PDA

View Full Version : Who is the Enemy of the US in Turkey?



Clearday-TRForce
09-22-2006, 04:52 AM
Recently, there is an inflation of claims in Turkey arguing that hatred against the US is surging and so-called anti-Semitism is on the peak. In particular, after the Iraq War in 2003, some circles in the US claim that Turkey is ruled by an Islamist government, and that the government supports anti-American and anti–Israeli groups. According to this view, Turkey is an obstacle in the implementation of the American and Israeli policies in the Middle East. There are those who maintain that the current government should be toppled in order to overcome this situation.

First of all, one must admit that there has recently been a notable reaction particularly in Turkey against the American and Israeli policies. In the surveys conducted by our organization, ISRO (USAK), in March 2005, we found the emergence of a reaction against the US and Israel. The study found that 91 % of the Turkish public did not approve the policies of US President George W. Bush. Those who support Bush’s policies was only 0,5 %. In the USAK’s friend-enemy perception survey, the US and Israel got the lowest ranking. However, these statistics don’t imply that Turkish people are exception in global trends. The US’ policies on Iraq and global terrorism are largely disapproved by the world as well. Bush’s policies are a subject of mockery even in the US.

The same survey also suggests that Turkish people don’t hate the US or Americans, and reactions are conjectural as a result of current American policies. For example, 74 % of the respondents still see the US as an ally of Turkey. Those who state they hated the US were only 4 %. There is a fact that Turks dislike Bush but appreciate Clinton very much. Same is true for Israel. Turkey is one of the countries where anti-Semitism has no historical roots. Turks and Turkey are against the Israeli policies, but not Israel. In this sense, Turkey isn’t more anti-Israeli than any other country in the globe.

So, why is there an increasing concern in the US that Turkey is going anti-American? Why are some people trying to give the impression that Turkey has become an al-Qaeda base?


There are various reasons for that:


The Turkish government is blamed for the rejection of the proposal in March 1, 2003 (tezkere), which would have allowed the US troops to use Turkish territory for military passage to Iraq. Some neo-cons in the US cannot accept this result. They think that they were betrayed by Turkey.

The US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the most prominent person in this group. Rumsfeld has blamed the inability to gain permission to invade Iraq through Turkey for the power of the insurgency that the US now faces. (1) For Rumsfeld, had Turkey given the permission, the US wouldn’t have suffered this many of fatalities and Iraq would have been a totally different country. Rumsfeld may be right on that point in some degree. However, it can be seen that the US lacked proper understanding of Turkey’s importance before the March 1 voting. Before the war, the US thought that Turkey would definitely approve the proposal, and in a way, confused Turkish Assembly with the other ones in the Middle East. Moreover, the approval became much less likely because of the US’ indifferent attitude.

They treated the subject like a horse trading. They were so arrogant in very minor topics that they attracted great negative reaction from the Turkish public. Secondly, it wouldn’t be fair to blame the government for the rejection of the proposal in the Assembly. It is true that the government did some small mistakes. However, the Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan still says that “the proposal should have been approved”. The government did its best to get the approval from the Parliament. As a matter of fact, all of those who voted for the approval were the governing AKP’s (Justice and Development Party) MPs, who were blamed for being “Islamist” and anti-American. In addition, the proposal was rejected with only a few vote-margin.

Besides, those who voted affirmative were more than those who voted negative, but there was no simple majority due to abstentions. As opposed to the general belief, it is the traditional leftist party, CHP (Republican People’s Party), which voted “no” collectively, that caused the proposal to be rejected. Even today, the party leader Deniz Baykal tells this story as one of the party’s biggest successes. Another reason of rejection was the Army’s implicit message a day before the voting that the result was not very important for itself. The Turkish Army, expressing its views in almost every case, did not make any statement in such a crucial matter. In the National Security Council meeting which was held a day before the voting, the Army’s silence on the issue was perceived as the Army was against the approval.

Some right-wing Jewish groups in the US see AKP and al-Qaeda identical. These groups characterize governing AKP as “Islamist”, and claim that Turkey is leaning towards Islamism at the expense of Westernism. However, AKP leadership totally rejects “Islamism” idea. The AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with an inspiration from Christian Democrats, defines his party as Muslim Democrat. One can also say that AKP, like the early years of ANAP (Motherland Party), is an umbrella party embodying many different groups, including liberals and leftists. But claiming that Turkey has become an Islamist state during the AKP rule is a quiet exaggerated assessment. During this period, Turkey has achieved the most notable reforms in its history in the fields of democratization and Westernization, also thanks to the EU process. Negotiations for full membership have begun with the EU, and the Turkish economy has achieved a dramatic growth in integration with the Western economies during this period ironically called by some Islamist.

The third important reason is the claim that Turkey has shifted towards an anti-Israeli posture with the AKP government. It is true that the PM Erdogan has harshly criticized Israel. In one of his speeches, Erdogan went as far as asserting that Israel has had some conducts which might be termed as “state terrorism”. However, this firm attitude against Israel is not peculiar to AKP’s Erdogan. His predecessor Bulent Ecevit, a leftist politician, also blamed Israel for committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. Similarly, the leftist opposition party CHP’s leader Deniz Baykal also makes very harsh statements criticizing Israel. The far leftist and rightist parties in Turkey all also criticize Israel sharply. In other words, we cannot say that the Turco-Israeli relations have deteriorated during the AKP government. On the contrary, the Israeli Ambassador to Ankara, Pinhas Avivi, has stated that the good relations between the two countries have reached its peak in history during the current Turkish government. Delivering a speech at ISRO (USAK) on September 6, 2006, the Ambassador said that the economic relations between two countries have for the first time passed $10 billion and described the relations as “strategic”. In other words, the relations are getting stronger and stronger regardless of the discourses. In this context, one should remember that it was the Turkish leftists which opposed most outspokenly to the Galataport investment project in Istanbul by the Israeli businessman Ofer, and it was leftist CHP which initiated campaigns to cancel this deal. On the other hand, it is interesting to see that Prime Minister Erdogan, who was accused of being “Islamist”, warned the left-wing parties “not to act like the economic anti-Semitics”.

