will say to me that we also have a good quantity of unintelligent people among our politicians. That's true, but obviously ours neither represent a danger to the world nor walk around with a briefcase with a nuclear "button".

We know that as for the topic of the war of Iraq, everything was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Sadam was not supporting Al-Qaeda's terrorism, nor have there been many signs that the country is turning into a democracy where human rights are respected.

Guantanamo and Abu-Graib had many children, and half the world has secret CIA prisons where people are imprisoned without juridical protection, are tortured, and perhaps are killed. Obviously Bush is aware of it all.

Ben Laden is still alive and free. Everything suggests that the attacks of 9-11, like ours of 3-11, were a result of the inefficiency of the state in protecting its citizens.

Under the pretext of [fighting] terrorism, the USA not only does not respect the world and its citizens, it is also allowed to imprison innocent Germans by mistake, in a way similar to the movie Brazil [Art: I may not understand the preceding idea correctly], kidnap people on Italian soil, but it also slashes your freedoms by allowing NSA to listen to your conversations, read your e-mails, etc.

(By the way, since surely a zealous civil servant of NSA will be reading this message: may you get a toothache. Translated--look what a good guy I am, saving the American taxpayer's money: [Art: I've added one word to Berodia's words:] I wish [you] to have a toothache).

My question is the following one:

Those of you who supported Bush, do you continue supporting him, or on the contrary have you realized that he's a shady character?

Obviously, that the view that we can differ greatly depending on whether we're coming from [the perspective of] the USA or Europe. In your country there come into play concepts like patriotism. But even so, it's difficult for me to understand how people can continue supporting such a person.

What do you think?

Another interesting debate would be: which has higher priority, safety or freedom?

Best wishes.

P.S. Of course, for revenge you can criticize our head of state.

P.P.S. I have changed the vocabulary that offended some people for something more politically correct. The changes are in bold. 1-15-05 Berodia.

[Art: Because of Berodia's changes to the text, I have removed a warning about the language and the link to the guidelines for this area of the forum: http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=579
Please note that the moderators did not intentionally pressure Berodia to change his wording. It was his choice.]

Once again, I will refrain from expressing my strongly held opinions on this highly charged political topic, so that I can serve as a neutral moderator on this and related issues.

Please note that my original post referenced by Art refers only to Suronda, Art and myself. Terechu has since joined us as a moderator of the forum.

Bob

Desde luego que si representa un problema hablar de Bush, y sobretodo de la opinión que tienen hoy en día quienes lo apoyaron en las últimas elecciones, pues borrar mi post.


Un saludo.



www.cabrales.tk

........................................

Hi, Berodia, I doubt that you'll get much response from Bush supporters. I see three reasons for that.

The first is because some of your choice of language will be seen as offensive by many Americans. I think it's really hard to imagine how very different our cultures are in this regard. But we should discuss this piece if it elsewhere, in another thread:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1205

Second, very few like to admit to having been wrong, especially when they were so vocal about it earlier. I doubt that their basic beliefs and goals have changed much, but I'd guess that they're as disillusioned as the rest of us by the way things have turned out.

Third, there are many fewer Bush supporters now than there were before the elections. His popularity is down markedly in the US because of the constant deaths and bad news in the Iraq war, increasing energy costs, and scandals over spying on citizens, lying to the public about his reasons for going to war, etc. There simply aren't nearly as many people willing to speak out in favor of his policies.

The sad thing is that plenty of us predicted these things. Even here in the forum we warned of threats to civil liberties, the disaster that would result from going to war, the impossibility of "bringing democracy" to Iraq by force, etc. We were out numbered by those who wanted to believe Bush's words. Now those words are coming back to haunt him.

In another 40 years, I believe we'll see history books--even conservative ones--writing that the Bush presidency was one of the weakest in our history. Before then we may even see Bush and Cheney impeached. There is a movement to do just that.

But it's not just Bush who was at fault. The American people bought the story he told us. Why did Americans want to believe what Bush said when it seemed so dubious? What was in this for them? I think a lot of people everywhere like [desire] the appearance of a strong leader. That's why Franco and Hitler were able to gain power, too. At least in Bush's case, he wasn't really a strong leader; he just fooled a lot of people by saying the right words.

