# I \_would\_ bash Bush for this, but i'm not allowed. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 12, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460 "2006-09-12T20:29:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/81 "2006-09-19T00:47:03Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Does anybody really remeber whenj Clinton launched missles against Ben Laden in Afghanistan?..Dont rewrite history. Please stop making this so easy. It was against Saddam Hussein, in Iraq. [QUOTE=Operation Ripper] Fuck off asshole. [/QUOTE] Gosh, how creative! I’m _devastated_. It must have taken you hours to come up with that. You are well on your way to being a wit. Half-way, at least. 😉 > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yeah, I forgot what a worthless, pathetic jerkoff you are. Thanks for reminding me. How can I miss you if you won’t go away? :d Really, **RT** , this is the second time running where I have refused to play your dishonest semantic games, and you have tried this trick of drawing up the rags of your offended dignity and stalking off. If you were able actually to bring it off, you might have retained some shreds of it. But to post immediately, and with such a weak-ass piece of meaningless invective without a scrap of creativity - not so much. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/82 "2006-09-19T01:26:49Z")
[U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan](http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/) (CNN) > [@](#): > > Clinton: ‘Our target was terror’ > August 21, 1998 > Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (CNN) – American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7. > > “Let our actions today send this message loud and clear – there are no expendable American targets,” U.S. President Clinton said in a televised address to the American people Thursday evening. “There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values.” > > **U.S.: Bin Laden’s network planning new attacks** > > Clinton said that information gathered by American intelligence showed that a network of terrorists affiliated with bin Laden was responsible for the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which killed 257 people, including 12 Americans. > > “Our mission was clear – to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with, and funded by, Osama bin Laden, the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today,” Clinton said. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/83 "2006-09-19T01:39:24Z")
My bad, then. I assumed he was talking about Operation Wag the Dog, on the eve of the Clinton impeachment. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/84 "2006-09-19T15:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Really, **RT** , this is the second time running where I have refused to play your dishonest semantic games, [/quote] Nice. Can you explain to whoever’s still paying attention to you what’s a semantic game about this? > [@RTFriefly](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > If you care to address the discrepancy of Clinton not doing much for years and getting a pass on it, and Bush not doing much for months and getting condemned, feel free. > > I provided a lengthy cite on what Clinton was doing about terrorism in post 58; you’re welcome to explain how that constitutes ‘not doing much’ but you haven’t. And I outlined in post 70 what I thought were minimum reasonable expectations for GWB re terrorism in his early months in office, and you haven’t responded to that either. > [@Shodan](#): > > and you have tried this trick of drawing up the rags of your offended dignity and stalking off. First of all, it’s one thing to stalk off _in lieu of a reply_. That’s not been the case here. I’ve established my points: Clinton was hardly ‘doing nothing’ about terrorism while in office, and Bush failed to meet a very reasonable test in terms of his response. You’ve decided to play games rather than rebutting. Second, like I said, “ **Otherwise** , I don’t have the time for you.” (Shame about that reading problem of yours; sadly, you can’t tell the difference between “if you don’t do A, I’ll do B” and “I’m doing B.”) At any rate, _now_ I have stuck around long enough to be as assured as I can be that you will not respond to the substance of posts 58 and 70; **now** I no longer have the time for you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/85 "2006-09-19T16:32:36Z")
My gosh, even when you’re trolling you try these semantic games! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/86 "2006-09-19T16:32:49Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Please stop making this so easy. It was against Saddam Hussein, in Iraq. Gosh, how creative! I’m _devastated_. It must have taken you hours to come up with that. You are well on your way to being a wit. Half-way, at least. 😉 How can I miss you if you won’t go away? :d Really, **RT** , this is the second time running where I have refused to play your dishonest semantic games, and you have tried this trick of drawing up the rags of your offended dignity and stalking off. If you were able actually to bring it off, you might have retained some shreds of it. But to post immediately, and with such a weak-ass piece of meaningless invective without a scrap of creativity - not so much. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] [http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml](http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml) Does this make it a little harder. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/87 "2006-09-19T16:57:22Z")
