More amazing concidences in the war on terrorism.

Feds arrest 2 in Albany Missile Scheme
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines
Man arrested in plot to blow up Dirksen building
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/nettles05.html

Things in common:
Both were Federal "sting" operations.
Both were announced on the same day.
Both had been ongoing (missile sting over a year, length of time not specified for bomb)
Both occured just days after Ridge was criticized for warning of an attack based on old evidence.

In the missile case:
The arrest of the two Muslim leaders did not unravel any terrorist plots and Deputy Attorney General James Comey, in announcing the arrests, admitted, "This is not the case of the century."
In the Chicago case:
A convicted counterfeiter with an apparent grudge against the courts was arrested Thursday on charges of plotting to blow up a federal courthouse, but he never actually had materials to make a truck bomb, authorities said

So now we have had Tom Ridge make an announcement for no apparent reason 2 days after Kerry picks Edwards. Then he announced a plot based on old info 2 days after the Democratic convention.
Then when Ridge is roundly criticized for this a few days later the Feds decide to move on two ongoing stings. In Albany there was not a piece of missile in sight. In Chicago the guy tried to sell 1500 pounds of fertilizer but nothing else to make a bomb with and apparently did not have the know how to make a bomb.

It just looks more and more like the Bushes are using terorism to scare us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Feds arrest 2 in Albany Missile Schemehttp://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-stmosque0805,0,3909537.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

Man arrested in plot to blow up Dirksen building
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/nettles05.html

Things in common:
Both were Federal "sting" operations.
Both were announced on the same day.
Both had been ongoing (missile sting over a year, length of time not specified for bomb)
Both occured just days after Ridge was criticized for warning of an attack based on old evidence.

In the missile case:
The arrest of the two Muslim leaders did not unravel any terrorist plots and Deputy Attorney General James Comey, in announcing the arrests, admitted, "This is not the case of the century."
In the Chicago case:



A convicted counterfeiter with an apparent grudge against the courts was arrested Thursday on charges of plotting to blow up a federal courthouse, but he never actually had materials to make a truck bomb, authorities said

So now we have had Tom Ridge make an announcement for no apparent reason 2 days after Kerry picks Edwards. Then he announced a plot based on old info 2 days after the Democratic convention.
Then when Ridge is roundly criticized for this a few days later the Feds decide to move on two ongoing stings. In Albany there was not a piece of missile in sight. In Chicago the guy tried to sell 1500 pounds of fertilizer but nothing else to make a bomb with and apparently did not have the know how to make a bomb.

It just looks more and more like the Bushes are using terorism to scare us.

---

His own inside people admit that Bush did not want information before the 9-11 attacks. He carefully crafted what information he wanted by continually asking
for a reason to be in Iraq. That was his priority before 9-11. Now after 9-11 Bush is telling us what we think we should know. Therefore we have the obvious post democratic convention propaganda. This guy is a machiavellian with a k-mart mentality. As an American I hope the rest of the world doesn't lose faith in us.

Posted by Steve

Quote:

---

This guy is a machiavellian with a k-mart mentality.

---

I like that. Did you make it up?

I heard this on tv this morning. A terrorist expert was saying that instead of having colors for the terrorism levels we should have:

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
Be most afraid.

It just occurred to me, you both are delusional...that explains all of the propaganda!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

His own inside people admit that Bush did not want information before the 9-11 attacks. He carefully crafted what information he wanted by continually asking
for a reason to be in Iraq. That was his priority before 9-11. Now after 9-11 Bush is telling us what we think we should know. Therefore we have the obvious post democratic convention propaganda. This guy is a machiavellian with a k-mart mentality. As an American I hope the rest of the world doesn't lose faith in us.

---

So, on the other side of the coin, why did Clinton ignore the problem with terrorists during his two terms? Blowing up American embassies, nope, that's not probable cause....bombing the USS Cole, nope, that's not probable cause....first WTC bombing, nope, no probable cause.....

Bush may have tailored the info, but by appearances Clinton would have rather ignored it all in favor of appeasement.

Doesn't matter how much you avoid the bee's nest, they can still sting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

So, on the other side of the coin, why did Clinton ignore the problem with terrorists during his two terms? Blowing up American embassies, nope, that's not probable cause....bombing the USS Cole, nope, that's not probable cause....first WTC bombing, nope, no probable cause.....

