Yes, He Was A Dubious President, But This?

Tampa Tribune ^ | 10/22/01 | Daniel Ruth

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Even with the challenges facing us today, Biden is still pouting that Bush won the presidency.

You can't spell Bin Laden without Biden.

[Southack]

"Even with the challenges facing us today, Biden is still pouting that Bush won the presidency."

Biden is doing worse than pouting. He just said today that the U.S. was about to get a reputation as a "high-tech bully" for dropping all those bombs on the poor, defenseless Taliban.

Remind me again which nation or ideology Biden serves...

[Aerial]

In the words of our president..."let's just move along"...

[BlueHorseShoe]

Just more Clinton petting and excuses. Sickening.

[Southack]

"Attempts to place the blame on Clinton are typical scapegoating. Notice how Bush made no effort to reverse any Clinton anti-terrorism policy until 9/11/01."

I disagree. The worst form of terrorism is nuclear or biological blackmail via ballistic delivery.

GWB worked (even prior to 9/11) to defend against such an attack with a national missile defense. Clinton worked to keep that system undeveloped and undeployed.

President Bush also engaged a wholesale review of our national defense forces, something that was entirely neglected by Clinton. In GWB's few short months in office, he accomplished FAR MORE in regard to defending America than Clinton managed in 8 years.

Consider the amount of neglect over the past 8 years and take into account GWB's short time in office. I'd say that much blame could be placed on Clinton for our state of affairs, and much praise should be heaped upon GWB for corecting as much as possible as soon as possible.

Also note that GWB favors drilling in the ANWR as a first step toward reducing our dependancy on foreign, especially Middle-Eastern, oil. That factors in to reducing terrorism at some level, too.

[EddieB]

To suggest Clinton blithely pranced around the Oval Office playing the bongos and did nothing to apprehend those who committed acts of terrorism at home and abroad is simply flat-out wrong and certainly a case of revisionist history at its most venal.

But what would you call TRIPOTUS being "serviced" by a twenty-one year old intern while discussing the deployment of American Troops on foreign soil?

[Southack]

Weren't you the one posting the false claim about Osama "not being indicted" for the USS Cole bombing?

[marsis]

You are correct both Clinton and Bush would have had a hard time passing any real and significant anti-terrorism legislation prior to 9/11/01. However the public mood has definately shifted since then. Clinton probably did as much as he could given the political enviroment. Attempts to place the blame on Clinton are typical scapegoating. Notice how Bush made no effort to reverse any Clinton anti-terrorism policy until 9/11/01.

Thank you for your post. This blame game has gotten out of hand. As stated earlier, there is plenty of blame to pass around, on both sides of the aisle. Typical Washington politicos, craving only re-election while America is being set up. We have known of the possibilities for terrorists attacks on the USA for decades. It has been happening regularly in other countries for years and was only a matter of time before it came to our house. Guess ya gotta knock'em upside the head before our "leaders" take notice. Regards.

[Landru]

This Bud's for you, KCC.

By always making certain what the paper is one's reading, & making note of who is actually writing the piece (look for li'l *AP* etc...)?
One can tell more about the message than anything appearing in the *article* itself.

Which I'm sure is a detail most already understand; but, it's still worthy of repeating.

[marsis]

I disagree. The worst form of terrorism is nuclear or biological blackmail via ballistic delivery. GWB worked (even prior to 9/11) to defend against such an attack with a national missile defense. Clinton worked to keep that system undeveloped and undeployed.

Obviously your mind is made up and no logic will change it but I feel your point was poorly made. I am still amazed that you are still trumpeting the SDI initiative. This is welfare for the insanely wealthy. As was pointed out during the Reagan years, SDI is a pipedream at best. What were the detrators saying? That it is too easy to attack the US from within. Floating a nuclear warhead into any US harbor is just too easy, as it is with chemical and biological weapons. What would SDI have done for us in the WTC attack? And how did our enemies attack? The only missiles were our own aircraft. Also, a missile attack would pinpoint the location of the launch site, and the signing of their deathwarrant. I am for fortifying the US, protecting citizens is the responsibility of the government. They have failed us. SDI is not the answer, just because your heroes want it doesn't mean it is the only or best answer.

[Southack]

"I am for fortifying the US, protecting citizens is the responsibility of the government. They have failed us. SDI is not the answer, just because your heroes want it doesn't mean it is the only or best answer."

Nonsense. National Missile Defense can and will protect us from one form of attack. Other steps will protect us from even more forms of attack. Taken together, such steps will secure our defense (which is still better than any other nation's defense).

