RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,192478,00.html

I seriously dislike the phrasing of "over-reacting to 9/11" - just because time has passed does not make it a diminished event. I was talking with a D-Day veteran a few days back and it is just as real to him today as it was the day it happened. Since I wasn't involved in those intelligent briefs that both parties attended - even though some of them now state that they were never informed - there must have been compelling evidence to make both parties agree on the recommended course of action taken at that time by this country. It is this kind of journalism, this second-guessing years later and pointing of fingers and calling them bad decisions that were made at that time that really aggravates me. War is war - it matters not if it is a country or a loose band of extremist - when my country is attacked don't call me an over-reactionary. I'll do it again and go and defend without question. I personally do not think that this President did a good job in Egypt, in fact the way he pandered to them just made me sick.

I support your position SGGAR00. It's sad how so many in our country have seemingly forgotten the events of 9/11 and the stated intent of Islamists to destoy us at all costs. How the Liberals and Leftists ignore this very aspect of the crisis we currently face is surprising to me. While these ill-educated members of our society cowardly sit back and throw stones at those of us who take a stand, they continue to show the rest of the world how truly ignorant they [Democrats] are. These Liberals proclaim that Bush did exactly what Osama has been trying to get us to do for over a decade [he attacked Muslims] to further his cause. Well, Obama has done exactly what the next play in Bin Laden's playbook called for [Non-Muslims bending to the will of Islamists]. Obama's Worldwide Apology Tour serves to undermine the efforts of our warfighter's who are currently doing the things that 'must' be done to protect this nation. What nation is Obama going to apologize to next? I wonder how come the media didn't write about or show his visit to the Mosque he visited while touring the Middle East [or even mentioned the speech he gave at the Mosque].

Ivan's comments are ridiculous.

Bin Laden is a more skilled "wordsmith" than any of Obama's speechwriters. He twists history and the teachings of the Koran to fit his selfish motives. Obama effectively reads (from a teleprompter) the twisted and deceptive words of his speechwriters and has no clue what's afoot. Obama and people like Ivan are taking this nation down the path of ruin with no regard for history or truth.

Ivan proclaims Bush was successfully baited into attacking Muslims. How come Ivan doesn't mention the fact that Clinton was "Punk'd" into ingnoring the flagrant attacks during his 8yrs as CinC and left the mess for Bush to clean-up. However, we keep hearing that Bush left Obama a mess. The whole time Clinton was in office he was cutting defense spending and cutting our military forces. He, also, could have used our Special Forces to a more rapid and decisive destruction of Bin Laden and his minions without the need for a full-scale war but he decided to focus on Interns instead of Islamists. Ivan's Left-leaning articles are akin to Obama's speeches. He takes weak, pot-shots at the factually evident problems of his own party while fervently commenting [usually in a falsely distorted way] against Conservatives [and Bush]. Journalism isn't what it used to be!!!

quote:

What nation is Obama going to apologize to next? I wonder how come the media didn't write about or show his visit to the Mosque he visited while touring the Middle East [or even mentioned the speech he gave at the Mosque].

The word Biased comes to mind. This love affair by the main stream media needs to stop now.

quote:

Originally posted by SFC_Retired:
Ivan's comments are ridiculous.

Bin Laden is a more skilled "wordsmith" than any of Obama's speechwriters. He twists history and the teachings of the Koran to fit his selfish motives. Obama effectively reads (from a teleprompter) the twisted and deceptive words of his speechwriters and has no clue what's afoot. Obama and people like Ivan are taking this nation down the path of ruin with no regard for history or truth.

Ivan proclaims Bush was successfully baited into attacking Muslims. How come Ivan doesn't mention the fact that Clinton was "Punk'd" into ingnoring the flagrant attacks during his 8yrs as CinC and left the mess for Bush to clean-up. However, we keep hearing that Bush left Obama a mess. The whole time Clinton was in office he was cutting defense spending and cutting our military forces. He, also, could have used our Special Forces to a more rapid and decisive destruction of Bin Laden and his minions without the need for a full-scale war but he decided to focus on Interns instead of Islamists. Ivan's Left-leaning articles are akin to Obama's speeches. He takes weak, pot-shots at the factually evident problems of his own party while fervently commenting [usually in a falsely distorted way] against Conservatives [and Bush]. Journalism isn't what it used to be!!!