I look forward to hearing others' perspectives.

------------------------

Hola, Berodia, dudo que consigas mucha respuesta de los partidarios de Bush. Veo tres motivos para esto.

El primero es porque en varios casos las frases que escogiste serán vista como ofensivas por muchos americanos. Pienso que es realmente difícil imaginar en que medida nuestras culturas son diferentes en cuanto a este tema. Pero deberíamos hablar de este pedazo en otra hilo:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1205

Segundo, a muy pocos les gusta admitir a equivocar, especialmente cuando eran tan vocal sobre este asunto antes. Dudo que sus creencias básicas y sus objetivos se hayan cambiado mucho, pero adivinaría que son tan desilusionados como los demás de nosotros por el modo que las cosas han resultado.

Tercio, hay muchos menos seguidores de Bush ahora que había antes de las elecciones. Su popularidad ha abajado notablemente en EU debido a las muertes constantes y noticias malas de la guerra en Irak, los aumentando gastos de energía, y los escándalos sobre el espionaje a ciudadanos y sus mentiras al público sobre sus motivos para entrar en guerra, etc. Simplemente no son tantas personas dispuestas de hablar claramente a favor de su política.

Es triste que muchos de nosotros predijeran estas cosas. Incluso aquí en el foro advertimos de las amenazas a nuestras libertades civiles, el desastre que resultaría de entrar en guerra, la imposibilidad de "traer la democracia" a Irak por fuerza, etc. Nos doblaron en número los que quisieron creer las palabras de Bush. Ahora aquellas palabras vuelven para atormentarlo a Bush.

En otros 40 años, creo que veremos libros de historia - hasta libros conservadores - que escribirán que la presidencia de Bush era uno de los más débiles en nuestra historia. Antes incluso podemos ver a Bush y Cheney acusado (a un alto cargo de delitos cometidos en el desempeño de sus funciones). Ya hay un movimiento para hacerlo.

Pero no es solamente Bush que hice mal. Los americanos "compraron" la historia que él nos dijo. ¿Por qué quisieron los americanos creer lo que Bush dijo cuándo pareció tan dudoso? ¿Qué ventaja ofreció creerlo? Creo que mucha gente por todas partes desean el aspecto de un líder fuerte. Es por eso que Franco y Hitler fueron capaz de ganar el poder, también. Al menos en el caso de Bush, él no era realmente un líder fuerte; él solamente engañó a mucha gente por decir unas palabras exactas.

Espero a leer de las perspectivas de otros.

Hi, Berodia, I doubt that you'll get much response from Bush supporters. I see three reasons for that.

You know I am still a 100% President Bush supporter.

Berodia...its funny that you are making all these comments about President Bush from your home in Spain. To tell you the truth...I don't like it especially with the language you find it necessary to use. About criticizing your Government Heads...its not my place living here in the USA to do that. I realize that one of the functions of this forum is to exchange ideas...but sometimes it goes too far.

Most Liberals are still beating the drum with....there were no WMD's in Iraq...you all know we received the wrong information from our intelligence...also from those of other countries. Osama...should have been caught when he was offered on a silver platter to President Clinton.

There has been no terrorist attack here in the United States since 9/11 due to his policies. Next time I suppose President Bush should get a Four Star Hotel to house the terrorists....these are the ones who cut off people's heads and killed a defenseless woman... I guess when they are apprehended we should really give them first class treatment and ask them pretty please when we are trying to get information from them.

The only reason why I am responding to this ridiculous post...is I don't want any of you to think that President Bush has lost support. Its people like the Ultra Liberals in our country that we have to be afraid of...plus the Liberal Press like the New York Slimes who gives very one-sided news.

Barbara Alonso Novellino

Barbara
You are correct, we were given bad intelligence (those in power know that). We were told that it was good intelligence. The American people had a first class snow job pulled on them. The problem is, we have no intelligence in the White House. Oh, one thing more: "OIL".

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, not a conservative or a liberal, which by the way I view both as misnomers a much more precise label would be retrogrades or progressives.

