redman Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Name all of the ways in which you believe that errors by the Clinton Administration contributed to 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 First and Foremost inablity to get CIA and FBI on the same page. These people made it into our country, and we couldn't stop them because we weren't paying attention to the right people. Also failing to recognize that human intelligence with people on the ground was the second most important piece to this whole puzzle. Maybe more importnat, but harder to do.... I blame him less for this. But still, having humans on the ground working to get into these cells should have been a bigger priority. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 In addition, not recognizing that bin Laden presented easily the number-one threat to the US, given prior attacks and threats. Not taking action against the Taliban regime. Not weighing in sufficiently on the India-Pakistan situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 AtB, I wonder though what we could have done about the taliban before 9-11. You think we would have had half the support from pakistan that we have now? Do you think saudi arabia would let us keep bases? It would have put a serious strain on any possible alliances. I agree that more should have been done, but what? -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Well, I think the brokering of a Kashmir agreement between India and Pakistan would have garnered us a lot of Pakistani support (and we could have done so in a way that wouldn't have totally alienated India). Also, I don't think we could have sent in troops or special forces, but we could probably have infiltrated Afghanistan with an intelligence network a little better (yes, I know, hindsight). I mean, after they blew up those Buddhas, we should have known they were trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Well, I think the brokering of a Kashmir agreement between India and Pakistan would have garnered us a lot of Pakistani support (and we could have done so in a way that wouldn't have totally alienated India). Also, I don't think we could have sent in troops or special forces, but we could probably have infiltrated Afghanistan with an intelligence network a little better (yes, I know, hindsight). I mean, after they blew up those Buddhas, we should have known they were trouble. I don't know if you'd count the plane hijacking in Kandahar incident as more evidence, as at least in the press the Taliban were somewhat praised for their "help" - although if you read certain accounts you realized it was pretty clear (and I'm sure governments knew it, just didn't want to publicize it for some reason) that the Taliban were complicit. Also, as for the India-Pakistan conflict, I'll never forget a particular speech by Clinton where he made the claim that "any resolution of Kashmir should involve China." A ridiculous statement in my opinion, and one that would clearly alienate India, and while on the surface it may seem to please Pakistan, I recall the tone of the speech to almost imply that China may get land out of it... The Clinton-China connection is one of the reasons that Clinton's foreign policy will always be remembered negatively by me. I didn't see any justification to his actions. If you want some additional info (granted there are obvious opinions there), you can look here: http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/usgeneral/usg19.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Also, as for the India-Pakistan conflict, I'll never forget a particular speech by Clinton where he made the claim that "any resolution of Kashmir should involve China." That might have referred to the lands India lost in its northwest when China and India fought a war. With restitution of those lands, India might have been happier with losing parts of Kashmir (although it's unlikely). I'd have to read the full text of the speech to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black That might have referred to the lands India lost in its northwest when China and India fought a war. With restitution of those lands, India might have been happier with losing parts of Kashmir (although it's unlikely). I'd have to read the full text of the speech to be sure. I should have been more clear, it was kind of in the back of my mind that people would think that was the reference. It seemed clear from the speech that this was not what he was referring to, the tone and body language was more like (as the web link I posted alludes to, from the State Department spokesman) defensive, because he knew that there was no justification for what he was talking about. Having heard the speech - and I was unable to find the text, sorry - I remember feeling convinced that he was not referring to the disputed border that India and China share. BTW, I do wish I could find the actual text to rejudge. I also remember he did qualify his random inclusion of China by saying something like "China has a long history" and more stuff that, to me, seems like it would be largely irrelevant to the Kashmir issue to the two parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 15, 2004 Author Share Posted April 15, 2004 Destino? Shockjoe? Where are you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I think probably what he was most guilty of was sinking or at least lowering the morale of those in defense and possibly intelligence too. That made certain things easier. People who feel disrespected in their job can lose enthusiasm. I've seen it happen to teachers. They get worn down by the constant disrespect and nonsence that they have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Well, I think the brokering of a Kashmir agreement between India and Pakistan would have garnered us a lot of Pakistani support (and we could have done so in a way that wouldn't have totally alienated India). Also, I don't think we could have sent in troops or special forces, but we could probably have infiltrated Afghanistan with an intelligence network a little better (yes, I know, hindsight). Good call ATB... for once I agree with you. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to defer the rest of my time to the distinguished gentlemen from Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rook Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 1) Keeping the country too dependent on oil. 2) Too much focus on the national debt 3) Morality issue allowed no "coat-tail" effect and GWBush takes the reins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 16, 2004 Author Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by redman Destino? Shockjoe? Where are you guys? :crickets: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 There you go again redman, blaming Clinton. Can’t you move on? Everyone knows that Bush hatched the 911 scheme at Crawford so he could he could enrich his buddies at Haliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.