The path to ruin started long before Obama came into office. A reading of several of the past NIE's (2006, 2007, 2008), plus the translations Bin Ladens own manifesto (etc) especially w/r/t events leading up to and subsequent 9/11 ought to give you some food for thought. Bin Laden predicted what the American administration would do and where they would go and that administration fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Clinton did far more than you are giving him credit for, as he actually had an anti-terrorism plan and strategy in place that was methodically dismembered by the administration of G W Bush. Richard Clarke was retained by the GW Bush Adminsitration as anti-terrorism czar (as one of the few leftovers from both the GHW Bush and Clinton administrations), and his writings on that exact topic make for some informative reading. His warnings ultimately went ignored as that administration apparently (until 9/11 anyway), decided that they had other priorities. Repeated warnings from multiple intelligence agencies were consistently ignored. The history in this respect, is unambiguous and thoroughly documented.

There are lots of folks that believe an overt, military oriented solution is the best way to fight terrorism - and I understand that perspective and in some ways am sympathetic to that rationale. However, the strategies for the two administrations were polar opposites: GW Bush's being overt and military-oriented; Clintons far more subtle, a lot less noise/posturing, and according to our intelligence agencies, much more effective in the long run.

Cheers

Clinton subtle????? NOT

Every time Clinton needed a distracting headline he launched cruise missiles at questionable targets - like the Asprin Factory or the real poor attempt to assassinate OBL via Cruise Missile attacks on the terrorist training camps. And don't forget the Chinese Embassy oppps.

As for GW dismantling the wonderful anti-terrorism programs of Slick Willie, those same programs gutted HUMINT assets and refused to hire informants that were not squeaky clean (like they would know anything of use).

I have read those "repeated intelligence warnings" (that still have not been declassified) and sat in on briefings at the SCI level after 9-11. A lot of general threat chatter but no specifics were there.

President Barrack H. Obama - our First Arab-American President.

That is why I think they will not relase his original Birth Certificate.

His Grandfather has been reported as Arab,
His Grandmother has been reported as Kenyan -
could be listed either way and it normally goes with the Paternal side.

quote:

van's comments are ridiculous.

Bin Laden is a more skilled "wordsmith" than any of Obama's speechwriters.

Now that, is funny... and truly ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by 21246220:
President Barrack H. Obama - our First Arab-American President.

That is why I think they will not relase his original Birth Certificate.

His Grandfather has been reported as Arab,
His Grandmother has been reported as Kenyan -
could be listed either way and it normally goes with the Paternal side.

Yet still, he is our President, and an American Citizen. What that has to do with a paternal or maternal "connection" to Arab decent or whatever it is that you think is so "sinister" is pretty vague. In fact, it is an invisible distinction the way you wrote that.

Of course, if any of you could prove he isn't our legally elected President, you would have done so LONG before the last election, and then you would have John McCain as President...!

Oh, that's right. HE wasn't born in this country! (But he also promised to close Gitmo!!!)

Interesting the author would say Obama consulted experts as if he was implying there were no Middle East area experts in the State Dept or DOD under the Bush administration...which is a total lie.

And by the way, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama left out one thing when citing the Treaty of Tripoli in his speech in Cairo. The treaty was violated by the Muslims which led us into the Barbary Wars. Contrary to popular opinion, Obama is certainly no "expert" on Islam or Middle Eastern affairs, or at least no more than Bush was.

quote:

Originally posted by KenRI:
Interesting the author would say Obama consulted experts as if he was implying there were no Middle East area experts in the State Dept or DOD under the Bush administration...which is a total lie.

And by the way, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama left out one thing when citing the Treaty of Tripoli in his speech in Cairo. The treaty was violated by the Muslims which led us into the Barbary Wars. Contrary to popular opinion, Obama is certainly no "expert" on Islam or Middle Eastern affairs, or at least no more than Bush was.

There certainly were many Middle Eastern experts working in the Dept. Of State and DoD under GW Bush. Lamentably, many of them (and their opinions) were ignored (for that matter, the advice of GHW Bush, Brent Snowcroft, George Schultz, James Baker III, etc). I found some extraordinary documents published by the Bush (#43) administration's own people for example, that concluded that diplomatic overtures/initiatives with Iran had always proven to be beneficial, and that Iran always responded positively. At the same time the administration was publically saying that Iran never responded to anything other than force, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 21246220:
Clinton subtle????? NOT

Every time Clinton needed a distracting headline he launched cruise missiles at questionable targets - like the Asprin Factory or the real poor attempt to assassinate OBL via Cruise Missile attacks on the terrorist training camps. And don't forget the Chinese Embassy oppps.