The fourth, and maybe the most important, reason is the complaints to the US from Turkey. Those who cannot win the elections or who doesn’t trust his personal or institutional influence in Turkey think that the road to power passes through the US. For this reason, many politicians and bureaucrats (civilian or not) have recently visited the US. During these visits, the most prominent argument of the groups opposing AKP government was that there was a polarization of Islamists vs. secularists in Turkey. Stressing that this government was “Islamist” and “anti-Western”, these opposition groups asked for American support to topple the government. The visitors from Turkey not only talked to officials but also paid visits to the ethnic-religious and political lobbies to share their views. The effects of these groups perhaps are much more influential than anything else in the emergence of an anti-Turkish atmosphere in the US.

The Turkey experts of Turkish origin in the US: Some of the Turkey experts of Turkish origin, who have difficulty in maintaining their posts or maintaining their posts with some preconditions, are trying to retain their posts by giving an impression in the US that there is a strong polarization in Turkey. The extension of their contracts is conditioned to defend certain views, and these contracts are usually offered by groups which see Turkey as we defined above. In addition, the institutions in the US only want to hear what they want to hear and ignore criticisms of the US, and this keeps the Turkey experts under grave pressure. Because of this, many “experts” have to defend the views which they don’t approve just to maintain their projects and grants. Some other Turkish experts, who are less in number, present their personal ideological positions as the views reflecting Turkey.

Who is the Enemy of the US in Turkey?

It is clear for many that there has been a strong anti-Americanism in Turkey since the World War II. The US Congress’ support to the Armenian radicals and also its support of the Greek side in the Cyprus issue are some of the reasons for the Turkish dislike of the US. The most important reason undermining the image of the US in Turkey was the arms embargo imposed on Turkey in the 1970s with the influence of the Greek lobby in the US. In the following years, the PKK terror and the Kurdish issue in Turkey have been the main problems in Turco-American relations. It is noteworthy to see that it has been the Jewish lobby which defended Turkish interests in the Congress during this period. Another striking point is that, contrary to the general belief in the West, the basis of anti –Americanism in Turkey is not Islamist movements, but secular leftist ideologies. The anti-Americanism and –Westernism in Turkey is, generally, a leftist movement. What is more, one can even say that being a leftist, being anti-Israeli and anti–American are almost synonymous. For example, the demonstrations protesting the arrival of the US 6th Fleet in Turkey in the 1960s has been one of the legends of the Turkish left. On the other hand, Turkish right-wing has always been willing to improve the relations with the US. As a matter of fact, it is not coincidence to see that the most noticeable improvements in relations with the US have taken place during the conservative rightist governments (Menderes, Demirel, Ozal etc.) in Turkey. Even the far rightist groups such as Islamists and nationalists have never been as critical as the leftists about the US. Both groups criticize the US and Israeli policies as a populist method to draw support from the masses during election campaigns. However, when any of these parties were in power, they refrained from any action which could harm the relations. Furthermore, the Islamist governments, in their coalition governments, improved relations with the US and Israel just because they were concerned with secular reactions to their political leanings. It is striking to note that the most significant security agreement between Israel and Turkey was signed by the government of Necmettin Erbakan, known to be an Islamist, in 1996.

However, anti-American and anti–Israeli stand has been an important part of CHP, the centrist and moderate leftist party. Many MPs in CHP take the issue back to the Turkish War of Salvation (1919-1922) and claim that the West still wants to divide Turkey. For CHP, the PKK is supported by the Western powers, and there is a Western bloc against Turkey in Cyprus and Armenian problems. CHP also sees the US’ Middle East policies as conspiracies to divide Turkey. CHP opposes not only political liberalism, but also economic one, and it has been the political party which resists privatization the most. In particular, the sale of Turkish state companies to Israel and the US is unacceptable to CHP. Its strong opposition to the investments of Ofer, an Israeli businessman, in Turkey and its campaign to prevent these investments are indications of CHP’s posture on this issue. Not only CHP, but DSP, another left-wing party, is also very critical of the US and Israel. The campaign “no sale of Turkish property to foreigners” initiated by Rahsan Ecevit, one of the most influential figures of the party, is the peak of distrust against Israel and the West. According to Ecevit, Israeli citizens are buying large areas of land from the southeast of Turkey and this will be a process which will eventually lead to the division of Turkey.

The anti-Americanism is much more sharper in far leftist groups, and this may turn into terrorist activities as in the case of DHKP-C (The Salvation Party-Front of Revolutionary People). The far leftist Worker Party, led by Dogu Perincek, is quiet sure that the US and Israel wants to divide Turkey. Perincek strictly opposes privatization, liberal economy, Turkey’s NATO membership, its cooperation with the US and Israel, and even sees all of these as treason.

For some groups in the US, the Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer acts as a balance against the so-called Islamist government in its anti-Israeli and –Western policies. First of all, the MPs of Erbakan’s Islamist party gave full support to Sezer’s election in 2000. So to say, Sezer was elected thanks to the votes of the “Islamist MPs”. It is true that Sezer is a fanatic secular, and his radical stand against Islamism is evident. However, it is impossible to say that President Sezer is pro-Israeli and –Western, and that he counterweighs Erdogan on this issue. In fact, Sezer’s anti-Westernism is incomparably stronger than that of Erdogan’s. His close relationship with the Syrian President Beshar al-Assad, his views that Turkey should establish regional alliances and should improve relations with Iran and Russia instead of the US and the EU indicate that he is closer to the “ulusalcilar” (leftist-nationalists). Sezer’s skepticism towards the West is so strong that he has serious reservations regarding Turkey’s full membership process in the EU. His opposition to privatization and market economy are also noteworthy. In 2005, he insisted to visit Syria challenging the US’ open warnings. In brief, one cannot say that President Sezer is a pro-Israeli and –American. In this sense, Erdogan’s government is closer to the US, the EU and Israel than Sezer is.

Though less in number, another voiceful group is “ulusalcilar” (leftist-nationalists). This group, which sometimes cooperate with the right-wing nationalists, is perhaps the forerunner of opposition to the US and Israel. This group is anti-Israeli and hostility against the US is at the center of their policies. They cannot even get 1% of the votes in the elections, yet they are still influential to some extent on the President and some media companies.