That said, the Bush administration received poor intelligence they were at fault for the results of their actions not so much because of the intelligence, but because even though they knew the intelligence was faulty (proven in many different ways) they not only choose to use it to validate their own actions i/e convince the congress that war was the only option, but they used it to convince the UN of the necessity of war. This while they were aware that the information provided to them was bogus. In my opinion that not only seriously harms the current administration but considerably weakens the US in the world. The next time the US needs the support of the UN for whatever mission however legitimate it may be, what are the odds of fringe nations supporting us given the record? Would you support a liar that used documents he knew were fake to convince you to kill 130,000 Iraqui’s? I wouldn’t.

“Osama...should have been caught when he was offered on a silver platter to President Clinton.” When did this happen? If by chance you are referring to the Sudan incident you should remember that at the time 1996 Osama ‘had committed no crime against the US’ and although it was likely that he would that is not a reason for imprisonment or worse. Not only that but the US had just come out of a military disaster in Mogadishu, Somalia. So Unitedstadians weren’t keen in getting involved in a foreign battle with Bin Laden supporters for a crime he hadn’t committed. Furthermore, at the time Osama was offered to the US by the Sudanese government Bill Clinton was using all of his political influence both home and abroad to stop the massacre (genocide) while it was ongoing in Bosnia. Clinton created a real coalition in which the US was simply a member of unlike the Gulf war were the US was the only one with support from the fringes (except Britain). The Bosnia conflict cost 13 billion dollars of that the US paid 2.5 billion and saved over 200,000 lives. By comparison the Gulf war so far has cost over 400 billion were the ‘allies’ have promised 19 billion but so far only delivered 4.5 billion and most of that by Britain, there were ZERO Unitedstadian casualties in Bosnia there are over 16,000 between dead and wounded in Iraq so far http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... alties.htm .... How can you possibly compare the two? the situation at the time or the likely outcome had Clinton actually taken action against Osama? Mind boggling.

“There has been no terrorist attack here in the United States since 9/11 ..” and there hadn’t been any for the previous 200 years either, Bush deserves as much credit for the security of this nation over the last 5 years as he does for the previous 230. The most likely explanation for the lack of attacks on the US is not the triumph of the policies in place, but rather the terrorists groups are not interested in attacking the US at this time. The time will come when doing so becomes the thing to do, then, and only then will they attack. Terrorism works only if it succeeds in terrorizing the people intended to terrorize, if an attack was to occur tomorrow it would not terrorize anybody, it would simply unite the people of the US in support of the administration, it would make for one very stupid terrorist to do that. They have much more to gain from letting the US bleed to death in their camp. Why go fight the enemy in his house if you can bring him to you on your terms? They don’t have intercontinental missiles to attack the US, it makes more sense to bring the US soldiers to them so that they can pick and choose who and when to kill. Think about it.
I agree with Ron, oil did play a major role in the attacking of Iraq, however I doubt very much that it was the only reason, and I seriously do not believe for a picosecond that the new rhetoric of humanitarian reasons had anything to do with it. After all those that Saddam killed were dead a long very long time before Bush got to power. The idea that we went to war to save people that died over a decade before the war started is beyond stupid, neither Unitedstadians nor the rest of the world are anywhere near that idiotic. If humanitarian reasons had anything to do with anything why in the heavens are we not in Sudan TODAY when hundreds of thousands of people are dying in an ongoing genocide? IMO (and opinions are like noses...) Bush wanted to go to Iraq because of the criticism of his father’s administration for not finishing the job in the first Gulf war. I will admit, I was among those that thought that it was stupid to not finish the job then, however, I will also admit that in hindsight Bush Sr. was right in stopping when and were he did. Hats off to you sir!

There is no Unitedstadian president I think less off than the current one. Lets forget about everything said so far, heck what is a couple tens of thousands of lives here and 130,000 from the others, lets forget that. Start anew.

Since this president has taken office the national debt has DOUBLED, it took 225 years for this nation to get a 4.5 trillion dollar debt, it took Mr. Bush 5.5 years to turn that into a 9 trillion dollar debt, not only that but if current projections hold by the time he leaves office it will be an 11 trillion dollar debt. If they hold, up until now this administration has said it would take so much debt and has exceeded it by a margin of over 120% every time.

