AOPA credit card --- WARNING.

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Mike V. wrote:


Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt


Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

Your presumption is wrong. My presumption is that there would be more
attacks under an administration with Clinton-like policies than under
one with Bush-like policies. Since the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks
were conceived, planned and partially executed (the flight training)
under Clinton, I count a good portion of that against him as well. I
never suggested that we'd be free of attacks. I don't think that is
likely anytime soon.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Mike V. wrote:


Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt


Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

Your presumption is wrong. My presumption is that there would be more
attacks under an administration with Clinton-like policies than under
one with Bush-like policies. Since the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks
were conceived, planned and partially executed (the flight training)
under Clinton, I count a good portion of that against him as well. I
never suggested that we'd be free of attacks. I don't think that is
likely anytime soon.

Matt

Even if you count the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks against Clinton, your
missing the point. We have had as many attacks on US soil during the first
4 years of Bush Presidency as we had in the entire 8 years that Clinton was
in office. Why would that lead you to believe that Clinton-like policies
would produce MORE attacks than Bush's?

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Judah wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote in
:



Mike V. wrote:


Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt


Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

Your presumption is wrong. My presumption is that there would be more
attacks under an administration with Clinton-like policies than under
one with Bush-like policies. Since the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks
were conceived, planned and partially executed (the flight training)
under Clinton, I count a good portion of that against him as well. I
never suggested that we'd be free of attacks. I don't think that is
likely anytime soon.

Matt


Even if you count the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks against Clinton, your
missing the point. We have had as many attacks on US soil during the first
4 years of Bush Presidency as we had in the entire 8 years that Clinton was
in office. Why would that lead you to believe that Clinton-like policies
would produce MORE attacks than Bush's?

Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I haven't
tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on US soil
under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any that have
been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in office.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I
haven't tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on
US soil under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any
that have been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in
office.

Matt

1) It was planned under Clinton, but executed under Bush. What part of
9/11, exactly, was executed under Clinton? Where is your data?

2) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html provides a list of Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks since 1993. You are correct, though. In my
second post I misspoke - these attacks were not on American soil, but they
were on American targets.

I don't think either of us will be swayed in this dispute...

You seem to believe that the lack of another 9/11 type attack is due
largely to the merit of Bush's policies, and do not consider the lag time
for such a large attack in the equation, even while you use the same lag
time to blame Clinton for the attacks in the first place. You have been
fooled into feeling safe, and want to thank Bush for that, even though in
reality, you are not much more or less safe than you were in 1993 or 2001.
You go on with your life, happy to be protected by your wonderful, all-
powerful Government.

I, on the other hand, believe that Enemies of Freedom and of Western
Civilization will continue to attack Americans and their Allies in whatever
way they can, as indicated by the rise in terrorist attacks on American and
Allied targets. I believe a better way to stop this than unilaterally
taking down an Arab country or two is to get more of our powerful Allies to
work with us against the problem. The Bush approach alienates many allies
so that they sit idly by as we increase our size on the dartboard. I don't
feel safer than I did in 2001 or 1993. But then, I am also not so afraid of
another attack that I stop shopping at WalMart. I go on with my life, being
a bit more suspicious and attentive, but mostly just happy to still be
free, despite the best attempts of my all-powerful Government.

Judah wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I
haven't tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on
US soil under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any
that have been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in
office.

Matt


1) It was planned under Clinton, but executed under Bush. What part of
9/11, exactly, was executed under Clinton? Where is your data?

The financing and the flight training of the pilots, most, if not all,
of whom entered the country while Bill Clinton was president.


2) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html provides a list of Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks since 1993. You are correct, though. In my
second post I misspoke - these attacks were not on American soil, but they
were on American targets.

Yes, that is my recollection also.


I don't think either of us will be swayed in this dispute...

You seem to believe that the lack of another 9/11 type attack is due
largely to the merit of Bush's policies, and do not consider the lag time
for such a large attack in the equation, even while you use the same lag
time to blame Clinton for the attacks in the first place. You have been
fooled into feeling safe, and want to thank Bush for that, even though in
reality, you are not much more or less safe than you were in 1993 or 2001.
You go on with your life, happy to be protected by your wonderful, all-
powerful Government.

Yes, I think Bush's much more aggressive approach to terrorism has
helped. Yes, I am considering the lag time, but I'm also considering
that four years is plenty of time given that this is about how long the
planning for 9/11 apparently took.

However, I'm under no delusion that we can prevent another large scale
attack. I think we can minimize the number and make them really
difficult to pull off, but I fully expect that someday the terrorists
will find a way to pull of another one. I just believe that we will
have far fewer of them with a very aggressive world-wide response than
we will have with a cruise missile into a tent approach that Clinton took.


I, on the other hand, believe that Enemies of Freedom and of Western
Civilization will continue to attack Americans and their Allies in whatever
way they can, as indicated by the rise in terrorist attacks on American and
Allied targets. I believe a better way to stop this than unilaterally
taking down an Arab country or two is to get more of our powerful Allies to
work with us against the problem. The Bush approach alienates many allies
so that they sit idly by as we increase our size on the dartboard. I don't
feel safer than I did in 2001 or 1993. But then, I am also not so afraid of
another attack that I stop shopping at WalMart. I go on with my life, being
a bit more suspicious and attentive, but mostly just happy to still be
free, despite the best attempts of my all-powerful Government.

I agree that better cooperation with our allies will help. However, I
don't consider people who were taking oil money from Saddam to be our
allies as some other people do. So, not having the French onboard is a
plus in my book, not a minus.

I would like to see the moderate Arab countries brought into the fold
somehow, but I think that is unlikely to happen no matter what we do. I
think the only solution will come when the oil wells in the middle east
dry up and there is no longer money to fund terrorism on more than a
local scale.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip
I agree that better cooperation with our allies will help. However, I
don't consider people who were taking oil money from Saddam to be our
allies as some other people do. So, not having the French onboard is a
plus in my book, not a minus.

Everybody had a use for Saddam at some point in recent history... Even us.

I would like to see the moderate Arab countries brought into the fold
somehow, but I think that is unlikely to happen no matter what we do.
I think the only solution will come when the oil wells in the middle
east dry up and there is no longer money to fund terrorism on more than
a local scale.

I guess for me, getting countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to fess up and
clean house would be a start...

I agree with you completely - the best solution is to eliminate our
dependency on their oil one way or the other (finding an alternative fuel
source will work too) and their power will quickly diminish...