Finally, the Turkish Army, claimed to be a balancer against the current government, has no obvious anti- or pro-Western attitude. Traditionally, the Turkish Army sees the future of Turkey in the West. However, this affiliation can be defined as locating Turkey in the West despite the West, i.e., it is based on never fully trusting the West. Regarding Israel, it is seen that there is a considerable distrust against Israel within the Army and this has been growing recently. Many military officers think that the US and Israel plan to strengthen PKK and found a Kurdish state in North Iraq. In addition, the anti-imperialist thoughts are still strong within the Army, which originate from the Turkish War of Salvation. The most important reason for Turkey’s ‘passivity’ to cooperate with the US during the Iraq War has been the Army’s indetermination or skepticism. Had the Army shown its willingness in favor of the proposal to involve in Iraq War, the proposal would definitely have been approved in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM). The Army’s unwillingness to send troops to Lebanon was also observed by many circles. It is also quiet meaningful to see that the Chief of General Staff, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, rejected at once the NATO’s request to send more troops to Afghanistan, without even consulting to the government. In the Gulf War in 1991, the Army also strongly opposed the decision of President Turgut Ozal to act together with the US. The then-Chief of General Staff, Necip Torumtay, did not want to take side with the US in Iraq in a moment when almost the entire world was acting together with the US. Eventually, the Chief of General Staff had to resign due to the disagreement.



To sum up, we must admit that the anti-American sentiments in Turkey have been on the rise. However, this trend is not in contrast with the world. The general tendency in Turkey is quiet similar to that in, say, France, Germany or Egypt. In addition, it is not possible to define the current government as Islamist or anti-Western. Furthermore, the AKP government even has had no serious opposition in any of the decisions concerning Israel or the US. The government every time voted in favor of the policies adopted by the US and Israel. Hence, it can be said that there is a significant illusion and manipulation in the US towards Turkey.

21 September 2006
Trns. by Noyan OZKAYA; USAK

NOTES

(1) http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/US-blames-Turkey-for-Iraq-chaos/2005/03/21/1111253960989.html.

Sedat LACINER: Director, International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) & Davos Economic Forum Young Global Leader 2006 Award




regards,
CDTRF

Laworkerbee
09-22-2006, 01:34 PM
I remember reading somewhere that certain intelligence agencies try and keep a count of how many "beards" are in the Turkish officer corps. We apparently prefer drunken whoring Turks to religiously devout ones :roll:

Ordie
09-22-2006, 02:22 PM
As an American I think its the general lack of education and geographic knowledge. When Americans think of Turkey, they think of the movie "Midnight Express". There is also large Greek and Armenian community that keeps reminding the general population about the past.

I think Turkey needs to hire a branding and public relations agency.

ElHombre
09-22-2006, 04:18 PM
Short version: Turks like Americans in general but dislike the US gov't. There is a group of Americans who believe that denying the US gov't the least little thing is an undoubted sign of weakness and collusion with AQ and/or Iran.

saladin
09-22-2006, 04:42 PM
Short version: Turks like Americans in general but dislike the US gov't. There is a group of Americans who believe that denying the US gov't the least little thing is an undoubted sign of weakness and collusion with AQ and/or Iran.
Very good observation indeed. I think that summarizes all. Clinton, for example, still can win an election in Turkey if he ever decides to run.
Here is the moment when he won the hearts of the Turkish citizens.

http://www.kenthaber.com/Resimler/2005/09/27/00024497.jpg

During his visit to the 1999 earthquake zone, he hugged a baby refugee (Erkan) and let him play with his nose. A small gesture but that was enough for the Turkish people.

saladin
09-22-2006, 05:27 PM
I find the last paragraph in the article really funny/sad its ok to hate America because some other countries do. Using that logic its ok for the US to work against Turkey because other countries do.

So its the right wing Israeli neocons who are putting a spin on our impression of Turkish policy toward the US, and not the Turish parliment who stopped the deployment of the 3rd ID?

FYI, It was not 3rd but 4th. If you are angry about a country, make your facts straight.

NewsMan
09-22-2006, 06:54 PM
Very good observation indeed. I think that summarizes all. Clinton, for example, still can win an election in Turkey if he ever decides to run.
Here is the moment when he won the hearts of the Turkish citizens.

http://www.kenthaber.com/Resimler/2005/09/27/00024497.jpg

During his visit to the 1999 earthquake zone, he hugged a baby refugee (Erkan) and let him play with his nose. A small gesture but that was enough for the Turkish people.


This is exactly true. I heard about Clinton's visit all the time... how hreat a man this and that. It was always followed by a comparison of a cold, sheltered President Bush, surrounded by huge security and afraid to shake the PM's hand??

saladin
09-22-2006, 06:58 PM
No where did I say I was mad at any country, I just mentioned facts written by A Turkish writer, and the conclusions he made....FYI
Sorry,
I guess I misinterpreted your tone as the one that is not happy to have 4th's passage prohibitted. http://www.barbarawood.com/guestbook/images/smilies/cheers.gif

Clearday-TRForce
09-23-2006, 02:55 AM
This is exactly true. I heard about Clinton's visit all the time... how hreat a man this and that. It was always followed by a comparison of a cold, sheltered President Bush, surrounded by huge security and afraid to shake the PM's hand??


these statements almost true. Clinton can always welcome to Turkey. We are glad to see him in any where in any time in the Turkey. Dont talk much about Bush here. That is what we think about both of them.

Clinton was a clever,well-tempered,well-balanced President. Long Live Clinton!!!



http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=270335http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=270296
http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=270073http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=270062
http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=269974
http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=164037
http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=164024

cinoeye
09-23-2006, 11:13 PM
So are there all those claims true or not, you tell us?

Long live Clinton?
Why is that?

Clearday-TRForce
09-25-2006, 03:12 AM
As I said you can keep the bag of sh1t, the man was a player who put the US in danger every day he was president, his wife is a cold fish and they are borh liars and theifs.


P.Bush says three times more lies than Clinton, you have to understand it as soon as possible. That man was a real player who use democracy, peace to having more deepest efficiency in the countries.

Look what we say here, If Clinton applies to be a president of something in Turkey, Turkish people choose him...think why? how has he gained this statu?

But think twice about Bush? not easy to come here...not easy to negotiate with us...Why?

Clearday-TRForce
09-25-2006, 11:31 AM
I find it very funny, and hard to understand how some one who does not live in the US make a decision which would make a better president of the US, would you let me rule Turkey and make Turkish goverment policies because I let some Turkish baby pick my nose? It seems thats what your doing for the US, Clinton put on his smilely face in Turkey so all of a sudden YOU decide he is THE man for the US. He was/is a liar, a coward, a player, and put his country in danger for 8 years. As I said if you want him you can have the bag of sh1t I dont need him or his pushy thief of a wife.


this is your self opinion, no Americans opinion. There are many clever and peaceful Ameficans who can easily understand why we talk about Clinton like I mentioned before. According to us, he is the man with his balanced movements,actions. It is not only a picking its nose issue?