Wearing a seatbelt won't protect me from a car fire, but I still wear it because it protects me from OTHER automative hazards. Claiming that just because NMD won't protect us from nukes on ships in harbors is a nonsensical argument against implementing NMD - simply because NMD has an entirely different (but necessary) purpose.

[KC_Conspirator]

I will have to admit I am a little lost here. Hectic day at work, ya' know. I guess this is in reference to the earlier article by Janet Reno and the FL media?

[secret garden]

What clinton antiterrorism policies? Besides bombing aspirin factories?
And as far as the illogical argument against SDI, one bomb would ruin your whole head-in-the-sand day. We need missile defense now more than ever.

[tom paine 2]

Dear Mr. Ruth: Maybe if Mr. Clinton had taken an interest in national security instead of trying to F**K any young thing with a pulse, he might have seen this coming. Unfortunately for our country all his spare time was taken up by getting his knob polished, going to fund raisers, managing the press and the prosecutors, and in general not paying attention to the peoples business. Mr. Clinton is a disgrace to the nation. Only liberal suck ups with blinders on to the truth continue to excuse this worthless piece of crap. Hopefully the scales will fall from your eyes someday.

Sincerely
tpaine2 on the Free
Republic God Bless America

[4CJ]

"To suggest Clinton blithely pranced around the Oval Office playing the bongos and did nothing to apprehend those who committed acts of terrorism at home and abroad is simply flat-out wrong and certainly a case of revisionist history at its most venal."

Mr. Ruth, there's nothing "revisionist" about it. By his own admission he was, indeed, prancing around in the Oral Oval Office. Face the facts man, lose the kneepads, and change your meds. If you cannot comprehend how X42 actions are responsible for the 9/11 incidents, then you should stick to something you do know a lot about - how to cast your vote properly er, Bingo.

[meadsjn]

Columnist Daniel Ruth can be reached at (813) 259-7599.

No. Some people just can't be reached.

[marsis]

Wearing a seatbelt won't protect me from a car fire, but I still wear it because it protects me from OTHER automative hazards. Claiming that just because NMD won't protect us from nukes on ships in harbors is a nonsensical argument against implementing NMD - simply because NMD has an entirely different (but necessary) purpose.

I understand and would support the NMD if I thought it would work. No one has ever said (at least I haven't heard it) that NMD would entirely protect the US. Even under the very best of conditions 10-90% of the missiles fired could not be stopped. The first 5 minutes are the most important, miss them then, you lose. With multiple warheads we just cannot stop an attack. I wish it was the panacea we are looking for but fear it is not even a beginning. Perhaps if only one misslie were fired from a rogue nation and NMD worked, it is rational system to build. On the other hand, if we put that money into intelligence we would stop it before launch. I still believe these zealots will attack from within, with nuclear capablility already here or floated into any harbor, or even mailed to any post office.

[Landru]

Yea, it's about FL & Reno...

My apologies for not bringing you up to speed; with at least a little reminder of the jist of our conversation yesterday.
Don't worry about it, now; get yer feet up & relax.

[Southack]

"Perhaps if only one misslie were fired from a rogue nation and NMD worked, it is rational system to build. On the other hand, if we put that money into intelligence we would stop it before launch. I still believe these zealots will attack from within, with nuclear capablility already here or floated into any harbor, or even mailed to any post office."

How many missiles do you think North Korea can fire at us? Would you prefer to have SOME chance of stopping those missiles or no chance? What good is intelligence if you don't have the means to use it? If we know that North Korea is launching in 15 minutes, but have no NMD, then we are out of luck.

Concerns about harbor defenses should be addressed, but they are entirely seperate from NMD. We can force all ships to be fully inspected and offloaded far offshore, if needed.

Since the "enriched" part of fissionable material must be replaced on a very regular basis, and since maintenance on nuclear devices is needed on an almost daily basis, it makes no sense to worry about an enemy burying or storing such a device here for long periods of time, either.

There are major hurdles to attacking the U.S. with a WofMD. These include finances, creation, maintenance, and delivery. All of the above must also be funded and performed in secrecy, lest the U.S. engage in selected E.L.E. responses (among other options).

Increasing funding for our intelligence makes sense, but ignoring very real ways to make "delivery" more difficult for our enemies makes no sense at all.

[marsis]

Since the "enriched" part of fissionable material must be replaced on a very regular basis, and since maintenance on nuclear devices is needed on an almost daily basis,

Thanks, even an old dog can learn something new. I did not know this. So we read about the "suitcase" nukes the Russians supposedly made years ago that are unaccounted for today. Any chance that these are still usable if they were indeed made in the first place?