This administration has cut taxes for the wealthy and at the same time reduce benefits for the poor, in who’s mind does that make sense? Then there are ‘fringe’ benefits that don’t get discussed by anybody, the oil industry got a 9.5 billion dollar credit in the last transportation bill (the bill had nothing to do with oil, but they put it there after the vote), that credit was for taxes already paid, paid during the 1990's! This at the same time, in the same year, during the same quarter that the oil industry posted record profits of over 65 billion (combined) Lol, at the same time they cut medicare by 2.5 billion for the same year saying the savings were needed, and the services were frivolous....

Billions more billions less who cares, lets see what is in our future, thanks to the efforts of this administration. The US withdrew from the Kyoto protocol a pact/agreement signed in good faith by the nations of the world in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the move saved the US industry approximately 5 billion in new expenditure over the next 5 years. At the same time it cost the US the leadership position in the world, now nations look towards Europe and more importantly at China. Global warming is not happening is this administrations position yet the scientific community says otherwise, and we can see it happening right in front of our eyes. In Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico all over America schools that teach Chinese as a second language are popping up like mushrooms, simply look at the yellow pages for Lima, ten years ago there was one school that taught Chinese and that was for those of Chinese descent, today there are over 20 big ones. At the same time of the over 60 between large and small that taught English when I was in school there are only 5 large ones, and they are only for the elite, from what I hear the monthly dues in Roosevelt for instance were I went is today at $3,500. Unreal in ten years nobody will know English in Peru and everybody will speak fluent Chinese.

Not to get carried away I’ll say one more thing.

While this administration is cutting taxes I would gladly volunteer to pay higher taxes if the money was to be used for the benefit of society as a whole, for instance if we were to tax ourselves more to pay down the national debt, take a look at it pile up here http://zfacts.com/p/318.html anybody can see that this debt is something that sooner or later will get to us all. I would gladly pay higher taxes if it was earmarked to send poor people to college, we spend 840 billion last year in teaching our kids to shoot a rifle (not counting discretionary expenses and Homeland security), but we spend less than 350 billion including building construction repairs, amortization ect. to teach him how to read, out of that "three out of every five current expenditure dollars were spent on teachers, textbooks, and other instructional services and supplies. An average of $6,911 was spent on each student" http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_2/3-7.asp , clearly we have our priorities misplaced. If we don't get the next generation up and ready to face the competition in a flat world this nation has seen the best of its days. Compare the numbers spent by the government for tertiary education in $

#1 Vanuatu 2,074.6
#2 Malawi 1,492
#35 Malaysia 86.1
#36 China 85.8
#97 Australia 24.9
#98 United States 23.9
#99 Oman 23.3
#100 Philippines 23.2
#101 Latvia 22.5
#102 Peru 22

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu ... tu_ter_lev

The US ‘the leaders of the world’ is spending as much as Peru a third world nation in educating their children.

China is currently producing more engineers than the US "Statistics say the U.S. is producing 70,000 engineers a year vs. 350,000 from India and 600,000 from China", even if we use the numbers of those that debate the validity of the statistics the picture is very worrisome as it would be "We found that the U.S. was graduating 222,335 engineers, vs. 215,000 from India. The closest comparable number reported by China is 644,106, but it includes additional majors. " One would need to keep in mind that China has not always had the kind of money it has in it's hands today and has not devoted this amount of resources to education in the past, China is spending four times as much in four times as many people today, there is a 'lag' phenomena that needs to be accounted for. Their efforts today will pay off ten years down the road, by the same token, ten or 20 years down the road how will we be able to compete? I strongly oppose this administration cutting taxes for today's benefit at the expense of tomorrow's existence. While at the same time it sinks us into the deepest debt this nation or any nation has ever seen. The Soviet Union was once a great power, but they too didn’t know their own limits.

In my opinion Bush will someday be remembered as the man that made the US a second rate nation. I believe the US is today were England was at the turn of the 20th century, a great power no doubt, in fact the mightiest nation in the world of his day. But yearning for glory days of yesteryear it failed to prepare for the future and within two decades got displaced by the US. I believe the next power much like the US was back then is quietly building itself today, I believe that nation is China, and I believe historians will blame Bush’s administration for not seeing it, despite the hundreds if not thousands of people that have so very extensively written about it.