Bush and his neo-cons put USA and World three times in danger than Clinton. He lied to anyone in the world with his famous MassDWeapons lies, stories...there are many lies on the Bush table, such as Iraq democracy...Where?...

Mate, this is our view,you must respect it.

Ordie
09-25-2006, 01:41 PM
How about you telling me why I should respect Clinton, since you are such a big fan of his tell me a few things he did good for the US as president.
And please dont tell me things he DIDN'T do, tell me things he did do.


8 years of relative peace and prosperity.

Ordie
09-25-2006, 02:26 PM
In the global setting, there are no absolutes.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 02:30 PM
Of course foreigners love Clinton, he made America weak. Foreigners love a weak America. That's why on 9/11 we had their sympathy but once we started fighting back they went back to hating.

Sorry foreigners but we're starting to hate you right back and not care what you think.

Ordie
09-25-2006, 02:46 PM
America was economically strong, confident, and respected.
Nations including Turkey provided aid and support to America after 9/11 on the sincere premise that it was a threat to the global community. As a NATO ally, Turkey provided troops and resources to Afghanistan to rid and secure it from the Taliban and thier Al Qaieda allies.

What went wrong was Iraq. The United States diplomatically "bullied" our long time allies thus squandering whatever goodwill that came out of 9/11. The bottom line is that the Turks must live with the consequences of US policy in Iraq. The Turkish public wanted no part in the invasion of Iraq, therefore the Government said "no thank you" go around the other way.

Ordie
09-25-2006, 02:56 PM
Maybe not, but in history I would think facts are absolute. And the more light that shines on him the worse he look's.

Even history is subjective. I too am glad that Bill Clinton has come out of his shell. It provides for a healthy debate.

Hellfish
09-25-2006, 02:59 PM
Maybe not, but in history I would think facts are absolute. And the more light that shines on him the worse he look's.

How 'bout you tell us why Clinton was a threat to America every day he was in office?

saladin
09-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Of course foreigners love Clinton, he made America weak. Foreigners love a weak America. That's why on 9/11 we had their sympathy but once we started fighting back they went back to hating.

Sorry foreigners but we're starting to hate you right back and not care what you think.

Do you know where USA in the scientific rankings? Do you know how much technology is increasingly being developed in the foreign countries? If I were a US citizen, I would have been really worried to see that the scientific publications of US is going down while the other countries are increasing. Why, that is because the current US government doesn't give money for the research. Even DARPA, i.e., the research institute for military technologies doesn't have money. You may say who cares about the science as long as we kill damn terrorists. That is the short term view that is shared by US government.

US won the cold war since she had better technology. I will wonder what you will think when you have to fly to Korea to get steam cell treatment. Or buy a fuel cell car from China since it is cheaper and more efficient than the American counterpart, not because of cheap labor but because of their research. When the temperature increase because of the global warming, while swimming in the poles, your children will also probably thank the current government not taking the action.


I'm not going to talk about the environmental, political and economical abilities of the current US government, but I can tell you its technology and science policy is not bright.

When I was working for a company, the system administrator (the one responsible from the computers) said that it is hard to be system administrator. If he takes care of everything, nobody knows you are a good one or care if you are employed or not. So once in a while, you need a crisis, not a big one, but let the people remember that you are alive. Of course, in US government case, in my opinion they couldn't predict that they couldn't control the crisis they needed to keep support.

Also, half of the Americans doesn't like Bush as well (look at 2004 election results). So if not liking Bush makes you one of the people who wants to see USA weak, I would think half of the Americans are in the same vagon.

Finally,
I will leave you with the following chart.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg

Jobu
09-25-2006, 03:12 PM
Your chart is a joke.
Does it show how Clinton did nothing about the massive fraud that happened on his watch that Bush finally ended? Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. ? How did that effect the economic numbers? How many people lost their jobs when the tech bubble burst? How many lost their jobs when the massive corporate fraud was uncovered by the Bush administration?

Did your chart mention how Clinton did nothing to stop Al Qaeda's rise throughout the 90's?

Did it mention how Clinton practically dismantled the CIA?

The fact is that Clinton has always cared more for himself than for this country. To me that is unforgivable from a President. He was more concerned with fat chicks than the good of this country and he made us weak.

As for the idiots in our own country who want to see us weak, yes we have many stupid liberals. They nominated John Kerry as their President, wasn;t that proof enough? John Kerry, the guy who campaigned for Hanoi's 7 point plan for surrender while he was still an officer.

Hellfish
09-25-2006, 03:14 PM
worried more about his prick and how he appeared to the US and world public at large than the safety of his country.

Thats the best you can do? Seriously? You hate the guy that much because he got a BJ?

Jobu
09-25-2006, 03:16 PM
Thats the best you can do? Seriously? You hate the guy that much because he got a BJ?

Reading comprehension, work on it.

Hellfish
09-25-2006, 03:19 PM
Reading comprehension, work on it.

Bush saved the world from Enron and Tyco? The dot com burst because of Clinton? Are you smoking crack? You really think POTUS has that much influence on the economy?

And how do you explain how just last night I saw an interview from some CIA guys that said Clinton did actively pursue Al Qaeda?

Hellfish
09-25-2006, 03:23 PM
Didnt you use this same line in anther Thread? and since you asked, es I think that kind of behavior as the President of the US is enough to loose respect for him. Would you laugh it off if he had been caught sucking one instead.

But he didn't. And you're an idiot for thinking what you think.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 03:24 PM
Bush saved the world from Enron and Tyco? The dot com burst because of Clinton? Are you smoking crack? You really think POTUS has that much influence on the economy?

And how do you explain how just last night I saw an interview from some CIA guys that said Clinton did actively pursue Al Qaeda?

The administration has a lot of influence. They choose who to investigate and who not to through the SEC, the Justioce Dept, etc. Clinton decided to pursue Microsoft while Enron, Worldcom, and the others got away with murder inflating their earnings, etc.

