Path to 9/11

[Tolstoyevsky]

Educaton does not equal capability, as has been stated several times on this site.  What your statistics fail to show is her level of failure in many of her political positions.  She did well within the USA but was considered a failure outside of the USA.

1984 - Foreign policy adviser to vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro (who failed to get elected)
1988 - Foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Michael Dukakis (who failed to get elected)
1993 - Appointed ambassador to the UN, her first diplomatic post, where she had a poor relationship with United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. (the point of a UN ambassador is to have good relations with the UNSG)
1994 - Rwanda genocide, fails to take any action.
1998 - Turns down requests for extra security at the US Embassy in Nairobi  prior to it being bombed. Also failed to take action to prevent bombings in Tanzania.
1999 - Prior to the Kosovo War, predicts Milosevic will fold after three days of bombing despite all evidence to the contrary.

Most of these comments come from the Wikipedia site.  She's probably a very good administrator, but has a very poor record of achievement when it comes to making important decisions.  In fact, she is so brilliant that since she 'left' politics in 2001, she hasnt had an important job since.

Hear, hear!

 

[scoutfinch]

You are wrong with respect to Schaeur's politics. 

And true to form, you have demonstrated that you are capable only of polemics and not discussion. 

Unfortunately, your overbearing right wing bias apparently makes it impossible to carry out any reasoned discussion with you.

(And before you start calling me a *liberal* and *left leaning*, as most people here who know me will attest, I am a neorealist through and through.  Although I suspect you may need to review neorealist theory before you can come up with a disparaging comment regarding my personal politics or intelligence.)

 

[scoutfinch]

Educaton does not equal capability, as has been stated several times on this site.  What your statistics fail to show is her level of failure in many of her political positions.  She did well within the USA but was considered a failure outside of the USA.

1984 - Foreign policy adviser to vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro (who failed to get elected)
1988 - Foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Michael Dukakis (who failed to get elected)
1993 - Appointed ambassador to the UN, her first diplomatic post, where she had a poor relationship with United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. (the point of a UN ambassador is to have good relations with the UNSG)
1994 - Rwanda genocide, fails to take any action.
1998 - Turns down requests for extra security at the US Embassy in Nairobi  prior to it being bombed. Also failed to take action to prevent bombings in Tanzania.
1999 - Prior to the Kosovo War, predicts Milosevic will fold after three days of bombing despite all evidence to the contrary.

Most of these comments come from the Wikipedia site.  She's probably a very good administrator, but has a very poor record of achievement when it comes to making important decisions.  In fact, she is so brilliant that since she 'left' politics in 2001, she hasnt had an important job since.

I didn't comment on her record of achievement.  I was commenting on Tolstoyevsky's statement to the effect that that Albright knew nothing of foreign policy.  I also clearly identified that I was taking them from Wikipedia and that I edited heavily for relevance to his comments.

 

[HItorMiss]

I still see a blank profile.... guess it's the retarded monkey rantings....hurrah for fun to watch  :

 

[scoutfinch]

HoM:

Based on his past posts, he claims to be heading to St. Jean for his basic Officer's training in January 2007.  I stand to be corrected but I believe he is going to be an Infantry Officer.

You have fun with that!  >

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

You are wrong with respect to Schaeur's politics. 

And true to form, you have demonstrated that you are capable only of polemics and not discussion. 

Unfortunately, your overbearing right wing bias apparently makes it impossible to carry out any reasoned discussion with you.

(And before you start calling me a *liberal* and *left leaning*, as most people here who know me will attest, I am a neorealist through and through.  Although I suspect you may need to review neorealist theory before you can come up with a disparaging comment regarding my personal politics or intelligence.)

Scoutfinch, there's no need to get your knickers tied in a knot, we're all friends here...I like you, I really do, it's just that you've been reading too many Noam Chomsky books and watching too many Michael Moore documentaries.

