Psi Cop is not the only poster to excuse Clinton’s inaction, alleging that he’d have been criticized for doing more. A moment’s reflection shows how silly this excuse is. First of all, there’s no reason to believe that Republicans would have criticized action against Bin Laden.
More importantly, Psi Cop’s excuse seems more damning than the original complaint. It implies that Clinton knew that it was right to attack Bin Laden, but chose not to, in order to avoid being criticized.
Every political leader is criticized by his opponents. The great ones do the right thing despite that criticism.
That article clearly has an agenda to push, and doesn’t seem too interested in citing its sources. It’s an editorial, not a report. ITN wrote on the same story, but noted that the money is bypassing the Taliban government and instead going to humanitarian organizations: http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010518/world/04afghanistan.shtml
I’ll believe Scheer’s article when I see it backed up with facts.
I know a little about advising clients to “take the Fifth.” Clinton should have. As for the RNC, they don’t speak for me. I, personally, would not lie in front of a federal grand jury. If you think Ken Starr “stretched the definition of lie,” seek deprogramming.
Chalk up another F grade for partisanship at this time.
And, re: Canada - hmmm. just where did all of those planes land when we closed our airports? Who allowed our potentially terrorist planes land? Who put up our travelers until other arrangements could be made?
Hear, hear. A good chunk of this thread has been an embarrassment to both sides. For example, any comments about Kenneth Starr are completely irrelevant to the recent attacks, and simply pathetic.
For those who holler that Clinton should have taken out bin Laden: there was this little at home called impeachment on the same day he began operations against bin Laden’s camps int he wake of the embassies destroyed in Africa. Yes, the Republicans greatly criticized clinton, although he did the right action. It sort of hampered a global consensus when two branches of the govt were so wide apart.
Did I say anything about the Republican party condemning Clinton? They probably would have, but that’s not the point. The world community would have condemned America, and that’s what Clinton prevented. Clinton did the right thing at the time he made his decision. He had nothing to lose personally; he was already in his second term. America had a lot of reputation to lose. You can’t justify a full invasion under those circumstances. Under these, we can.
If you are referring to a full invasion of Afghanistan, what makes you believe that the U.S. will fare any better than the Soviet Union, which sufferred great loss of personnel and ultimate defeat. Besides that, how does invading a single country deal with the problem of an international terrorist network with widely-distributed, independent cells?
The differential in military power between what the US will be able to muster for the war and the Taliban is greater than the differential between what the Soviet Union could spare and what Afghanistan had.
The US will be supported by a large international coalition. It may even be a full-scale NATO operation.
The Taliban will not be supplied with state-of-the-art weapons by the US this time.
The CIA will not train Afghani resistance.
Afghanistan has been ravaged by civil war pretty constantly since its war against the Soviet Union ended.
The US won’t give up as easily.
Afghanistan will not have the support of any other nation.
Afghanistan’s neighbors will likely provide some support to the US.
The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan will be useful allies for the US. Currently I believe they control 15% or so of the country.
The idea is to prevent terrorists from being able to find shelter in any nation. The world cannot eradicte all terrorism. It can, however, prevent governments from harboring them as a method of projecting power.
It is your stated position that the only support for the United States from Canada are “pro forma sympathy statements.” That is, in fact, a complete falsehood, and you knew it was a falsehood when you said it, unless you’ve been remarkably nonperceptive.
Canadian leaders have certainly gone beyond “pro forma” sympathy statements in their comments; I guess you just haven’t been reading what they’re saying.
Canada provided considerable logistical support, including exposing ourselves to danger, by diverting U.S. flights to our airports. Believe me, a lot of people in Toronto were nervous when YOUR airplanes started coming up here. What if a pack of terrorists, disappointed they weren’t going to get to blow up the Capitol, decided as a consolation prize they’d take out the CN Tower or a few 70-storey skyscrapers? Yipes.
Canada strongly supported the invocation of NATO Article 5, and has stated again and again its intent to support the U.S.
Canadian leaders, including good old Jean, conducted a rather moving and incredible heavily attended service on Parliament Hill last Friday, and at the insistence of parliamentary leaders did so out in the open as a demonstration of defiance. Hardly just a “pro forma sympathy statement.”