Clinton of course was more concerned with good media coverage which corporate fraud (on his watch) would have ruined. They touted his great economy so much that exposing the lies it was based on would have ruined it all so he decided not to rock the boat.

He did the same thing with bin Laden. The 9/11 report sysa Clinton had 4 clear chances to kill bin Laden in 98-99 but refused to do so because he wanted to capture him instead. Clinton's administration actually feared killing bin Laden because of the negative press they might receive.

That is how incompetent that idiot was.

Kitsune
09-25-2006, 03:24 PM
@Trace: Could it be that you mean R&D as in "Research and Development"? Wasn't R&R "Rest and Recreation"?

Hellfish
09-25-2006, 03:26 PM
The administration has a lot of influence. They choose who to investigate and who not to through the SEC, the Justioce Dept, etc. Clinton decided to pursue Microsoft while Enron, Worldcom, and the others got away with murder inflating their earnings, etc.

Clinton of course was more concerned with good media coverage which corporate fraud (on his watch) would have ruined. They touted his great economy so much that exposing the lies it was based on would have ruined it all so he decided not to rock the boat.

He did the same thing with bin Laden. The 9/11 report sysa Clinton had 4 clear chances to kill bin Laden in 98-99 but refused to do so because he wanted to capture him instead. Clinton's administration actually feared killing bin Laden because of the negative press they might receive.

That is how incompetent that idiot was.

Quote me the text from the 9/11 report. Right here. Besides the fact that we had - and still have - a no assassination policy, whats wrong with capturing him?

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 03:28 PM
You have got to be kidding. I guiess the swing word in your reply is "relative" sort of like being pregnent you either are on not.

I'll tell you one thing: During Clinton's Presidency it was much easier and safer to travel to the U.S.

Now, it's not. Because of the neo-con foreign policy, it has become harder to grant a visa and travel to the U.S. Oh, and I even can't bring my contact-lenses. See, I need the necessary liquids to preserve them.:roll:

Ordie
09-25-2006, 03:32 PM
Clinton decided to pursue Microsoft while Enron, Worldcom, and the others got away with murder inflating their earnings, etc.

Bill Gates gave $$$$ to the GOP and George Bush's campaign. Shortly afterwards after Bush got into office. Microsoft got a break in the anti-trust issue.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 03:34 PM
Bush saved the world from Enron and Tyco? The dot com burst because of Clinton? Are you smoking crack? You really think POTUS has that much influence on the economy?

And how do you explain how just last night I saw an interview from some CIA guys that said Clinton did actively pursue Al Qaeda?

The Daily Show doesn't count.




I agree that Clinton wasn't the great white evil. He isn't responsible for the "weakening" of the US, nor is Bush responsible for the friggin laundry list of **** he gets scapegoated for. But, yes, Slick Willy Clinton was getting his **** sucked in the friggin oval office. I love the material he created for jokes involving the "Presidential Humidor" and Monicanudo cigars... but he might as well have **** on the Presidency. So, now with our good-ole-boy President and the lying horndog former President.. why would Turkey still dig the US?

I hate to say it.. but El Hombre is right on the money. (damn.. that really is painful) This article makes it sound like there is some big rift between the US and Turkey when the opposite is actually going on. Turkey is on a big push to become part of the EU.. but are getting resistance. Why? Because that conservative Muslim culture that still exists in Turkey has become somewhat unpopular in Europe these days. The US is much more open and understanding of that demographic in Turkey.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 03:42 PM
Quote me the text from the 9/11 report. Right here. Besides the fact that we had - and still have - a no assassination policy, whats wrong with capturing him?


“the purpose and
nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation —and probably recriminations —in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts,did not survive.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf

Read, and be sickened as I was. Clinton screwed up royally.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 03:43 PM
I'll tell you one thing: During Clinton's Presidency it was much easier and safer to travel to the U.S.

Now, it's not. Because of the neo-con foreign policy, it has become harder to grant a visa and travel to the U.S. Oh, and I even can't bring my contact-lenses. See, I need the necessary liquids to preserve them.:roll:

What the hell do Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have to do with the damn airport and your frigging contect lenses? September 11th doesn't ring a bell huh?

So what is all of the sudden unsafe about travel in the US? Oh.. that's right, Islamic Extremist Terrorists keep crashing commercial airlines into buildings. I guess that would make travel to the US unsafe. Damn evil Bush. I wish he would stop talking funny and pissing off the terrorists so I can go to Disneyland with my contacts and stuff.

Kitsune
09-25-2006, 03:43 PM
Thanks Kit....nice to read you again....getting old but still fighting the good fight.

Cheers friend

Same to you, Trace. :grin:

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 03:51 PM
What the hell do Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have to do with the damn airport and your frigging contect lenses? September 11th doesn't ring a bell huh?

It does ring a bell, but seems the U.S exaggerates herself. It was a big shock for the U.S society this attack, but you don't need to manipulate the whole situation with the yelow-green-pink-red alerts.

So what is all of the sudden unsafe about travel in the US?
Oh.. that's right, Islamic Extremist Terrorists keep crashing commercial airlines into buildings.

Bingo! And an excuse to impose tougher measures for foreign tourists.

I guess that would make travel to the US unsafe. Damn evil Bush. I wish he would stop talking funny and pissing off the terrorists so I can go to Disneyland with my contacts and stuff.

He is pissing off the world. No need to comment further. NIE hit a nerve with the report concerning Iraq and Terrorism. Why doesn't the Bush Administration admit it? Lack of guts? Lack of rationality? Pressure from interests?



..................

Jobu
09-25-2006, 03:59 PM
Read the whole NIE and then make an informed decision, not the snippets that the NYT leaked. Once again, picking and choosing which parts you want to focus on (that fit your agenda) is not being honest. The NIE also says leaving Iraq would be worse, it also says many other things that do not fit your agenda.

Any US president who is beloved by the rest of the world is simply not doing his job. If he is liked by foreigners it most likely means he is subordinating US interests to their interests. This is why Clinton is still so popular outside the US, he was weak. Bush is pissing you off? Good, so did Reagan.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 04:00 PM
As much as I am tempted to follow suit with Greek soldier here... the insults will stop right here. Would the idiot (Trace) and the Ass Stain (Hellfish) be so kind as to punch yourselves in the face and see if you can rattle an intelligent debate out of those meager little brains of yours? I mean Greeksoldier may be a stranger to any form of logic but so far he has managed to keep the personal insult out of the conversation. (not to mention avoiding any response dangerous enough to warrant thought)

As I have demonstrated, it is both realistic and entertaining to be able to debate, disagree, argue and even insult without the idiotic name calling and personal insult. It isn't really a big deal to have a crack at someone during a debate, but the F-you banter is weak and it will stop right here.

