Uh, why didn't the previous administration which warned Bush about terrorism do anything about it when it had the chance?

Vic

It doesn't matter, Vic - previous errors by someone else do not confer competence on the reckless and incompetent George W. Bush.

We're in the here and now, and Bush is a wussie and a failure when it comes to terrorists (not to mention countries with nuclear capability).

It's time for a regime change at home.

Well that's your opinion and I respect it, but I was commenting on the fact that the following items:

- He ignored the briefings on terrorism he got from the previous administration.

- He ignored all the warnings from Richard Clark.

Also apply to Clinton's administration. Hell, why didn't those guys listen to Clark? Why didn't Clark press the issue? The previous administration and it's policies also failed (not that I think Bush is failing), and find that interesting since they took the opposite approach ie to do nothing much.

Maybe we do need to move more to the middle. Right now Bush is walking loudly and carrying a big stick... maybe he needs to walk quietly?

Vic

It still doesn't matter what Clinton did or did not do. With that type of logic, Saddam Hussein was a good guy because he wasn't as bad as Hitler.

The point is that Bush is doing a bad job on fighting terrorists, and we should fire him for it because he has made - and continues to make - the U. S. and the entire world a more dangerous place.

What we need - and will not get from Bush - is an understanding of the terrorist problem, that it is a fight against Radical Islamist terrorists.

Radical Islamists do not have a sponsoring country, but are instead interleaved with the populations of countries like Britain, Germany, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United States (many of the 9/11 attackers had Florida driver's licenses).

The Bush approach is instead an implementation of the neoconservative policy of projecting military power against countries, which they attempted to introduce in 1992 (Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney) and eventually became, during this administration, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

It is a bad idea because it is fighting the last conflict, that with Communist countries. It cannot and will not work since a defense needs to be directed at the Radical Islamists, not against countries. The unilateralist invasion of Iraq proves the failure.

Uh, why didn't the previous administration which warned Bush about terrorism do anything about it when it had the chance?

It may be hard to imagine, but back then fighting terrorism had nowhere near the popular support it has now. Clinton caught all kinds of crap for what he did try to do, criticism Bush didn't have to worry about before he went after the murderous but unrelated dictator of Iraq.

According to Richard Clark himself, Clinton took the Millenium Plot (the one that was foiled) warnings far more seriously than Bush took the 9/11 warnings. Given that Clinton already took bin Laden more seriously than Bush did before 9/11, one has to wonder how much more serious Clinton would have taken the threat after 9/11. Bush, as it turns out, wasn't serious enough to make sure bin Laden never left Tora Bora alive.

So because of Bush's policies on fighting terrorism, there is still a danger is that we'll get hit again by Osama bin Laden and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

I agree that it is indeed a difficult battle because they are so decentralized. I don't particularly think that Bush's approach is the *best* approach, but I also do not believe it is the *worst*.

Certain countries/leaders do sponsor terrorism and showing those countries that we are not afraid to step up to the plate will IMHO make them think twice.

I'd love to see more pinpoint special ops targeting, but some serious intel is required for that and it's hard to find people of middle eastern descent to work for the CIA and infiltrate these groups.

Vic

While "it's hard to find people of middle eastern descent to work for the CIA and infiltrate these groups" that's only because of the unilateralist U.S. approach.

Had the U.S. spent a fraction of the $200 billion wasted in the sands of Iraq on cooperative international anti-terrorist efforts they could have helped the nations infiltrate terrorists within their borders. There would be fewer terrorists and a thousand more live Americans.

The Bush approach is about the worst possible approach, as it is designed to fail.