A Ron Suskind piece in the print (not online) version of the October 2000 _Washington Monthly_ reports that Bush was briefed in September 2000 on future threats to the USA by a group including John E. McLaughlin, then Acting Deputy Director of the CIA. (Apparently this briefing is done routinely for the major parties’ Presidential nominees.) In this briefing, Bush was warned that bin Laden would likely kill Americans on his watch if he won. (My copy of the magazine’s at home; I’ll bring quotes tonight.) Just one more of the steady drumbeat of warnings Bush got about bin Laden even before the 8/6/01 PDB. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/88 "2006-09-19T17:40:45Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] A Ron Suskind piece in the print (not online) version of the October 2000 _Washington Monthly_ [/QUOTE] That should have been the October 200 **6** issue. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/89 "2006-09-19T18:19:14Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] [http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml](http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml) Does this make it a little harder. [/QUOTE] A little harder to do what? Claim that Clinton was motivated entirely by a concern for terrorism? > [@Your Cite](#): > > Notwithstanding White House claims to the contrary, it is obvious that the military strikes were undertaken not to counter an unspecified terrorist threat to the United States, but to stave off the more immediate danger of a political collapse of the Clinton administration. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/90 "2006-09-19T18:28:40Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A Ron Suskind piece in the print (not online) version of the October 2000 Washington Monthly reports that Bush was briefed in September 2000 on future threats to the USA by a group including John E. McLaughlin, then Acting Deputy Director of the CIA. (Apparently this briefing is done routinely for the major parties’ Presidential nominees.) In this briefing, Bush was warned that bin Laden would likely kill Americans on his watch **if he won**. I assume the claim is that bin Laden would attack if **Bush** won, not bin Laden or McLaughlin. Thus a couple of points -[ul][li]You make it sound as if McLaughlin claimed that the 9/11 operation would have been cancelled if Gore had won. What is the basis for this? It doesn’t sound reasonable, since all the planning and preparation for the 9/11 attacks had been carried out already (on the Clinton-Gore watch, it need hardly be said). [\*]Is there any record of Bush responding as a reasonable person might be expected to - “Then why the fuck haven’t you done anything about him?”[/ul]The same question I have been asking all along.[/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/91 "2006-09-19T19:00:53Z")
Alternatively, it could be parsed to mean that it would be on Bush’s watch if _he_ won, on Gore’s watch otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/92 "2006-09-19T20:24:34Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Alternatively, it could be parsed to mean that it would be on Bush’s watch if _he_ won, on Gore’s watch otherwise. [/QUOTE] Yeah, but if you parse it that way (and I agree that it is the writer’s most likely intended meaning), then **Shodan** gets deprived of a straw man to set up and knock down. Admit it, **Shodan** , you’re just pushing **RTFirefly** ’s buttons because you _can_, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/93 "2006-09-19T20:28:42Z")
Just sayin’, is all. **Shoddy** ’s record speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/94 "2006-09-19T21:34:39Z")
**’Luc** has it right: if Bush had lost, nothing would have happened ‘on his watch’ that didn’t happen in Texas. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/95 "2006-09-20T01:21:20Z")
From “The Tyrant Who Came In From the Cold” by Ron Suskind, _Washington Monthly_, October 2006, pp. 19-23: > [@](#): > > [Ben]Bonk had spent nearly two decades traveling the world for the CIA, especially the Arab world. He had married briefly, divorced - like so many agents - and moved up quickly through the agency’s ranks. By 2000, he was deputy director of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorist Center - a soft-spoken, steady counterpoint to the flamboyant director of the center, Cofer Black. Ever reliable and precise, it was Bonk who, along with Deputy Director John McLaughlin, camped at Bush’s ranch in September 2000 - two months before the election - to carefully tell the Republican nominee state secrets. (It is standard for presidential nominees to be briefed prior to the election.) Bonk grimly informed Bush that during the coming four years, Americans would certainly die in terrorist acts planned or simply inspired by Osama bin Laden. Like I said, just one more warning (albeit a high-level warning) in a series of warnings. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/96 "2006-09-20T04:23:30Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] A Ron Suskind piece in the print (not online) version of the October 2000 _Washington Monthly_ reports that Bush was briefed in September 2000 on future threats to the USA by a group including John E. McLaughlin, then Acting Deputy Director of the CIA. [/quote] McLaughlin threatened the U.S., too? Sumbitch! 😃 [QUOTE=RTFirefly] In this briefing, Bush was warned that bin Laden would likely kill Americans on his watch if he won. [/quote] And this would be apropos of what, exactly? What you have had Bush do, sweep in and attack simply because Clinton’s team said bin Laden _might_ kill Americans on his watch. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] Just one more of the steady drumbeat of warnings Bush got about bin Laden even before the 8/6/01 PDB. [/QUOTE] As opposed to what, the steady drumbeat of actual deadly attacks on Americans during Clinton’s watch which resulted in little more than stern words and bombing an aspirin factory? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/97 "2006-09-20T18:00:05Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] McLaughlin threatened the U.S., too? Sumbitch! 