Bush may have tailored the info, but by appearances Clinton would have rather ignored it all in favor of appeasement.

Doesn't matter how much you avoid the bee's nest, they can still sting you.

---

Probable cause? For what, invading Iraq? One thing had nothing to do with the other. Bush came into office with no realization of the terrorist problem. Despite all the evidence he did nothing for 9 months. In fact he insisted long range missile development was our greatest threat.
No one knows what Clinton or Gore would have done after 9-11 but we know Bush used it as an excuse to carry out his desire to invade Iraq.

I thought it was the right thing to do...it's a rare thing for me to do it, but I would definitely commend Clinton for taking this action...was it right???

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush

So let me ask this...

If it was OK for Clinton to bomb the sh!t out of Iraqi intelligence headquarters from a ship for attempting to kill a former president, why was it so frowned upon if Bush junior had this as one of many motive for invading Iraq? Although it was never stated as a direct reason, everyone here in the liberal camp was pointing fingers, and making accusations…

Clinton only asked for the assassination of Osama, who is not a political leader, therefor bypassing that stupid no kill political dude thing(I think it was an executive order, but can't remember which president it was under). Then also, clinton went at strategic military sites only with Iraq. Now Bush II on the otherhand went for a complete government overthrow while doing his damnedest to kill Hussein.


Or something like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Clinton only asked for the assassination of Osama, who is not a political leader, therefor bypassing that stupid no kill political dude thing(I think it was an executive order, but can't remember which president it was under). Then also, clinton went at strategic military sites only with Iraq. Now Bush II on the otherhand went for a complete government overthrow while doing his damnedest to kill Hussein.


Or something like that

---

But surgical strikes killed civilians too.

That wasn't the last time Clinton Bombed Iraq...there was another again in 96, there was even a massive deployment at that time too...I remember it all too well, because we were preparing to hit Iraq for real and with ground forces, but Saddam backed down and so did we.

Then again in 98...that all happened around the impeachment thingie...seems to me that we've been stirring the hornets nest for a long while before GW Bush even set eyes on the office...what makes you think that Saddam wasn't planning something, or waiting for the moment to do it...if I was him I too would hate America...Bush did the right thing getting him out of power!

I remember biuld ups on the planes over there but not the ground troops, but then again, I was in college at the time drinking beer and chasing anything with breasts and a heart beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Probable cause? For what, invading Iraq? One thing had nothing to do with the other. Bush came into office with no realization of the terrorist problem. Despite all the evidence he did nothing for 9 months. In fact he insisted long range missile development was our greatest threat.
No one knows what Clinton or Gore would have done after 9-11 but we know Bush used it as an excuse to carry out his desire to invade Iraq.

---

Interesting.

YOU mentioned Iraq...I didn't.

I didn't refute that Bush may have tailored the info for his cause.

Clinton STILL did nothing of any merit regarding terrorism.

I was not talking of what Clinton "would have done" after 9-11, but WHAT HE DID DURING HIS OWN TWO TERMS IN OFFICE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

Interesting.

YOU mentioned Iraq...I didn't.

I didn't refute that Bush may have tailored the info for his cause.

Clinton STILL did nothing of any merit regarding terrorism.

I was not talking of what Clinton "would have done" after 9-11, but WHAT HE DID DURING HIS OWN TWO TERMS IN OFFICE.

---

Um, well it was the intelligence community of Clintons that knew within a short time exactly who did it. It was the lack of support to get the Counterterrorism overseer, which Bush just got, from the Republicans that could have prevented it by having people talking to eachother and sharing the information that the Clinton intelligence community found. It was the Clinton military that did in a short time what no other modern army has ever done(take over Afghanistan). It was Clinton's military that sliced right through Iraq.

He also still has the first WTC bombers in jail. And he did try to kill Osama after the embassy bombings. He recognized the threats in Afghanistan and Al Quaeda and started the mechanics that led us to victory there, too bad though that we pulled out too many forces too soon to capture all the bad guys and that Pakistan is actually rather quiet these days(can you say, OOOOOPS)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

I remember biuld ups on the planes over there but not the ground troops, but then again, I was in college at the time drinking beer and chasing anything with breasts and a heart beat.

---

That's all that you have to say no response to the fact that we've been after this guy since long before Bush jr? Look, I know you are aware of these facts, and that reminding you isn't necessary, so please make some sense of your arguments here.