There has been essentially universal support for the U.S. by every other federal and provincial politician in the entire country.
So what you said was wrong. You don’t need to be a “master” to see it. You just need to wake up.
In Vietnam, we were trying to prop up another government. When the USSR went after Afghanistan, they were trying to conquer and hold. In this case, it’s neither. Assuming we invade, it will be a smash-and-destroy type invasion, devoted to destroying all terrorist resources and (perhaps) the Taliban. We won’t be staying or trying to install our own government. When your only objective is the destruction of certain elements, you aren’t going to be stopped.
Also, in this case, I doubt any (major) country will be on the side of Afghanistan. We funded Afghanistan when they were fighting off the Soviets. Now, when we are going after them (presumably), NATO is behind us, Russia has no reason to support them, China is the victim of terrorist attacks from the same type of radical… I don’t think anyone will help them. I should also note that our whole country is solidly behind this, unlike in Vietnam.
RickJay, you seem to be missing the point. What we want from Canada is not their full backing and help, nor their willingness to expose themselves to danger for our sake, but good PR. If it’s done quietly, why do it at all? Far better to appear to care than to act as a caring nation should.
[sub][warning: portions of the above may contain high levels of sarcasm][/sub]
I didn’t vote for Bush, but he’s the president now, end of story, get over it. Partisans complained about Clinton “not getting a majority” in 1992–that sounded like whining then, this sounds like whining now. It adds nothing to the discussion. I’ve written to the White House, “Justice not revenge, peace is still the goal”. That’s what I can do, I don’t need to criticize him on a message board (I’d like to leave that for the Yahoo! folks-I believe that the level of discussion is more mature here). I don’t care for GWB as president, but he’s done the right things in this crisis. I’m more concerned about the whole of us (U.S.). We’ll probably get what we ask for. I want a just, lasting peace. I want justice for the families of the dead and injured.
People have been condemning the Israelis for a long time about their responses to suicide bombers, even though the magnitude of the crime here is beyond words, the concept is the same, “vengance against the opressors”, blind vengance. We need to look for justice, and work for peace. Killing innocent Afghans is just as bad as killing innocent Americans, they’re still brothers, sons, friends and countrymen to their own. Hold the guilty responsible, demonstrate their culpability, try them in an international court(in absentia, if necessary), then punish them. Sanction their supporters, try their co-conspirators. This is a nation of law, trying to forge a world of law, there is little place for extra-judicial punishment in a just world–such action is one of the factors that has lead to the current situation. Just because we can kill people doesn’t mean we should. It would be a crime to violate the sovereignty of another nation (without U.N. support) to kill someone. Imagine that happening here–or is that what just happened–people killed our citizens because they FELT that our government supported the “Criminal” Israelis. Innocent people were reduced to “members of the criminal society”.
I donated money to the Salvation Army, I’ll donate blood next week. I plan to do what I can to help. I don’t need to bad mouth other people to do the right thing. I joined the SDMB because the conversation here seemed thoughtful and adult. I’d like see it stay that way. I joined recently, and I remember that the basic rule is “Don’t be a jerk”. Well, don’t be a jerk.
You have no friggin’ idea who else knows what. If you’re going to call me a liar, please use the word.
As for the substance of the statement, I calls 'em as I sees 'em - if the rest of the world gets short shrift in the American media, that’s business as usual. If there has indeed been real action, definable as “leadership” (see the title of the thread), it hasn’t been well seen.
“Our” airplanes, is it? When there’s a problem, you once again think it can’t happen to you guys? Don’t throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the back. Diverted flights came from all over the world, pal. Are you suggesting it was an act of moral courage to allow transatlantic planes, getting low on fuel, to actually land instead of sending them back out over the ocean? Gimme a break.
Yipes indeed. Your reason for thinking Canada wouldn’t be a target would be what, exactly? Can you folks drop the smug “we’re not Americans” crap for one single goddamned minute?
Great. Just like the entire rest of the friggin’ world did. You’re not saying this was Chretien’s idea, I note. Was it?
Great. Just like the entire rest of the world, as described above.
Now, how do you grade Chretien’s leadership - which, after all, was the question at hand?