As for GW dismantling the wonderful anti-terrorism programs of Slick Willie, those same programs gutted HUMINT assets and refused to hire informants that were not squeaky clean (like they would know anything of use).

I have read those "repeated intelligence warnings" (that still have not been declassified) and sat in on briefings at the SCI level after 9-11. A lot of general threat chatter but no specifics were there.

Go and read the referenced docs and you'll get the picture. You mention the stuff that hit the papers/MSM. There was a huge amount of activity that never got there, and if you do a little hunting, you'll quickly figure out why, in addition to understanding the reasoning behind the NIE's that were subsequently published.

The China Embessy had nothing to do with terrorism - wrong country!!

W/r/t the "squeeky clean" informants, they were following the laws in place at the time. The use of unsavory people had gotten out of control in some cases, which prompted the houses of representatives to take action to prevent recurrences (but as was/is typical, they over-corrected when trying to fix the problem, which impedes progress).

Note that there were direct warnings about an impending attack using aircraft and crashing them into buildings. It was so bad the George Tenet drove directly over to the White House to personally deliver the message. The response was to send him away, without even so much as a hightened alert to the airlines.

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:

quote:

Originally posted by 21246220:
President Barrack H. Obama - our First Arab-American President.

That is why I think they will not relase his original Birth Certificate.

His Grandfather has been reported as Arab,
His Grandmother has been reported as Kenyan -
could be listed either way and it normally goes with the Paternal side.

Yet still, he is our President, and an American Citizen. What that has to do with a paternal or maternal "connection" to Arab decent or whatever it is that you think is so "sinister" is pretty vague. In fact, it is an invisible distinction the way you wrote that.

Of course, if any of you could prove he isn't our legally elected President, you would have done so LONG before the last election, and then you would have John McCain as President...!

Oh, that's right. HE wasn't born in this country! (But he also promised to close Gitmo!!!)

WG,

I never said he was not legally elected or that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States
- what I stated is was a possible reason WHY he continued to fight the cases about his birth certificate on technicalities - not the merits of the case.

as for john mccain - he was the best republican candidate the democrats and the press could pick.

Why does Military.com print this mans comments. He is so off base and biaed it beyond words. His hate for anything conservative is so evident that he should be on Air America instead of on this web site. Go back to Europe, and Germany whence you crawled from.

Xtrooper1 - who you talking about? The author or PW?

quote:

Originally posted by Xtrooper1:
Why does Military.com print this mans comments. He is so off base and biaed it beyond words. His hate for anything conservative is so evident that he should be on Air America instead of on this web site. Go back to Europe, and Germany whence you crawled from.

So Mr. Snyder - if one's opinion differs from yours - then it should not be allowed on mil.com? This is an op-ed forum, thankfully open to diverse opinions. I personally find Oliver North's op-eds repugnant, but I do read them, and the responses to his opinions. Otherwise, how does one come to understand the reasoning of others? Although I may disagree in principle with your POV, nonetheless I respect your right to express your opinion, and I even try to rationalize why you think and act as you do. Sometimes I even change my mind about issues. Few issues are black-and-white (except on mil.com it seems). IMO, Mr.Eland forcefully and coherently addresses issues which are thought-provoking. He (and North) force me to use my "noggin". You can always disregard those with whom you disagree, and even put them on "Ignore". That way your opinion will always be right.

When did military.com valued only conservative opinions. Us independents have voice also. I guess Dick is the military friend with his five deferments during Vietnam.

Dick Cheney

Ivan Eland still thinks Muslims hate Western society, because of poverty. Think again, it's called their religion of world dominance as a theocracy, the Second Caliphate.

Read the Koran and you might understand:

Surah 8:12- Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. SMITE YE ABOVE THE NECKS AND SMITE ALL THEIR FINGER TIPS OFF THEM."

Surah 47:4- Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.

Surah 9:29- Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah (poll tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Surah 4:95- Not equal are those Believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).

(5:50)- "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends."

(4:96)- The Muslim warrior who dies while fighting in Allah's cause receives a special "forgiveness" for sins from Allah.

Surah 9:111- Allah hath purchased of the Believers their persons and their goods. For theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise). They fight in His cause, and slay and are slain.

Surah 4:74- To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah--whether he is slain or gets victory--soon shall we give him a reward of great (value).