Bush feeling heat after Saudi attacks

Taipei Times ^ | 5.16.03

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

No "Barf Alert"?

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

""Of course Iraq wasn't going to do much damage to al-Qaeda, because there isn't much evidence they're linked," he said."

That doesn't jive with British intelligence.

[eyespysomething]

But "it's a fact of human nature that one tends to think of one thing at once. Clearly, the administration ... was preoccupied with Iraq, and Bin Laden and al-Qaeda fell off the radar screen.

Actually, out gov't issued travel warnings, and sent someone from the State Dept to ask the Saudi's to help. We rec'd no help, and the terrorists struck a "soft" target. We have not let them fall to the side, we just have trouble getting anyone to help us....

[tbpiper]

But "it's a fact of human nature that one tends to think of one thing at once. Clearly, the administration ... was preoccupied with Iraq, and Bin Laden and al-Qaeda fell off the radar screen.

Similar to:

Clearly, the administration ... was preoccupied with Japan, and Hitler fell off the radar allowing a massive German outbreak in an area known as the Bulge.

This fight is going to take a while. Good stuff and bad stuff are going to happen. And the situation is going to remain fluid for quite some time. Critics will always have their mouths running about failures, real or imagined. I have yet to see any of them come up with a plan or strategy better than the one being used now. Perhaps mr Graham needs to go work a day as a terrorist so he can better understand how they function.,

[eyespysomething]

coruscating attack from Senator Bob Graham, who had argued earlier that the Saudi bombings "could have been avoided if you had actually crushed the basic infrastructure of al-Qaeda."

It was a soft target. For someone who sits on the Senate Intel committee, I haven't heard a lot of ideas from him

[wayoverontheright]

"Of course Iraq wasn't going to do much damage to al-Qaeda, because there isn't much evidence they're linked," he said.

We are battling TERROR, not al-Qaeda, and we need to stop falling into the trap that there has to have been coordination between the two. They are both inextricably linked to TERROR, and cannot be unlinked.

I can envision no scenario in which the war on TERROR can be won that would not involve the tumbling of that statue in Baghdad.

[wayoverontheright]

......had taken its eye off the ball over al-Qaeda because of its obsession with Iraq.

Again, we are battling TERROR, not al-Qaeda. Focusing on al-Qaeda alone would BE "taking our eye off the ball".

[gov_bean_ counter]

coruscating attack from Senator Bob Graham, who had argued earlier that the Saudi bombings "could have been avoided if you had actually crushed the basic infrastructure of al-Qaeda."

And if Bill Clinton had dealt with Osama and Saddam in a substantive way, we would not be having this discussion.

[roses of sharon]

Another media fiction.

There is no "heat".

[eyespysomething]

Exactly!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87056,00.html
1995 Memo Warned of Terror Vulnerability

[CaptRon]

What a bunch of crap!

We're dealing with people who wear no uniforms, lurk among innocent people waiting to spring, and who have sympathizers amongst the people who are supposed to be providing us with intelligigence. This would have happened whether Iraq was going on or not.

[ChadGore]

Why should Bush feel any heat, he's the one on the correct side of the terrorism issue, and has done more in the past 2 years to combat, fight and stop terrorism than any other president in recent history.

He's defeated Osamas Taliban, and Chiraqs Iraq in less than 18 months with a minimus of US casualties. Hell, in Iraq 1/2 thee forces whent twice as far as 1991 and still won the war in less time than it took clinton to defeat david koresh in Texas.

[gov_bean_ counter]

you can't set everything on Clinton's shoulders

Theory of Proximate Cause says I can.

[My2Cents]

And if Reagan hadn't armed the mujhadeen in Afghanistan, we mightn't be having this conversation either.

If Reagan hadn't armed the mujhadeen in Afghan., the Soviet Union might still be around. Remember, at the time UBL was actually an "ally" of sorts. Why should Reagan or GHW Bush be held responsibile for Bin Laden's "change of heart"?

[gov_bean_ counter]

In my uneducated opinion, your's is a nicely crafted albeit convoluted argument that conveniently omits certain mitigating circumstances surrounding that which you characterize as “the event” and further assumes "facts" that have not been clearly established. I gather you are on the plaintiff’s side more often that the defendant’s. My father the defense attorney warned my about folks like you.

In any event, I have obviously picked a fight which I have no chance of winning. You may have the last shot.

[Moonman62]

And if Reagan hadn't armed the mujhadeen in Afghanistan, we mightn't be having this conversation either.

And if the Evil Empire wasn't expanding into Afghanistan, we wouldn't have sent the arms.

And if Reagan and H.W. Bush hadn't supplied Saddam with arms we also might not be having this conversation.

And if Iran hadn't held our people hostage and become our sworn enemy, we wouldn't have sent the arms.

The blame keeps going back and back, and you can't set everything on Clinton's shoulders.

That's because Clinton doesn't have a reason for his dereliction of duty, except for his own self-absorption, and his disgust for America's strength and sovereignty.