Posted on 11/17/2004 10:59:58 AM PST by Howlin
When they talk of Clinton they call it the U.S.Government, when they talk of Bush they call it the Bush Administration. He said it so many times I almost kicked the TV. Didn't say "Clinton" one time.
"as evidenced by Operation Anaconda, demonstrating the value of After Action Reviews."
Which did not work any better than the Tora Bora operation.
Can you let me in on your secret battle plan?
"Can you let me in on your secret battle plan?"
Kerry is the one with the secret plans.
We had troops in Saudi Arabia decades before Saddam became a problem.
I hear we started putting troops in Saudi Arabia around 40 years ago--as part of the deal we made with the Saudi Royal family: to protect the Royals from being overthrown.
The info is out there. It isn't hard to find. Just Google it up: http://www.google.com/
Everything,that this bloody Quisling,Sheuer,is complaing about,happened during SLICK WILLIE'S WATCH! He flip flops as badly as Kerry...flipping from appease at all cost,to flop,NUKE 'EM ALL. Neither "plan" is tenable nor workable.
And ignoring/leaving out the fact that OBL was offered to Clinton,on a silver platter,at least THREE times,is unconcionables!
The world ignore Hitler's early wee adventure,assuming incorrectly,that he'd stop after gobbling up a few countries,that most other nations didn't give a damn about. So now,NOW, we should have given in to OBL and allow the destruction of Israel,his take over of ALL Muslim
nations,imagining,INCORRECTLY,that his complete intent and purposes aren't really TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD,making it one Islamonazi caliphate?
You really don't understand any of this!
I do not know the answer.
But the problem of terrorism and WMD's is serious enough, that we must entertain all suggestions, most especially when suggested by people well acquainted with the problem.
You points are obvious enough.
We should ask anyone who may suggest such a solution, their answer to your points, so we may weigh both sides.
Would such a Caliphate may be more dangerous than Russia under Stalin, a country we were also told that wanted to take over thw world?
Have fun.
I think if you listen to more of what he has to say, he brings that up. You can hear a 45 minute interview he gave in August when he was still anonymous, here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/07/20040721_b_main.asp
I've read the article.I've read other threads which have more of his words on them.The man is just another worthless,inept jerk,whose tenure in the CIA was a complete waste of MY tax dollars.Now,he's out there trying to sell his book.
I think that you are far too open minded! And you DO know what is said about that state of being...don't you? ;^)
Stalin was a pussycat,compared to the Islamonazis;benevolent even.
And no,HELL NO,listening to any and all suggestions,is NOT a "good" idea,since this man's suggestion are either off the charts,at each end of the spectrum;either give in to EVERYTHING OBL wants,or just NUKE indiscriminately.This man is not an "expect",who has carefully considered everything and then come up with serious plans.He's an idiot of gigantic proportions,with nothing of value to suggest.
I don't have a problem with any of his following statements:
19:27
What I'm concerned with is much less what muslims think... I only care in the sense that if we understand what they think we're better able to focus and draft a policy that would defeat them.
29:48
We've gone through now 2 nationals commissions, the Shelby Goss commission and now the 9-11 commission and we've heard very powerful senior leaders, whether it was the DCI, two Secretaries of State, Mr. Clark from the NSC, go before these committees and say "Well, we had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden, but the evidence wasn't good enough. Or, we might have killed an arab prince. Or, we might have hit a mosque with shrapnel and made muslims mad at us." And it's been astounding to me, and I've participated in both investigations, that none of the congressmen or senators, none of the members of the McCain commission, ever said: "Mr. Director, why didn't you err on the side of protecting the American people? Why were you always more concerned with the opinion of the europeans, the possible loss of an arab prince, of which the world is flush, or of offending muslims by hitting a mosque with a piece of shrapnel?" The dearth of people willing to take a chance to defend America, and American citizens, is a stunning situation to find ourselves in.
32:30
We're facing an enemy that's talented, experienced, extremely well organized, and doesn't wear uniforms. And as long as we're forced to pursue this war through only the military means, if we're going to defend America, we're going to have to kill a lot more people than we've done so far.
42:06
I don't see how you can combat a problem, win a war, unless you realize really what the enemy is up to and what he's about, and what motivates him. As long as we cling to these ideas that they're criminals and we can settle the issue with primarily the use of law enforcement in the court, and a very moderate application of military power, I see no reason for hope. I use an epigram there from Lincoln after the battle of Antietam where he said: "These people just don't realize we're in a bloody war and it's going to have to be fought out to the end", and that's about where we are.
I doubt many right thinking individuals would. Where the problem appears to lie is in his criticism that, even though we had been under attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for over 7 years, no contingency existed to extirpate him from the face of the earth immediately after 9-11, indicating a lack of concern on the part of the Government as to this particular threat.
And for this vile outrage, the Fatwas have been issued: He must necessarily be placed in his hole in the ground, covered up to his chest, and pay for his sin under a hail of rock and stone.
I'd feel pretty bad about that, but given his comments as to who Osama actually fears, I guess I can live with it.
I'd feel pretty bad about that, but given his comments as to who Osama actually fears, I guess I can live with it.
I am not 100% sure I understand what you are saying.
Please rephrase by using names so that I will understand whom you mean when you say "he" and "his".
Also, what it you mean by outrage: the lack of concern on the part of the Government or 911? Thanks.
For criticizing the Bush administration for being caught flat footed on 9-11, Scheuer is being pilloried by Republicans - the validity of his this, or any of his other criticism notwithstanding.
Scheuer goes on to say that Osama only really fears the Marines. And as an Army vet, I take exception to this.
I think I'll answer my own questoin: "Would such a Caliphate may be more dangerous than Russia under Stalin, a country we were also told that wanted to take over thw world?"
First off, Bin Laden is nuts. He is nuts in the same way that mass murderers are nutx.
For whatever reason bin Laden is angry at the world over feelings of his personal inadequacy.
So he has a strong desire to kill people, apparently especially Americans.
But before he kills, he needs to justify his need to kill.
He is using religion as his rationalization for killing.
Had his object been what he professes: that Americans withdraw troops and leave the Mideast alone--he should have attacked the Twin Towers on a weekend, followed by an announcement that he did so to minimize loss of life.
Instead, he chose to perform the act in the most murderous way possible. A way, that he must have known deep down, was such an act of madness that America could not and would not make deals with him.
And more recently he comes out with that tape, which apparently offers a deal--but again, he's just fooling himself: deep inside he must know that after 911 we won't deal.
And so he sets himself up with his next rationalization; He'll think to himself that he was a good sport by warning us, and because we didn't listen, now we deserve whatever he's been planning.
But on the other hand--I wonder if we did abandon all involvement in the Mideast, leaving bin laden and all factions to their own devices: would bin Laden survive the internecine battles? Is someone like Bin Laden--who fools himself--clever enough to outsmart rivals and then organize a state--a caliphate? Or is bin Laden's only talent, terrorism?
Might the task be outside bin Laden's abilities? Might someone else--another Arab--outsmart bin Laden and emerge in control: perhaps an Arab Stalin? Someone less crazy, someone who can be deterred by our ICBM's?
Nothing whatsoever,in that mind numbing post of yours,is logical,makes sense,or is well reasoned.
Odds are the kind of man who wins such a fight is not going to be a religious nut idealist who decieves himself.
The winner would more likely be someone with a taste for being corrupted by worldly things, and so capable of being bought.
Unfortunately, we can't stand aside to let nature take its course, because it would interrupt the oil supply.
Stalin sent tens of millions of Russians ("his own people"[!]) to their deaths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.