Kerry tries to defeat Bush again

[MODU]

While the memo (which are actually re-written minutes from a prior meeting) has not been called a fake, there are issues in it.  First of all (and the most noted one by critics) is the memo speaks in past-tense, as if the war had already occurred and this is a historical recounting of the events.  While this memo is a rewriting of minutes by the author, the tense should still be present since the items begin discussed will occur in the future.

Secondly, assumptions are made as far as decisions go:  "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."  I'm glad someone out there can read people's minds.  Also, "No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

And, as far as the invasion of Iraq in 1999 goes, Clinton had invasion plans too.  Of course, so did the Pentagon, but they have to keep invasion plans on all key countries updated and available, since you never know when they might be needed.  Invasions take years of detailed planning, so they can be implemented in short notice, and allow for last minute revisions based upon current conditions.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Again, the memo is fact.

It's actually only one document in a long list of documents showing that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since 1999.

If he'd only spent as much time pre-9/11 reading memos about terrorism as he spent planning an invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/5/184322/3073

Bill Clinton did not take terrorism seriously even after 1993 Waco, the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1995 OKC bombing, and the rash of school shootings in 1998-2000.  So, how can you criticize Bush for being lax on terrorism before 9/11, when his predecessor did not take it seriously.  Sure, Clinton looked at Osama Bin Laden and even tried to punish Saddam Hussein, but he didn't actively try to remove the thorn in the world's side, known as Saddam Hussein.

Only George W. Bush had the guts to take a big political gamble and remove the threat from Iraq.  I do admit that the Bush administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace (such as why we're in the insurgent mess today), but at least he tried.  I believe he is still actively looking for Bin Laden, just as he is al-Zarqawi and the other al-Qaeda terrorists and terrorists from other organizations.  By the way, Bush won that gamble at least by being re-elected by a bigger margin than he was appointed President in 2000.

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out the facts how I see them.

Jeff

[Joe Biden 2020]

Again, the memo is fact.

It's actually only one document in a long list of documents showing that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since 1999.

If he'd only spent as much time pre-9/11 reading memos about terrorism as he spent planning an invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/5/184322/3073

Bill Clinton did not take terrorism seriously even after 1993 Waco, the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1995 OKC bombing, and the rash of school shootings in 1998-2000. So, how can you criticize Bush for being lax on terrorism before 9/11, when his predecessor did not take it seriously. Sure, Clinton looked at Osama Bin Laden and even tried to punish Saddam Hussein, but he didn't actively try to remove the thorn in the world's side, known as Saddam Hussein.

Only George W. Bush had the guts to take a big political gamble and remove the threat from Iraq. I do admit that the Bush administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace (such as why we're in the insurgent mess today), but at least he tried. I believe he is still actively looking for Bin Laden, just as he is al-Zarqawi and the other al-Qaeda terrorists and terrorists from other organizations. By the way, Bush won that gamble at least by being re-elected by a bigger margin than he was appointed President in 2000.

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out the facts how I see them.

Jeff

By the way, the war on terror will never be won until the world ends.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, the memo is fact.

It's actually only one document in a long list of documents showing that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since 1999.

If he'd only spent as much time pre-9/11 reading memos about terrorism as he spent planning an invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/5/184322/3073

Bill Clinton did not take terrorism seriously even after 1993 Waco, the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1995 OKC bombing, and the rash of school shootings in 1998-2000.  So, how can you criticize Bush for being lax on terrorism before 9/11, when his predecessor did not take it seriously.  Sure, Clinton looked at Osama Bin Laden and even tried to punish Saddam Hussein, but he didn't actively try to remove the thorn in the world's side, known as Saddam Hussein.

Only George W. Bush had the guts to take a big political gamble and remove the threat from Iraq.  I do admit that the Bush administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace (such as why we're in the insurgent mess today), but at least he tried.  I believe he is still actively looking for Bin Laden, just as he is al-Zarqawi and the other al-Qaeda terrorists and terrorists from other organizations.  By the way, Bush won that gamble at least by being re-elected by a bigger margin than he was appointed President in 2000.

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out the facts how I see them.

Jeff

Ever heard of the 1996 Clinton anti-terorrism bill watered down by the Republican Congress? Ever heard of the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000 that was prevented? No, well that's because all you have are your biased Republican talking points.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

By the way, the war on terror will never be won until the world ends.

How 1984ish.

[MODU]

Ever heard of the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000 that was prevented?

That was a lucky break, and not part of an organized anti-terrorism strategy.  The officer who foiled the plot even admitted to that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ever heard of the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000 that was prevented?

That was a lucky break, and not part of an organized anti-terrorism strategy.  The officer who foiled the plot even admitted to that.

Yeah, you're right, they didn't get a memo about that one. The 8/06/01 memo titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US", on the other hand.....

[Joe Biden 2020]

If you want to think about it, after Vietnam, nobody really thought of terrorism as a big threat until the 9/11 attacks (that includes Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43).  Both parties had a major lapse of judgement.  I'm not blaming Clinton or Bush by themselves, but I do place the blame on both parties and most Americans (including myself) for allowing the terrorists to sneak up like they did.  I may not have had any say-so in government at 9/11 (as I was 19), but I do think I could have realized it a lot sooner and therefore started praying about it.

Dubya is right when he says that every war from here on out will be fought with different kinds of weapons.  They will no longer be just infantry or cavalry or guerilla, but a whole bunch of "more advanced" weapons will be used by both sides.