 

[HItorMiss]

It's intresting that though Finch actually has real world political experience and life lesson that she can draw on to form her own conclusions, you seem to use the internet and books with hidden agendas as your only source material. Maybe in a few years after some training and life experience you'll actually have a sound and reasonable base from which you can argue your point.

Oh and again fill out your profile it really does help you on here.

Hit

 

[scoutfinch]

Wrong.  You clearly don't understand neorealism otherwise you would never contemplate likening neorealism to Chomsky or Moore.  You have clearly demonstrated own your ignorance in a weak attempt to be clever.

Despite your best efforts at mind reading, you clearly do not know how ludicrous I believe most of  Noam Chomsky's writings are (with the exception of his political economy analysis of mass media) nor how little regard I have for Michael Moore.

Moreover, don't patronize me.  I don't care whether you like me.  You don't mean anything to me so I could care less what you think of me. 

You are quickly becoming a joke... if you haven't already.

Like most people blinded by spectrum politics -- left or right -- you aren't nearly as clever or intelligent as you think you are.  You are only capable of spouting dogma and incapable of analysis unless it has been spoonfed to you by some political hack.



Pfft.  I am done.

 

[muskrat89]

This thread is close to being locked.

Drop the barbs, insinuations, and snottiness.

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Wrong.  You clearly don't understand neorealism otherwise you would never contemplate likening neorealism to Chomsky or Moore.  You have clearly demonstrated own your ignorance in a weak attempt to be clever.

Despite your best efforts at mind reading, you clearly do not know how ludicrous I believe most of  Noam Chomsky's writings are (with the exception of his political economy analysis of mass media) nor how little regard I have for Michael Moore.

Moreover, don't patronize me.  I don't care whether you like me.  You don't mean anything to me so I could care less what you think of me. 

You are quickly becoming a joke... if you haven't already.

Like most people blinded by spectrum politics -- left or right -- you aren't nearly as clever or intelligent as you think you are.  You are only capable of spouting dogma and incapable of analysis unless it has been spoonfed to you by some political hack.



Pfft.  I am done.

Bill O'Reilly made me do it!  ;D

 

[HItorMiss]

Drop the barbs, insinuations, and snottiness.

But tht means I'll never be able to post on here again....  

And here I thought I was loved  ;D

 

[scoutfinch]

Muskrat:

I leave it to your discretion to lock the thread; however, with all due respect, I believe the thread has potential to develop into very interesting discussion, albeit with other Board members and not myself. 

I am heading out for the remainder of the day and promise not to respond to Tolstoyevsky again.  Promise.

Scout

 

[muskrat89]

And here I thought I was loved

You are loved. I love my daughter too, but she still needs a little "guidance" now and then... 

Finch - I agree with the thread's potential. Everyone currently engaged is obviously intelligent, and capable of debate on a higher level than what has been demonstrated (for the most part)

 

[cplcaldwell]

I watched Christianne Amanpour's documentary on OBL last night on CNN. "In the footstep's of Bin Laden"

It draws rather heavily on Peter Bergens work (oops maybe he's a closet NDP ... anticipate pile on! >).

One of the things that I found interesting was that OBL had a distant relationship with an almost absentee father, who died when he was pre-adolescent. Hmmmm where have I heard about that before?

Another was that in the days of the soviet occupation his work in Peshawar, running the services bureau, he seems to have been almost a lackey (the gangly rich kid that was brought along because he had a boatload of cash). Bin Laden seems to have transformed himself from that point on into a sort of generalissimo.

A point was made sometime ago that militant Islam has been in the works for 150 years, it would seem Bin Laden has been a long time in the making as well. It would seem he has made some very conscious decisions to become what he has become and is not simply being drawn along by history... although some intersting parallels with history exist..

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Well I can only speak of madeline albright in this dismissive way.  When she answered a reporters question about Clinton's inaction on AQ this way, I believed her to be nothing but a HACK!  WHEN CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED.  Well I beg to differ Ms. Secretary, "Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Sailors on the U.S.S. Cole, People at two U.S. Embassies, world trade center I, Pentagon, Flight 93, and then of course the almost 3000 at the world trade center II."  So yes, Bill Clinton lied, and several thousand Americans Died!