Play on.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 04:06 PM
Read the whole NIE and then make an informed decision, not the snippets that the NYT leaked. Once again, picking and choosing which parts you want to focus on (that fit your agenda) is not being honest. The NIE also says leaving Iraq would be worse, it also says many other things that do not fit your agenda.

Any US president who is beloved by the rest of the world is simply not doing his job. If he is liked by foreigners it most likely means he is subordinating US interests to their interests. This is why Clinton is still so popular outside the US, he was weak. Bush is pissing you off? Good, so did Reagan.

Not to sharpshoot.. but as you are nitpicking the opinions of the members here, it is important for you to get your facts straight as well. First, I agree completely that the use of little snippets of information to justify someones personal view is lacking credibility.. it is not technically a matter of lying. You have twice cited dishonesty and lying with a members viewpoint or opinion. Although I believe like you some people are not being completely honest and often purposely speak on partial facts and insights to attempt to skew the viewpoints of others.. dishonesty, inaccuracy, lack of credibility.. are all very different from outright lying. Again, not a criticism, but an observation.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 04:13 PM
I expect not just a small part of the truth, I expect the whole truth. Anything less is dishonest.

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 04:22 PM
Read the whole NIE and then make an informed decision, not the snippets that the NYT leaked. Once again, picking and choosing which parts you want to focus on (that fit your agenda) is not being honest. The NIE also says leaving Iraq would be worse, it also says many other things that do not fit your agenda.

I only know one thing and it is universally acceptable. Even though Hussein did bad things in Iraq, the chaos that is now happening didn't exist before. 100 dead civilians per day from suicide bombings?

Any US president who is beloved by the rest of the world is simply not doing his job. If he is liked by foreigners it most likely means he is subordinating US interests to their interests. This is why Clinton is still so popular outside the US, he was weak. Bush is pissing you off? Good, so did Reagan.

Clinton is not beloved by the Greeks either. From the time he decided to bomb Serbia, he is hated as much like Bush. I agree we apply double standards (we blame the U.S, but not European countries for stuff made in Bosnia and Croatia).

And Reagan is also hated because he issued a travel warning back in 1985 for Athens Airport's security.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9801E6DA1039F933A15755C0A963948260

And no Clinton wasn't weak. He had rationality and didn't separate countries into good and rogue states.

Politics means forecasting. Something that the current Administration doens't even think of. By saying "mission accomlished" but yet you continue fighting means shortsightness.



............................

Jobu
09-25-2006, 04:28 PM
I only know one thing and it is universally acceptable. Even though Hussein did bad things in Iraq, the chaos that is now happening didn't exist before. 100 dead civilians per day from suicide bombings?

Hitler did bad things in Germany but the war made things worse. Was WWII a mistake? You admit the deaths are coming from suicide bombers but you blame Bush rather than the bombers who actually sit down, plan these atrocities out in detail, and then carry them out.


And no Clinton wasn't weak. He had rationality and didn't separate countries into good and rogue states.

You are flat wrong. Clinton's admin is the one which started this whole "rogue state" language. Please educate yourself about our history before you start making false claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1376425.stm

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 04:34 PM
I expect not just a small part of the truth, I expect the whole truth. Anything less is dishonest.

Well, that's what keeps me waking up in the morning.. to live up to Jobu's expectation.:roll:

I wasn't trying to critique you noob. ;) I was trying to point out why you are getting resistance from the members when you try and make a point. Honesty and integrity are what we all expect. However, ignorance is far from dishonesty. Bias is also not a lack of integrity. The ability to communicate effectively is a pretty good skill to have however.

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 04:42 PM
Hitler did bad things in Germany but the war made things worse. Was WWII a mistake? You admit the deaths are coming from suicide bombers but you blame Bush rather than the bombers who actually sit down, plan these atrocities out in detail, and then carry them out.

What? Ever read on how Hitler and the NSDAP came to power? Is the U.S.A today in the same condition like pre-WWII Germany was (huge unemployment and huge poverty, or simply bankrupt)? Hadn't Gemrnay had been bankrupt, the NSDAP wouldn't had been in power.

Bombers have the excuse that "since the U.S and the other forces have conquered Iraq, time to fight them.". See, foreign presence is a solid excuse for them.

You are flat wrong. Clinton's admin is the one which started this whole "rogue state" language. Please educate yourself about our history before you start making false claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1376425.stm
Me ->:bash: <-Me. I admit my mistake.



...........................

Jobu
09-25-2006, 04:48 PM
What? Ever read on how Hitler and the NSDAP came to power? Is the U.S.A today in the same condition like pre-WWII Germany was (huge unemployment and huge poverty, or simply bankrupt)? Hadn't Gemrnay had been bankrupt, the NSDAP wouldn't had been in power.

I'm missing your point here.


Bombers have the excuse that "since the U.S and the other forces have conquered Iraq, time to fight them.". See, foreign presence is a solid excuse for them.

Foreign presence is a solid excuse to pull civilians off buses and execute them? Since when? And since you brought it up, what was Serbia's excuse when they did the same thing?

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 05:04 PM
I'm missing your point here.

You compare different things and different periods. You talk about Hitler and WWII. Yes, WWII was a mistake, but you need to trace back the real cause of it. Hitler convinced the German people that he will bring prosperity in a time where Germany was bankrupt and shamed for herself. Is the U.S.A today like pre-WWII Germany? I know that the U.S has huge debts and deficits, but so low morale?

Unless you tell me that "well, the U.S has problems and Bush tries to distract the U.S people from internal problems, hence this GWOT "fiesta" "

Foreign presence is a solid excuse to pull civilians off buses and execute them? Since when? And since you brought it up, what was Serbia's excuse when they did the same thing?

They are raw executors. Is it necessary to examine the ethics of unorthodox guerilla warfare? Let it be, because these people don't care about ethics.

Milosevic was an arrogant politician. He tried to keep Yugoslavia united by force. Don't bring the Kosovo issue, because not only it is a complex one but also both Serbs and Albanians have a share on this.