Elí


ooops did it again... lol darn it Eli, you talk too much!

There have been no terrorists attacks since 9/11 true...but in the previous 230 years.

I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

As far as everything else...think what you want...You say you are neither Republican or a Democrat, however you sound most assuredly like a Liberal Democrat.

Barbara Alonso Novellino

Well I was thinking on terrorist attacks on the 9-11 scale, but yes there was that and you could also point out the bombing of our ships the Cole comes to mind, the bombing of our embassies, or the KLM flight, I could go on with internal terrorism the like of the Murrah building or the Waco fiasco, you could even put in that category the Jones massacre. I could go on but that’s not the point, I was thinking along the lines explained above.

If you want to label me at least point in the right direction.... I’m so not a Democrat, and even worse a Liberal at that lol first of all nothing I’ve said is representative of the Democratic party’s views. Second nothing I’ve said is representative of any one party’s views. I’ve pointed out the facts then I went on to give my opinion on them.

Now for your edification only.... I happen to be a Libertarian.


What’s a Libertarian?? Lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Elí

Barbara, you certainly cannot blame the fiasco in Afganistan on Clinton, right? I mean, Tora Bora (where we had Bin Laden dead to rights) was on your man's watch, right?

Clinton left office in 2000. Blaming him for not catching Bin Laden since 9-11 (which again happened on your man's watch, since he refused to read his daily intel briefs) is like blaming Randy Moss for Minnesota's failure to make the playoffs this year. That dog won't hunt.

Xosé

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=34773


BAN

A line from the article in Barbara's link wrote:Miniter said Clinton was hampered by "ideology," in that he didn't believe assassinating bin Laden was morally right.

That's an interesting argument. It may very well be true.

Bush has the support of the Religious Right and generally seems to be of the Religious Right, right?

So does it strike anyone else as strange that Bush and his administration ignore traditional moral issues like human rights and the commandment against killing? And that Bush supporters complain that Clinton let his moral concerns get in the way of killing Bin Laden?

Doesn't the Religious Right care about anything moral besides the sexual and reproductive aspects of morality?

------------------------

Una línea del artículo en el eslabón de Barbara wrote:Miniter dijo que Clinton fue obstaculizado por "la ideología", en la cual no creyó que el asesinato bin Laden tenía razón moralmente.

Esto es un argumento interesante. Es bien posible que esté verdadero.

¿Bush tiene el apoyo de la Derecha Religiosa y generalmente parece ser de la Derecha Religiosa, ¿verdad?

¿Entonces se le ocurre a algún otra que sea muy extraño que Bush y su administración no hacen caso de cuestiones morales tradicionales como los derechos humanos y el mandamiento contra el asesinato? ¿Y que los partidarios de Bush se quejan que Clinton deja a sus preocupaciones morales estorbar del asesinato de Bin Laden?

¿No se preocupa la Derecha Religiosa por ninguna cosa de la moralidad además de los aspectos sexuales y reproductivos de moralidad?

We live in a nation of laws, we abide by those laws, if we fail to do so we are no different than the terrorists. We don't assasinate people, we don't usurp people's rights, we are supposed to uphold the law both nationally and internationally. If we fail to act legally what is to stop the rest of the world from doing the same? The Clinton administration followed the law, in doing so they admittedly allowed a small player to become a much larger one. But that happened because it was an administration that followed the law, if it hadn't followed the law and simply acted on 'what might happen' or 'probably did happen' then what would difference us from the Nazis, the Baath party or the Khmer Rouge?

I haven't read the book but from that link I can already tell you it is a print version of "The O'Reilly Factor" usually aired on the Fox network. The problem with shows and books like that is that they use a little bit of factual information and turn it into something that is not in order to push an agenda. Usually this is done in the name of patriotism and under the guise of righteousness. It often works well because the people this type of material caters to don't take the time to inform themselves on the matter, they have heard a little of it before somewhere, what the author says 'feels right' so it must be true. I won't take the time to read the book but I will dissect the post in question for you.

"President Clinton had more than a dozen opportunities during his two terms to either capture or kill al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden but either refused or was too consumed by scandal to act, a new book claims."