In retort to what you just said, I assure you we had units on standby all over the country, and around the world. Routine deployments were rerouted to the region, and several new forces were packed and ready to go with less than a months notice, some actually made it to the ships before being sent back to the bases. It never got so far as troops on the ground in neighboring countries that I am aware of, but I assure you this, before it fizzled out we were all preparing to go to war, I remember laughing off the need to write a will, all the while my insides were churning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

It was the Clinton military that did in a short time what no other modern army has ever done(take over Afghanistan). It was Clinton's military that sliced right through Iraq.

---

Clinton didn't have anything to do with it other than approving funding requests from the top Brass from all of the branches to make our military what it is today. It was the kick a$$ generals, the hardcore commanders, the hearts of many fine young enlisted men and women, including the driving motivational force provided by Bush that did all that you expressed. I guarantee when it all started 90% of the troops were glad to go, willing to fight, and loved president Bush. The other 10% is always there, they are known as the derelicts that shouldn't have made it past the screening, but always do. Since this all started things have changed, the fighting is over, and the fog of war is setting in, so that 90% is dwindling due to fatigue. But people that bash the war, protest it’s necessity, and bash Bush unjustifiably have caused that number to come down a bit more still, but that’s not changing the strength of that force.

Face it, The military is no more Bushs then it is Clintons. I will tell you this, while I was in during the entire Clinton administration, 90% of the troops didn’t like Clinton. He sealed his fate with the gays in the military push that never succeeded, and never would.

I can't find it now, but have the quote at home from Dick Cheney after the first Gulf War. Paraphrased he said that every armies readiness and ability is directly linked to the previous president and that following the first Gulf War he immidiatly called Reagan to thank him.

Odd how people will not attribute that to Clinton though....Yes we do have less bases but the ability to strike with smarter weapons and fewer people is at a phase unthought of during the first Gulf War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

It was the Clinton military that did in a short time what no other modern army has ever done(take over Afghanistan). It was Clinton's military that sliced right through Iraq.

---

WTF? You're saying he had a big military buildup, and decided not to use it? It's also Clinton's military that had the wonderful (note the sarcasm) reduction-in-forces act. The hardware's useless if there's no one to run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleetus

And he did try to kill Osama after the embassy bombings.

---

And repeatedly missed the target; not much mention of that, is there? But when Bush deployed military into Afghanistan, and couldn't keep up with Osama's moves, wow, what a disaster....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

WTF? You're saying he had a big military buildup, and decided not to use it? It's also Clinton's military that had the wonderful (note the sarcasm) reduction-in-forces act. The hardware's useless if there's no one to run it.



And repeatedly missed the target; not much mention of that, is there? But when Bush deployed military into Afghanistan, and couldn't keep up with Osama's moves, wow, what a disaster....

---

So then everything Bush has done militarily has been failures? Or are you just reaching for anything you can to discredit Clinton?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So then everything Bush has done militarily has been failures? Or are you just reaching for anything you can to discredit Clinton?

---

No, not everything is a failure; but you can't continuously credit Clinton for all the successes, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

No, not everything is a failure; but you can't continuously credit Clinton for all the successes, either.

---

Obviously no you cannot, but also on the flip you can't really claim he did absolutly nothing either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Odd how people will not attribute that to Clinton though....Yes we do have less bases but the ability to strike with smarter weapons and fewer people is at a phase unthought of during the first Gulf War.

---

Where in what I said did you think I was quoting Dick Chenney??? Dude, comment on my quote if you are going to rebut anything that I say...not what Dick said.

What I said was that this military is neither of the two Bushs or Clinton's, it is the countless men and women that make it what it is...if it kicks a$$ or falls apart, it's the men in uniform that deserve the credit. Period.

But I don't care about what you think, I have my own agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

But I don't care about what you think, I have my own agenda.

---

Let me guess, the operations are almost complete...you will soon be all man. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Let me guess, the operations are almost complete...you will soon be all man. :p

---

It's always back to the gay thing with you isn't it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

It's always back to the gay thing with you isn't it

---

You're the one that's blowing off a perfectly good argument because you "have your own agenda". I think you really don't want to go head to head because I am kicking your a$$. The whole "My own agenda" thing is what's gay around here...