😃 [/quote] Are you sure you and **Shodan** aren’t each other’s sock puppet? I don’t think either of you is a real human being. > [@](#): > > And this would be apropos of what, exactly? This illustrates the value of reading the thread. As noted in my recent posts to the dear, departed **Shodan** , I’ve been making two cases: (1) that Clinton wasn’t exactly doing nothing about terrorists (see post 58), and (2) Bush’s actions in responding to the terrorist threat, pre-9/11, were well short of any reasonable expectation based on the warnings he got (see post 70). Clearly this is apropos of (2), since this identifies yet one more high-level warning. > [@](#): > > the steady drumbeat of actual deadly attacks on Americans during Clinton’s watch Well, yeah, there _was_ such a drumbeat. \*\*1993 WTC bombing: \*\*[Clinton caught the ringleader](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing), the blind Sheik Rahman. > [@](#): > > In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years. **1995 Oklahoma City bombing:** Clinton caught the ringleader, Tim McVeigh, who was later executed. **1996 Khobar Towers bombing:** Iran was apparently behind this one, and the ringleaders are apparently there. I’m willing to concede that by the time he left office, four and a half years later, Clinton had failed to bring the ringleaders to justice. **1998 Embassy bombings:** Clinton tried to kill bin Laden with a cruise missile; meanwhile, the GOP helped out by calling ‘wag the dog’ and continuing to make war on Clinton over a blowjob. Apparently the GOP, even after the embassy bombings, considered Clinton’s penis to be a greater threat to national security than they regarded bin Laden to be. **1999/2000 Millennium bombings:** Clinton kept them from happening. Only at this point did we have repeat business from the same attacker. **2000 USS Cole bombing** : bin Laden connection verified too late to act before Bush’s inauguration. Fortunately, the evidence on this could be handed over to Bush’s experienced foreign policy team of Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld, who wouldn’t need a lot of time to figure out what to do. I’m trying to figure out how this, taken as a whole, makes Clinton look bad. You can pick on individual instances (e.g. Khobar Towers) but he stopped one attack, and captured the people responsible for two more. Bush hasn’t yet caught the man responsible for the only attack that matters, despite having had twice as much time, and having been able to put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan - which would have been politically impossible for Clinton. Also: Americans dead in the aforementioned attacks by Islamic terrorists during the Clinton years: 54. Americans killed by American right-wing terrorists at OKC in 1995: 168. People killed by Islamic terrorists in America on 9/11: 2,997, mostly Americans. Again, I’m trying to figure out why Clinton is the one who comes off worse here. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/98 "2006-09-20T19:17:22Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Again, I’m trying to figure out why Clinton is the one who comes off worse here. [/QUOTE] [http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21376](http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21376) ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/99 "2006-09-21T05:30:26Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] **1995 Oklahoma City bombing:** Clinton caught the ringleader, Tim McVeigh, who was later executed. [/quote] Uh, no…actually, McVeigh was caught the morning of the bombing by Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper Charles Hanger, who stopped McVeigh for having no tag on his car and arrested him for carrying a loaded weapon. The FBI, having connected McVeigh with the Ryder truck that carried the explosives, discovered that he was still being held in a small town jail in Oklahoma on the weapons charge and took custody of him at that time. The rest is history, with Clinton’s sole contribution being to issue a statement praising law enforcement and promising to seek the death penalty for those responsible. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] Again, I’m trying to figure out why Clinton is the one who comes off worse here. [/QUOTE] Because he passed up, for political reasons, several opportunities to kill or capture or arrest or take custody of bin Laden. Had he chosen to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing, the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred, and we wouldn’t be in Afghanistan and Iraq now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460/100 "2006-09-21T13:35:38Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Uh, no…actually, McVeigh was caught the morning of the bombing by Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper Charles Hanger… [/quote] Did it happen on his watch? Yes. If US troops had tracked down and caught bin Laden back in 2001 or 2002 when they should have, I’d have attributed that to Bush, even though his sole contribution would have been giving orders from afar. > [@](#): > > Because he passed up, for political reasons, several opportunities to kill or capture or arrest or take custody of bin Laden. When come back, bring cites. And to the extent that these opportunities occurred prior to the embassy bombings of 1998, include an explanation of why Clinton should have regarded him as a more serious threat then, than Bush did during the first eight months of 2001 when he’d already attacked two of our embassies and one of our naval vessels. > [@](#): > > Had he chosen to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing, the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred, and we wouldn’t be in Afghanistan and Iraq now. That’s an interesting claim: that we’re in Iraq now on account of Clinton’s failure to kill or capture bin Laden. At this point, that doesn’t even need refuting; it’s just oft-refuted bullshit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-_would_-bash-bush-for-this-but-im-not-allowed/372460.md?page=6)