President Clinton refused to act against Bin Laden because during his first term Bin Laden had committed no crime against the US. Again we are a nation of laws, we abide by them, until he (Bin Laden) commits a crime against this nation, this nation is powerless to do anything, however obvious it might be that in time he will do something. That is the law.

As for being too consumed by scandal the Lewinsky issue (which by the way in my view is between Monica, Bill and his wife. What the man does in his personal life in none of anybody's business. If he had for instance tapped into Monica's phone then that would be a real scandal a violation of constitutional rights/privacy something that he was sworn to uphold. He did nothing of the sort, he had an affair and what he does in that department is between a man and his wife.) was over in 1997, by that time Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and the scandal did not break until 1998. Attempting to mix something that happen at the tail end of his presidency's second term with something that started with his predecessor Mr. Bush Sr. sending troops into Somalia is ludicrous. However those of us who wont take the time to inform themselves do remember that something happen in Somalia and that there was a scandal with Bill Clinton involved, this man says the one prevented the president from resolving the other it must be correct. Since they don't remember the fact that there were 7 years between one and the other and wont research it this type of journalism prevails, we see it everyday in the O'Reilly Factor, it is unreal how much BS that man can dish out and even more unbelievable that people just take his word without ever doing any fact finding of their own, if they did they would see that things are all mixed up and blown out of proportion. And always without exception there is an agenda behind it.


"Former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and author Richard Miniter also says ... that the former commander in chief was most responsible for the rise of the world's foremost terrorist mastermind."

This completely ignores Bin Ladens own words, Osama said in no uncertain terms that the hatred towards the US was something that was developed over decades of US supported Israeli imperialism. The thousands of Palestinian people being murdered by the Israelis and the fact that not only did the US turn a blind eye to that but in effect made it possible by sending them the weapons and the subsidies so that Israel could in fact behave in this manner. Bush and then Clinton were simply the current encarnation of decades old US policies in the area, as hateful as he may think they are, he regarded them as minor players. To him the enemy was the US.

If you want to read the CNN interview in 1997 http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binlad ... vw-cnn.pdf

"Miniter said Clinton was hampered by "ideology," in that he didn't believe assassinating bin Laden was morally right."

And this is something that somehow is bad? lol don't know were to begin... we have morals, we have laws to make sure people abide by those morals, we have prisons for those that don't, in some States we even execute those that don't abide by our moral laws. Yet here we have it being presented as something to be condemmed, unreal.

"Miniter said although Clinton eventually signed an order approving bin Laden's assassination, "there were so many bureaucratic restrictions on those orders they were, in fact, meaningless." "

I don't know about this, although I seriously doubt that an order for assasination was ever given. I would need to read about it to be able to comment. It is more likely that an order to capture Bin Laden was given and within that order a statement exonerating those involved in the operation if the attempt resulted in Bin Laden's death. However, I don't know that.

" "Here's the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, fighting bin Laden, and seriously trying to get him," he said, "but when it comes time for the CIA to brief Clinton [in Washington] about it, they get a scolding: 'How dare you go after him.'" "

If that ever actually happened and this man has proof of it Mr. Clinton not only committed treason, but deserves the death penalty. Now, if we submitted him to countless hours of examination because he had an affair, what are the odds that we would look the other way for treason? In my opinion he might as well have said that Mr. Clinton was secretly impregnated by Bin Laden, and the bastard child of that encounter is being raised by black Nazis of Jewish descent in a South African mine two miles underground.

The only other possibility that comes to mind is that whatever it was that the CIA was proposing at the time was illegal, unconstitutional and violated international agreements, if that was the case the President would've been right on scolding the CIA officer for proposing such a thing. The author in that case would be taking editorial liberties to confound the readers. In my opinion doing so should be a crime, anybody actively engaged in character assasination should be imprisoned.

The next five paragraphs is simply old rhetoric with a new name, just to get you going, you find that it rings true, you've heard similar things before, it must be true. It contains no misinformation simply slant on something we all know to be true, he just re-directed it by adding Clinton's name.

"In his book, Miniter also recounts how bin Laden was responsible for the shooting down of U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993, and how the nation of Sudan offered, on several occasions, to capture bin Laden, who was living in the country at the time."