Ok fine then, the men and women of the armed services are only as good as they are funded and equipped in today's modern military where fewer people can do more then ever, more precisely. To say that the president has no influence is blind loyality to what you were, but no necessarily completely how things really are.

I had already said that I was not up to troop deployments at the time, so instead was using actual(paraphrased) quotes from one that was in charge of making sure that everything worked the way it should, and would know a whole hell of a lot more of the big picture militarily then any of us here.

I was trying to have some respect cause last several times I have blasted off on those who have served I have pissed some people off, and remember one that hasn't come back since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

I was trying to have some respect cause last several times I have blasted off on those who have served I have pissed some people off, and remember one that hasn't come back since.

---

Who, confus-ed? I think he's taking a break from all of us... :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Who, confus-ed? I think he's taking a break from all of us... :thumbs:

---

Nah, it was over a year ago, there was a young marine stationed in California if I remember correctly that suddenly stopped posting after I went off on a rant about the attitudes of military people vs civilians and how they often think they are better and entitled to more freedom.

Wow, Cleetus beat off a Marine! :eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Nah, it was over a year ago, there was a young marine stationed in California if I remember correctly that suddenly stopped posting after I went off on a rant about the attitudes of military people vs civilians and how they often think they are better and entitled to more freedom.

---

You're talking about Archangel42069 ? I think he just got bored with the place like everybody else that has left. Why don't you pm him, tell him you're sorry for being a punk... :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

You're talking about Archangel42069 ? I think he just got bored with the place like everybody else that has left. Why don't you pm him, tell him you're sorry for being a punk... :thumbs:

---

Why should I apologize, he was the one thinking he was better and should be treated better and be given more freedoms....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Why should I apologize, he was the one thinking he was better and should be treated better and be given more freedoms....

---

I don't recall the argument. Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of yourself to sit there and take credit for running off a forum member? You sound just a little too high on yourself, please tell me you’re not touching yourself… :eek2:

Clinton had a policy that kept my American "ground troops" from ending up dead.
Bush has a bottomless pit for a policy (that equates to huge sums of money and American productivity). Therefore let Bush logic prevail. His success is our distraction!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

I don't recall the argument. Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of yourself to sit there and take credit for running off a forum member? You sound just a little too high on yourself, please tell me you’re not touching yourself… :eek2:

---

Like I ever stop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

Clinton had a policy that kept my American "ground troops" from ending up dead.
Bush has a bottomless pit for a policy (that equates to huge sums of money and American productivity). Therefore let Bush logic prevail. His success is our distraction!!!

---

Yeah, he bombed a country three times in less then 8 years, and never once planted a boot. Sure, it saved American lives...but at what cost? Credit for being a terrible wartime president?

I think the current conflicts are going remarkably well...the lives lost pale in comparison to any other conflict of this nature in the history of war fighting...

So what's your point Steve?

The point is that it was the great Clinton military that allowed for so few deaths. :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

The point is that it was the great Clinton military that allowed for so few deaths. :thumbs:

---

You mean the lack of use...

What was that one with the Dictator Milosevic (I forget the countries involved, the names changed every week)? We wasted time and effort, and sat on our hands through most of it...what about Somalia? We accomplished nothing there before pulling out...what a waste!

Clinton's "policy" of having no balls to commit or follow through with anything saved nothing, not even face!

WTF are you talking about???? Milosevec was taken down and put on trial

This same military was trained in these places to take out Afghanistan, remember what the Brits and the Russians couldn't do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

WTF are you talking about???? Milosevec was taken down and put on trial

This same military was trained in these places to take out Afghanistan, remember what the Brits and the Russians couldn't do.

---

The NATO forces were separating all over the place, Clinton couldn't get the US a strong command and control, and every coalition force wanted to get out of the clusterphuck. When Milosevic surrendered it was a complete surprise to everybody. We still had to go in and disarm forces from like 3 or 4 different sides but it wasn't very difficult in the end. However it wasn't well planned out at all, we simply got lucky!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

WTF are you talking about???? Milosevec was taken down and put on trial

This same military was trained in these places to take out Afghanistan, remember what the Brits and the Russians couldn't do.

---

As you well informed patroits have established, scenarios exist everwhere for conflict around the globe. That is not a reason to established our presence with fighting ground troops. We have a duty to protect what we have not to try to dilute it somewhere else