Well, ok. I disagree about the relationship congress and the president should have but I guess that's neither here nor there.
As far as Clinton's inaction goes, I don't think it was any more innapropriate than Bush's, but he (they both in fact) obviously did not do all they could have to prevent 9/11. Which, is basically what wookie2 was saying.

Or like, you know, that crazy "converting people to christinaity" based war we conducted in Afghanistan after bin Laden carried out the attack he promised he would

Yeah, that sure worked out well.

The attacks could have been prevented if the CIA and FBI had exchanged intelligence about their terrorism investigations. The 9/11 Commission conlcuded that.

Notably, they did not conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had we preemptively invaded Afghanistan in response to a "fatwa."

There's probably a reason for that.

There are a lot comments on here, in particular those made by Zarth and Formus, that I couldn't agree with more. The main point that nobody on the side of this "war" seems to realize is that the course we are on here is remarkably similar to the path many countries have gone down leading up to a fascist state throughout history. Look at Rome, Look at Germany(specifically referring to Hitler here), and I'm sure there are many others you could find without much effort at all. Once you start taking away people's rights you have started down a slippery slope to all rights eventually being taken away for the "protection" of the people.

As someone I'm sure we can all agree was core to the construction of this country and had a very high understanding of what this country is supposed to stand for once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Everyone who thinks that the government has not overstepped it's bounds in these matters really needs to reevaluate what the purpose of government is and what it's reasonable limits before it starts really becoming tyrannical are.

Zarth thank you for attempting to drive home a simple fact. This situation in Iraq is not a war for the US, it is an occupation. Those calling it war are obviously extremely liberal, extremely liberal with definitions.

Following your line of commentary, I'm reminded of the following:

Oceanea is at war with Eurasia, It has always been at war with Eurasia, Eastasia is our ally...

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever

Quotes from Orwell's 1984 seem so relevant in threads like these.

The "war on terror" is a war on ideology and by it's very definition is a perpetual and unwinnable war (kind of like the "war on drugs" - as long as you have users, you'll have drugs). War is terror and is self-sustaining in it's advance against those who would intellectually or physically oppose it. (If you aren't with us, you are with the terrorists, remember?) To this day, attacks in Iraq and internationally are blamed on "al Qaeda", the eternal "brotherhood" bogeyman of our generation while Osama bin Laden makes a fine Goldstein indeed... He's a very useful political tool, drumming up public support and fervent nationalism whenever his name or image are used.

One more quote then I'm calling it quits:

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Ben Franklin (Smart man if you ask me).

Not trying to be overly critical or anything but if you look up a few comments you'll see I referred to that same Franklin quote and you are just slightly off on the wording. Again, not criticizing, just saying redundancy can get annoying in threads.

Overall though, completely valid points and I do pretty much always think of 1984 and Bush in the same thought anymore, it really is hard to separate the two, especially the Eurasia/Eastasia thing.

Oops, I'm guilty of cutting and pasting as well as redundancy as well. I guess it's the thought that counts, it's nice and quite validating to have other people that agree with my off-kilter observations... The whole point of the Eurasia/Eastasia conflict against/allied with Oceanea is that one is necessarily at war with the other two with allegiances continually being broken and reforged without the public taking notice. All that the proles and outer party members need know is that there is a war going on and that their efforts are greatly needed to help win another front in the unending war between the three superpowers.

Phil who?

McCrackin?

Democracy in action - you should export this to the rest of the world

Military intervention could have easily shifted al qaeda from an offensive position to a defensive one. It doesn't take a huge report to figure that out. Though, if you want to focus on that, the report did say that more aggressive pursuit of al qaeda by the CIA and FBI could have prevented 9/11. Additionally, the intelligence failures you're talking about existed under Clinton, as well as Bush, which again, is what I'm talking about

There's no evidence to suggest that beyond your own speculation, nor is there any reason to suppose your logic is sound. Terrorist cells are not like nation-states - when you attack them militarily you don't force them into a more "defensive" posture, because they have nothing to defend. It's their greatest weakness and their greatest strength - precisely because it nullifies conventional military superiority.

I don't know why you conservatives have such a hard time wrapping your mind around that. It's a pretty simple concept.

I don't absolve Clinton of all responsibility, though I think he bears a good deal less than Bush. The present administration came into power with a set of global agendas that left little time or attention to spare to counter-terrorism, and they've done the bare minimum even since 9/11 except to wave the bloody shirt and use it as an excuse to pursue those same preexisting agendas. Clinton had his oversights and vicissitudes with regard to terrorist threats, but Bush, by contrast, is by any fair estimation either incompetent or criminal in his inattentions before and since.

A handful of plots have uncovered, true, but mostly in Europe, by Europeans. In the United States we've had only a few show-trials here and there of people who generally have not possess the abilities to pose any credible threats.

You are aware that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War?

Hey, ever see that movie Memento, where this guy had no short term memory and kept forgetting things?

Like, for example, when he'd read a three-page long internet discussion/flame-fest that included seemingly endless paragraphs dealing with Lincoln, habeas corpus and the Civil War, he'd then tragically forget all about it and feel compelled to mention that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

WIN !


Edit: damn Uncognitive beat me

So, now we know this is a right wing talking point to justify something that is not justifiable. 2 isn't a coincidence. Thanks, Reaver! Without knowing it, you completely undermined your own point.

Now go see what else Rush has to say and bring it back to here.

I just thought I'd mention to everyone that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.