That is probably based in truth, but if it is (and I'm not saying it is not) it was indirectly. A more accurate picture of what Bin Laden had done and how he was seen at the time (in hindsight) was given by the "New Yorker" in January of 2000 almost two years before 9-11. I'll paste the relevant part to that time frame below.

-------------
Yet David Long, a former official in the State Department who is considered an expert both on the Saudis and on terrorism, said, "Is Osama bin Laden the exclusive font of terrorist evil? No. This is an informal brotherhood we are seeing now, whose members can draw on each other; it's not a clear, sterling network. Bin Laden's organization"—an umbrella group called al-Qaeda, or "the base"—"is not a terrorist organization in the traditional sense. It's more a clearing house from which other groups elicit funds, training, and logistical support. It's a chameleon, an amoeba, which constantly changes shape according to the whims of its leadership, and that leadership is Osama bin Laden. It's highly personalized." Long went on, "Bin Laden is a facilitator—a practitioner of the most ancient way of doing things in the Middle East. He does not have the brilliant, top-of-the-art international structure of Abu Nidal"—the Palestinian terrorist of the nineteen-seventies and mid-eighties. "If you were to kill Osama tomorrow, the Osama organization would disappear, but all the networks would still be there." Long believes that the more serious threat bin Laden poses to the interests of the United States lies in his ability to destabilize friendly Arab governments, such as Saudi Arabia's, whose support is geopolitically crucial to us. (In fact, bin Laden very likely sees his battle with the House of Saud as his most important struggle; from his perspective, the United States is of secondary concern.)

Other United States officials agree, and warn that bin Laden has given financial backing to anti-government groups in Egypt (where he has underwritten some of the activities of the Gama'a al-Islamiya and al-Jihad), Algeria, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines. He has supported Islamic fighters not only in Afghanistan but also in Chechnya, Kosovo, Kashmir, Bosnia, and Tajikistan. But even though these groups may enjoy his patronage, he does not control them, and they are everything that his own organization is not: they are well structured, and most have long histories and specific (and often legitimate) complaints and concerns.

In May of 1996, under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese government asked bin Laden to leave, and he returned to Afghanistan permanently, accompanied by two military-transport planes carrying some of his wealth, more than a hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters, and his four wives. Between two and three thousand of his other loyalists fanned out into Europe and across East Africa. "It was like sending Lenin back to Russia," an American diplomat said to me. "At least in the Sudan we could indirectly monitor some of his activities."

When bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan,

-------------------

As you can see he had done nothing that the US could do anything against (not legally) he was funding legitimate organizations. They in turn would funnel funds to terrorist organizations but Bin Laden can't be hold accountable for the actions of other, specially when he did not control them, not at the time.


"Following a meeting with CIA officials in March 1996, Sudanese officials "offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to us," Miniter said. But Clinton officials deemed the offer "not credible," so no deal was ever reached."

The implications are woefully inaccurate and entirely out of context. At the time the Secretary of State was Warren Christopher, his replacement Madeleine Albright said that the reason for not accepting Sudan's offer was two fold first, the nation (Sudan) was a terrorist sponsoring nation itself. In offering Bin Laden to the US what they wanted to do was eliminate a man that was rapidly getting out of hand and not face the consequences internally but be able to re-direct the anger from his followers towards the US. Secondly and I quote "In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system. I don't think that was our first choice." Now, President Clinton admitted that the refusal to accept the Sudanese offer was his administration's "biggest mistake". However, that was in hindsight, at the time it was supporting a terrorist state against an individual who was a terrorist in the making, he choose not to follow that route. At the time it appeared to be the right thing to do, with the benefit of hindsight we can clearly see that was not the case.

Not sure if this has helped, the intent was not to convince you that Clinton is incapable of making mistakes, he is human and therefor fallible. The intent was to point out that the author of that book is pandering to those that wont do the research and simply accept what is given to them because it sounds good and/or allows them to place the blame in somebody that for whatever reason they dislike. So, all this is a long winded way of saying check the facts, often a predigested version is slanted and has an agenda.

Saludos,

Eli

Doesn't the Religious Right care about anything moral besides the sexual and reproductive aspects of morality?

Wow Art...you know what...this statement doesn't deserve an answer.


BAN