Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CONDI: defends failures at home; US should have launched preemptive attack

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ulTRAX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 09:59 AM
Original message
CONDI: defends failures at home; US should have launched preemptive attack
Edited on Thu Apr-08-04 10:00 AM by ulTRAX
Am I getting this right? Condi is excusing away all the failures on the home front that reasonable people believe could have disrupted some of the 911 plot... yet we should have launched a preemptive attack on Afghanistan before 911?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Bush tired of swatting flies"
Kerrey- what flies did he swat??

She tries to avoid direct answer. he calls her...

thank you.

the Bushistas are bullshit artists. they did squat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. But Condi got Kerrey on his view of response to Cole
bombing...to go after Saddam.

checkmate, Kerrey, by Condi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fryguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. and what sort of bullsh*t are they talking about..
every time they say that, its like they forget about all that crap about "waging the dog" that was thrown at clinton when he acted in response to any attack. Each time cruise missiles were launched, the GOPhers launched in with attacks that it was his attempt to obfuscate the Lewinsky affair - and now they're saying that he should have done MORE? how do you say hypocrite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Oscar goes to:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. BUT... YOU... DIDN'T! And Clarke WAS recommending special ops go in.
Edited on Thu Apr-08-04 10:16 AM by Brotherjohn
The Clinton Plan (I know it hurts to hear that, Condi) was a quantum leap forward in using special ops / covert involvement in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. It was finalized while Election 2000 was being decided by the courts. You can understand them not going forward with it in December 2000.

You HAD a plan to "pre-emptively" strike at Bin Laden. You just didn't USE IT!

And stop trying to use the word "pre-emptive" to justify the "Bush Doctrine". A localized, pre-emptive, special ops-type attack on Bin Laden in 2000-early 2001 would have been self defense. We had already BEEN attacked and were going to be attacked again by the party we would have been striking against. THAT kind of a pre-emptive attack is legally and morally justifiable.

The Iraq War is NOT self defense. The Iraq War was illegal. The Iraq War made us less safe, not more. So stop trying to use your pathetic lack of action pre-9-11 to justify your illegal war against Iraq!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
6. The Carpet of bombs, remember?
Let us buy you off, or deal with our military might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC