jfern on London Terrorist Attacks

[J. J.]

In wars, there are always counter attacks.  Look at Ardennes Offensive during WW II.  Bad as this attack was, it could have been a lot worse.

[J. J.]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

[J. J.]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.

We are not discussing the media; we are discussing your comments.

[J. J.]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.

We are not discussing the media; we are discussing your comments.

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?

I have a severe problems with the accuracy of your claims, as do an increasing number of the posters here.  By the logic of your position, we were losing World War II because the Nazis launched an offesive in December of 1944.

You will also note that I have not been one of the numerous people on this thread that has said you should not be critical.  I critize your ideas, not your expression of them.

[J. J.]

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?

I have a severe problems with the accuracy of your claims, as do an increasing number of the posters here.  By the logic of your position, we were losing World War II because the Nazis launched an offesive in December of 1944.

You will also note that I have not been one of the numerous people on this thread that has said you should not be critical.  I critize your ideas, not your expression of them.

Then what were we arguing about? I wasn't making any claims, except that the media was rather un-critical of Bush for a while after 9/11.

You quoted Bush.  Now, he seems to have quite correct that al-Qaeda is on the run.  The attack here, was mercifully smalling in scope than the Madrid attack, which was smaller than the New York attack.  He didn't say, as you implied, that there would no further attacks.  I frankly would expect more attacks to follow.

[J. J.]

Anyways, did Clinton do enough to fight terrorism? Probably not. But he did far more than Bush did pre-9/11. Clinton was cracking down on tax havens exploited by terrorists. Bush reversed that. Clinton warned the Bush adminstration that terrorism was a high priority. Bush ignored that. The millenium terrorist attack got stopped during the Clinton adminstration.

Let's be honest, Clinton was president for 6.5 years after WTC I.  During that time, embassies and the Cole were attacked.  Bush was president for under nine months.  Clinton's response was totally ineffective; he largely regarded it as more of a "law enforcement" problem.  Even the successful stopping of the Seattle attack was treated in terms of "law enforcement."  It was this attitude that helped caused al-Qaeda to be so successful on 9/11.

Bush correctly realized that this isn't a "law enforcement" issue, though it does have a law enforcement component. 

[J. J.]

Maybe it wasn't even terrorists who did it. What if Tony Blair purposely staged a terror attack in order to gain more support and make himself look like a hero?

dont take me for a quack for what i said! and jfern it's not Bush's fault. Maybe it wasnt even the quaeda! but we're meant to believe that w/ staged tapes, and responsibility videos!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/former_mi5_agent_911_was_inside_job.htm

I hope you really don't believe that stuff.

It's just an speculation! not that i unquestioningly believe anything

That's not even speculation. It's just plain stupidity.

I told you I take all possible speculations, not just listen to the news and unquestioningly believe what they told me! I mean, they lied about the pentagon on 9/11! how could a plane that HUGE leave a hole that small, and a neat 12ft diameter hole pierced through 3 concentric rings???

I was there, and it was larger that 12 feet.

[J. J.]

However, after the WTC bombing, the only terrorist attack on US soil was the right-wing Oklahoma City bombing. Bottom line, what did Bush to fight terrorism before 9/11? If you were rational, and not partisan, you'd listen to what people like Richard Clarke have to say.

Ah, let's see, he let the terrorists into the country.  Oh, wait, that was Clinton. 

BTW, the Embassies are US soil; so technically was the USS Cole.

[J. J.]

Anyways, just because they're already in the US doesn't mean we can't catch them. We caught one of the 9/11 hijackers (except that obviously he couldn't participate) in August 2001. An FBI investigator concluded that he wanted to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. He was from Saudi Arabia. They wanted to investigate some more, but someone in the WH told the FBI: Saudi Arabia is our ally, we don't investigate allies.

Actually, he hadn't concluded that this was the target or that he was part of a group.  Under law enforcement procedures, the FBI couldn't get a court order to go into their computers.  Now, we can ask why President Clinton didn't press for stronger laws permitting searches of arrested suspects.

I agree that we could have caught them when in the country, especially during those months in 2000, when Clinton was president.

Now, should we blame Clinton for not catching all of this?  IMO, no; nobody really expected this broad type of attack.  Should be blame Clinton for a weak response against al-Qaeda after WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS cole.  My answer there is yes.