.....................................

Jobu
09-25-2006, 05:11 PM
I didn't say anything about the USA in comparison to WII Germany, it was Saddam's Iraq in comparison.

cinoeye
09-25-2006, 05:15 PM
THat is also, i should say, stupid comparation?
Nothing personal:)

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 05:24 PM
I didn't say anything about the USA in comparison to WII Germany, it was Saddam's Iraq in comparison.

Did Saddam Hussein have plans to conquer the whole world? He only wanted Kuweit for its huge oil resources and to destroy Israel. Did he ever say that he would attack with WMDs the U.S and Europe?

On the other hand, Bush and Co. had a nice agenda: Hussein had WMDs (where are they?), he supports Al Qaeda and Usama Ben Laden (they later admitted that there is no link between them), he supported the 9/11 attacks (uh?) , he supresses his people (wow, so many years what was he doing and especially with the Kurds?), he did this, that, the other...

Oh well, the Western Hemisphere's friend (a.k.a puppet) turned into the region's worst devil. Now it's Ahmadinejad and Ashad.

How about Saudi Arabia? No, they are good friends.

How about Turkey? Well, now that the U.S openly supports the Kurds of Northern Iraq, there is a crisis between Turkey and the U.S. But nontheless they will find (?) a solution.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 05:29 PM
I didn't say anything about the USA in comparison to WII Germany, it was Saddam's Iraq in comparison.

So, comparing hardship, danger, and death due to opression and greed(Saddam's Iraq), with hardship, danger, and death for the chance of democracy(Saddam free, diet, low carb Iraq) makes what point exactly?

Genocide versus fighting against terror and the chance of civil war is not exactly a big step in the right direction.. but definate death and or existing in an opressed state compared to a fighting chance ... I would take the fighting chance.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 05:38 PM
Well the argument was made that since Saddam's violence was more targetted to just the Kurds and Shia, Iraq was better off with him in power. This, of course, is an absurd argument.

Hitler's violence in Germany was targetted at mostly Jews and other "non-desirables" while the rest of the country was forced to be peaceful. The same argument they are making for Saddam could have been made for Hitler.

And yes, Greek Soldier, Saddam had well documented links to Al Qaeda. Whether they ever actually collaborated on any specific acts is unknown though. I'm not about to give either of them the benefit of the doubt. He most definitely did voice threats to kill Americans. He most definitely did celebrate the 9/11 attacks. He most definitely was shooting at our planes in the No Fly Zones every day and threaten to destroy Israel. He most definitely did have WMD's previously which have never been accounted for to this day. We just don't know what he did with them because he's never been honest. The only responsible assumption was that he still had them. Etc. etc. There were more than enough reasons to take Saddam out.

WARPIG
09-25-2006, 05:46 PM
Did Saddam Hussein have plans to conquer the whole world? He only wanted Kuweit for its huge oil resources and to destroy Israel. Did he ever say that he would attack with WMDs the U.S and Europe?

He only wanted Kuwait and to destroy Israel? Oh.. well that's no big deal. Oh, and as long as Saddam didn't say he would attack the US or Europe, genocide shouldn't be too hard to ignore either. Apathy is so cool.


On the other hand, Bush and Co. had a nice agenda: Hussein had WMDs (where are they?), he supports Al Qaeda and Usama Ben Laden (they later admitted that there is no link between them), he supported the 9/11 attacks (uh?) , he supresses his people (wow, so many years what was he doing and especially with the Kurds?), he did this, that, the other... .
Well as long as Osama and this Al Queda guy say they don't know Saddam.... WTF? Who the hell is they? You do know that Al Queda is a group right? Regardless.. if Osama Bin Laden says anything.. we just trust him. Of course.:roll:

Oh well, the Western Hemisphere's friend (a.k.a puppet) turned into the region's worst devil. Now it's Ahmadinejad and Ashad.
How about Saudi Arabia? No, they are good friends.

Not sure what you are saying.

How about Turkey? Well, now that the U.S openly supports the Kurds of Northern Iraq, there is a crisis between Turkey and the U.S. But nontheless they will find (?) a solution.

OK... I can see your point. Sort of. But, there is no crisis between Turkey and the US. They don't agree with each other politically, but that is as far as it goes. Turkey doesn't want to be involved in US policy that they don't support. Big deal. And as you said, even with the rift caused by the US relationship with Kurds in Iraq.. we (the US and Turkey) will find a solution. OK.. I don't really see your point.

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 05:59 PM
Hitler's violence in Germany was targetted at mostly Jews and other "non-desirables" while the rest of the country was forced to be peaceful. The same argument they are making for Saddam could have been made for Hitler.

Hitler was democratically elected back in 1933, you know...Hussein overthrown Qassim. :roll:

And yes, Greek Soldier, Saddam had well documented links to Al Qaeda.
Whether they ever actually collaborated on any specific acts is unknown though. I'm not about to give either of them the benefit of the doubt. He most definitely did voice threats to kill Americans.

Did he have the capacity to launch WMDs to U.S territory? Americans exist also in Kuweit and Saudi Arabia, countries close to Iraq

He most definitely did celebrate the 9/11 attacks.

True. And in Saudi Arabia some people celebrated it too.

He most definitely was shooting at our planes in the No Fly Zones every day and threaten to destroy Israel.

I don't know about the first one, but definately true for Israel.

He most definitely did have WMD's previously which have never been accounted for to this day. We just don't know what he did with them because he's never been honest. The only responsible assumption was that he still had them. Etc. etc. There were more than enough reasons to take Saddam out.

Who supplied such a know-how to Hussein? Mind, it was both Europe and the U.S. What for? To beat Iran, which (Iran) managed to humiliate Iraq.

So many years two are the possibilites with the WMDs:

1) Transfer them otuseide Iraq
2) Destroy them.

There were reasons indeed, but seems Bush Snr. didn't want to take him out, because of the cheap oil Saddam was supplying. But using as an excuse the existance of WMDs over humanitarian genocide was a cheap shot.



..........................

Jobu
09-25-2006, 06:05 PM
Bush Sr. didn't take him out because he favored stability at the expense of everything else in the Middle East. He was wrong. So was Clinton. It led to 9/11.

Bush Jr. gave many arguments for removing Saddam in his address to the UN on Sept. 12, 2002. Perhaps you only focused on WMD's.