Furthermore, a direct consequence of Clinton's inaction was the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Today, Massoud would have been an invaluable Afghan ally in the war against the Talibs...

 

[scoutfinch]

Furthermore, a direct consequence of Clinton's inaction was the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Today, Massoud would have been an invaluable Afghan ally in the war against the Talibs...

Please explain this statement.  Massoud was well known for NOT doing US bidding despite his promises to the contrary.  Moreover, I am not sure how you draw a *direct* line between his death and the Clinton administration.  Indirect (and arguably tortured) line, yes.  Direct line, no.

 

[muskrat89]

I am heading out for the remainder of the day and promise not to respond to Tolstoyevsky again.  Promise.

;D

It's like opening a can of Pringles, isn't it??  LOL

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

;D

It's like opening a can of Pringles, isn't it??  LOL

I needed a good dose of "neorealism"...LOL

 

[1feral1]

HoM:

Based on his past posts, he claims to be heading to St. Jean for his basic Officer's training in January 2007.  I stand to be corrected but I believe he is going to be an Infantry Officer.

You have fun with that!  >

Bloody helll, I always thought an officer with a map and compass was dangerous, ha!

God help the RCIC.

Cheers,

Wes

EDITed for spelling

 

[scoutfinch]

Well I can only speak of madeline albright in this dismissive way.  When she answered a reporters question about Clinton's inaction on AQ this way, I believed her to be nothing but a HACK!  WHEN CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED.  Well I beg to differ Ms. Secretary, "Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Sailors on the U.S.S. Cole, People at two U.S. Embassies, world trade center I, Pentagon, Flight 93, and then of course the almost 3000 at the world trade center II."  So yes, Bill Clinton lied, and several thousand Americans Died!

While I recognize the downfall of the Clinton administration in failing to respond promptly to the threat al-qaeda posed, I do not think the 9/11 attacks can be totally attributed to that administration.  The Bush administration had opportunity to address the threat and also failed to do so.  So, I will definitely give you the USS Cole bombing and the  African embassy bombings but I am not sure how the other attacks can be solely attributed to the Clinton administration, whether President Clinton or Madeleine Albright.

The bombing of the World Trade Centre took place on February 26, 1993.  Bill Clinton was sworn in on January 20, 1993 (I stand to be corrected on the exact date), just a  little more than one month prior to the bombing.  I am not sure that blame for the bombing of the WTC can be laid at the Clinton administration's feet. 

Similarly, Ron Brown was killed in an air crash that was investigated by the US Air Force and attributed to "failure of command, aircrew error and an improperly designed instrument approach procedure".  [Report available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun1996/n06131996_9606132.html .  I do not see how Ron Brown's death can be attributed to failures by the Clinton administration.

The remaining incidents are all part of 9/11 which, as noted above, are not fully the province of a Clinton administration failure anymore than fully of the Bush administration.

Interestingly, Richard Clarke posited that there were 4 consecutive administrations responsible for al-qaeda's success:

(1)  Reagan for not acting strongly enough after the Beirut bombing of the marine compound which resulted in 278 dead and for violoating his own terrorism policy (ran Contra scandal);

(2)  George H.W. Bush for not retaliating for Pan Am 103, for leaving Saddam Hussein in power and requiring the US to leave a large American military presenct in Saudia Arabia;

(3) Bill Clinton who was weakened politically and could not manipulate power politics in Washington sufficiently to get intelligence and military agencies to act;

(4)  George W. Bush for failing to take advance warnings seriously.

I think it is healthy to find fault in all of the administrations where the facts warrent.  Much healthier, in fact, than to slavishly point fingers through the prism of party politics.  For the Republicans  to pretend they did nothing wrong is as foolhardy as the Democrats trumpeting the same message.