Gore's Recent Comments on Bush/Terrorism/War

[Timber Loftis]

Fair enough. What politicians really do this "whooping" though - isn't it rather suicidal professionally? I mean, none of us like the spineless folks.

As for Gore's spine, I know people from Tenn. who told me they felt that way about him. From my personal experience, I know he kept riding the enviro horse even when it wasn't winning - and that I did respect. But then, I'm one of those who always lists the environment in the top 3 or 4 spots as far as importance is concerned.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, I agree that Al Queda actions are ongoing - and I cite the recent car-bombing by remote control plane that we posted tons about on this very forum. But, from what I understand, Clinton had an absolute OBSESSION with Osama, and would have done a lot more if he could have gotten away with it. Even with the Cole, the instances of Al Queda action at that time were not of the scale that would have supported the actions I do believe he wanted to take. So, instead, he popped off a few dozen missiles, blew up some buildings, and called it a day. I do remember hearing about one other time when the Clinton folks knew/suspected Osama's location and did nothing - but I think there were just too many other irons in the fire at the time for them to go after what was then an "off-the-radar-screen" guy.

Also remember the few times Clinton tried to take forceful action vs Osama the republican's started shooting that he was doing to divert attention from other troubles, ala 'Wag the Dog'. Just today on Fresh Air, they had an interview with Bob Woodward on his new book 'Bush at War'. It seems that the CIA, under Clinton, had a fairly good network in place in Afganistan keeping tabs on Osama, but they were not authorized to attempt to take him out. This policy was also continued under the Bush Administration, till 9/11.

[Ronn_Bman]

This post, by Attalus, in our own forum further confirms that the work against Al-Queta continues despite the recent focus on Iraq.

Al-Queta isn't on the back burner for our government, but it is for the media unless, of course, they catch/kill one, then it's a reason to briefly break away from the continuous Iraq coverage/commentary/focus.

[Attalus]

Thanks, Ronn. I haven't taken part in this thread so far because I have absolutely no interest in Gore due to his blatant opportunism, though I fervently hope he is the Dems nominee in '04. But your point is well-taken. The media seems to think that we only have one or two guys, and if they are paying attention to Saddam, they must be neglecting Al-Qaida, though I am pretty sure that every member of the armed services and intelligence community would trade his or her chance at Paradise to nail Bin Laden. Their name would live forever.

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, I agree that Al Queda actions are ongoing - and I cite the recent car-bombing by remote control plane that we posted tons about on this very forum. But, from what I understand, Clinton had an absolute OBSESSION with Osama, and would have done a lot more if he could have gotten away with it. Even with the Cole, the instances of Al Queda action at that time were not of the scale that would have supported the actions I do believe he wanted to take. So, instead, he popped off a few dozen missiles, blew up some buildings, and called it a day. I do remember hearing about one other time when the Clinton folks knew/suspected Osama's location and did nothing - but I think there were just too many other irons in the fire at the time for them to go after what was then an "off-the-radar-screen" guy.

Also remember the few times Clinton tried to take forceful action vs Osama the republican's started shooting that he was doing to divert attention from other troubles, ala 'Wag the Dog'. Just today on Fresh Air, they had an interview with Bob Woodward on his new book 'Bush at War'. It seems that the CIA, under Clinton, had a fairly good network in place in Afganistan keeping tabs on Osama, but they were not authorized to attempt to take him out. This policy was also continued under the Bush Administration, till 9/11.[/QUOTE]I seem to recall that the Republicans/Defense Department types were PO'd that after ignoring their screams for action for months chose to attack an asprin factory the the Joint Chiefs had said was probably NOT a valid target and useing Million dollar missiles to destroy $3 tents in the desert.

Originally posted by Attalus: Thanks, Ronn. I haven't taken part in this thread so far because I have absolutely no interest in Gore due to his blatant opportunism, though I fervently hope he is the Dems nominee in '04. But your point is well-taken. The media seems to think that we only have one or two guys, and if they are paying attention to Saddam, they must be neglecting Al-Qaida, though I am pretty sure that every member of the armed services and intelligence community would trade his or her chance at Paradise to nail Bin Laden. Their name would live forever.

No disrespect to the Man Al Gore, but I will predict that if he runs in '04 that the Republicans will get another huge win. (yes you read it here first and I'll admit it if I turn out to be wrong)

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: Thanks, Ronn. I haven't taken part in this thread so far because I have absolutely no interest in Gore due to his blatant opportunism, though I fervently hope he is the Dems nominee in '04. But your point is well-taken. The media seems to think that we only have one or two guys, and if they are paying attention to Saddam, they must be neglecting Al-Qaida, though I am pretty sure that every member of the armed services and intelligence community would trade his or her chance at Paradise to nail Bin Laden. Their name would live forever.

No disrespect to the Man Al Gore, but I will predict that if he runs in '04 that the Republicans will get another huge win. (yes you read it here first and I'll admit it if I turn out to be wrong) [/QUOTE]I think that's what Attalus is counting on.