Greek soldier
09-25-2006, 06:32 PM
He only wanted Kuwait and to destroy Israel? Oh.. well that's no big deal. Oh, and as long as Saddam didn't say he would attack the US or Europe, genocide shouldn't be too hard to ignore either. Apathy is so cool.

What was going on during the 1991-2003 period? But I admit the Western (my country inclusive) gave a sh*t of the situation. Since Saddam was supplying us with cheap oil, who cared with the children that were dying or the Kurds and the Shia Muslims that were being exected?

Well as long as Osama and this Al Queda guy say they don't know Saddam.... WTF? Who the hell is they? You do know that Al Queda is a group right? Regardless.. if Osama Bin Laden says anything.. we just trust him. Of course.:roll:

Yes, I know that Al Qaeda (= The Base) is a large group with many subdivisions scattered in the ME. But it is totally different from stating an equation like 9/11 = Al Qaeda + Hussein + Ba'ath Party

Not sure what you are saying.

Saudi Arabia is also full of terrorists. Pakistan has some too.

OK... I can see your point. Sort of. But, there is no crisis between Turkey and the US.

Yes there is. And I am aware of it. But because such a discussion is going to lead to a Greek-Turk flame war, I'll leave it as is.

They don't agree with each other politically, but that is as far as it goes. Turkey doesn't want to be involved in US policy that they don't support. Big deal. And as you said, even with the rift caused by the US relationship with Kurds in Iraq.. we (the US and Turkey) will find a solution.

The Turkish Generals want to supress by force the Kurdish rebels within Iraq, while the U.S tries to bring both parties to sit on the same table and solve the issue. Kind of Israel-PLO situation, which Turkey doesn't accept. Here is the problem.

OK.. I don't really see your point.

Double standards my friend.



...................


Bush Sr. didn't take him out because he favored stability at the expense of everything else in the Middle East. He was wrong. So was Clinton. It led to 9/11.

Oh boy, you now open a new dimension on this issue. 9/11 was the result of more than one things. Search the Internet for which reasons.

Bush Jr. gave many arguments for removing Saddam in his address to the UN on Sept. 12, 2002. Perhaps you only focused on WMD's.

Then why did he decide to gave more emphasis on the WMD issue? Ah, yes, it was more catchy back then.

This has been discussed before on MP.net. I am not going to resurrect such a debate, because I have my own opinion, you have yours and the only outcome will be disagreement by both of us.



Bottom Line: We agree that we'll disagree on some issues. Geopolitics are comlex to discuss.

Jobu
09-25-2006, 07:54 PM
Ego ta ksero ola. Ante kopse toubles.

:)

Clearday-TRForce
09-26-2006, 06:22 AM
You have got to be kidding. I guiess the swing word in your reply is "relative" sort of like being pregnent you either are on not.


friend, what is the connection of your words with the current headline while typing out clinton is the worst, bush's superb?

On the other hand, why dont you gimme a chance to criticize Bush admin about his horsing bill with Turkey in tezkere and willingless to aid new kurdish brothers in the religions divided Iraq?

and how do you really find Bush attempts (policies) good in Iraq while shiies-sunnies-turkmens-kurds think different things under united and divided Iraq? Where is your democracy priority with Turkey in the region to spread it...How will you protect common interest with us while Iran tries to build strong ties with Iraq shiies? isnt it a very bad signal for both of us? how can we allow large religion oriented Iran influence in the Iraq backed by secret Russia and Chinese help?

Bush definetely make wrong things...No chance and naturally no sympathy to him. It harms everything...destabilizing the huge region with no sense. Where are reliable, helpfull, common sense covered conclusions?

Ordie
09-26-2006, 02:42 PM
Its easy for us Americans to go halfway across the globe, take military action and go home. As in the case with American military involvement in Iraq, its neighbors, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey have to live with the consequences for a long time.

The Clinton Administration took pains to work with regional governments and allies. Clinton Administration facilitated the Dayton Accords in halting the violence in Bosnia where all parties were involved. Clinton Administration also led the effort to broker a peace treaty in Nothern Ireland with the Good Friday Accords. The Clinton Administration tried hard to implement the Oslo Agreement between the PLO and Israel. He worked hard up to the very end. But he tried.
Have there been failures? yes, Somalia and Rwanda. It's something we need to learn and live with.

NewsMan
09-26-2006, 04:34 PM
Your chart is a joke.
Does it show how Clinton did nothing about the massive fraud that happened on his watch that Bush finally ended? Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. ? How did that effect the economic numbers? How many people lost their jobs when the tech bubble burst? How many lost their jobs when the massive corporate fraud was uncovered by the Bush administration?

Did your chart mention how Clinton did nothing to stop Al Qaeda's rise throughout the 90's?

Did it mention how Clinton practically dismantled the CIA?

The fact is that Clinton has always cared more for himself than for this country. To me that is unforgivable from a President. He was more concerned with fat chicks than the good of this country and he made us weak.

As for the idiots in our own country who want to see us weak, yes we have many stupid liberals. They nominated John Kerry as their President, wasn;t that proof enough? John Kerry, the guy who campaigned for Hanoi's 7 point plan for surrender while he was still an officer.


Interesting... just watched a story on CNN with the CIA liason that served under Clinton AND GW. He says the Clinton administration DID have a very aggresive hunt for OBL.. he just didn't find him.

NewsMan
09-26-2006, 04:37 PM
GROAN....what a load of BS

What in the hell are you talking about. These are things I heard with my ears on a regular basis.

ElHombre
09-26-2006, 04:41 PM
Bush Sr. didn't take him out because he favored stability at the expense of everything else in the Middle East. He was wrong. So was Clinton. It led to 9/11.

How? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Hvae you unconvered some new evidence? If so, please share it with the POTUS.


Bush Jr. gave many arguments for removing Saddam in his address to the UN on Sept. 12, 2002. Perhaps you only focused on WMD's.

Perhaps because it was the one he and his admin kept harping on...

8thidpathfinderpower
09-26-2006, 06:06 PM
The enemy of the us inside of turkey is all those chickens....eat more beef!!! Oh, and chick filet rules!!!!

Clearday-TRForce
09-27-2006, 04:07 AM
The enemy of the us inside of turkey is all those chickens....eat more beef!!! Oh, and chick filet rules!!!!


It means, I can easily eat you earthworm as a Turkish chicken...p-)