Newt Wins SC

[QUOTE=artcarney_agr;478809]...and Obama doesn't have baggage?!?!?!

There is so much we still don't know about Obama that the completely biased media refuses to report on....if all his baggage was exposed, he'd make Newt look like a saint![/QUOTE]

Obamy has the kind of baggage that bothers me. His associations, his business dealings, hate church on white people, questions about his college time and on and on.
Ok he is married with children.....commendable but not an issue. Heck issues like obamy has should have sunk him the first time but the dems/country wanted a black potus. Ok we got half of one!!! Now let's get back to reality and Choose someone who actually has experience in making decisions and understands how to get this country on track. I don't see anyone being perfect for the job but I see any of the GOP candidates (maybe not Ron P) doing a better job.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;478770]So, the 911 Commission report SPECIFICALLY states that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are responsible for the actions of Terrorists that attacked our country.

I doubt that it is even implied.

THAT my friend, is exactly what you're implying......

Just checking.

And for the record......I will not beat around the bush. Bill Clinton and his willingness to destroy our military and our ABILITY to do more than a "pin prick" IS responsible for our inability to effectively fight the wars BUSH started in IRAQ and Afghanistan.

The "blitz" type war that Rummy suggested in IRAQ was a direct result of the loss of 500,000 troops, 20,000 Tanks, 20 or 30 air wings, and quite a bit more crap.

And guess what....we're in the process of dismantling our military again.......EXCELLENT.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
OK, OK, I'll do you guys' fact checking for you, since neither one of you seem up to the task :)

[URL]http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm[/URL]

You can view the whole report there as a .pdf or .html, or even d/l the .pdf (I did). I have yet to read it in its entirety, but now that I've started, I think I will. You're right, Geo, it doesn't specifically say Newt, or Clinton, or anyone else besides Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda bears any responsibility for the attacks. It doesn't even mention Gingrich by name more than a dozen times or so. But since you mentioned it, the part about the "pin pricks" is one of those few times, and what it shows about him isn't particularly flattering:

[URL]http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch4.htm[/URL]

[B]4.2 CRISIS:AUGUST 1998[/B]

[I]On August 7, 1998, National Security Advisor Berger woke President Clinton with a phone call at 5:35 A.M. to tell him of the almost simultaneous bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Suspicion quickly focused on Bin Ladin. Unusually good intelligence, chiefly from the yearlong monitoring of al Qaeda's cell in Nairobi, soon firmly fixed responsibility on him and his associates.37
Debate about what to do settled very soon on one option: Tomahawk cruise missiles. Months earlier, after cancellation of the covert capture operation, Clarke had prodded the Pentagon to explore possibilities for military action. On June 2, General Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had directed General Zinni at Central Command to develop a plan, which he had submitted during the first week of July. Zinni's planners surely considered the two previous times the United States had used force to respond to terrorism, the 1986 strike on Libya and the 1993 strike against Iraq. They proposed firing Tomahawks against eight terrorist camps in Afghanistan, including Bin Ladin's compound at Tarnak Farms.38 After the embassy attacks, the Pentagon offered this plan to the White House.

The day after the embassy bombings, Tenet brought to a principals meeting intelligence that terrorist leaders were expected to gather at a camp near Khowst, Afghanistan, to plan future attacks. According to Berger, Tenet said that several hundred would attend, including Bin Ladin. The CIA described the area as effectively a military cantonment, away from civilian population centers and overwhelmingly populated by jihadists. Clarke remembered sitting next to Tenet in a White House meeting, asking Tenet "You thinking what I'm thinking?" and his nodding "yes."39 The principals quickly reached a consensus on attacking the gathering. The strike's purpose was to kill Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants.40 [/I] [I]
Berger put in place a tightly compartmented process designed to keep all planning secret. On August 11, General Zinni received orders to prepare detailed plans for strikes against the sites in Afghanistan. The Pentagon briefed President Clinton about these plans on August 12 and 14.Though the principals hoped that the missiles would hit Bin Ladin, NSC staff recommended the strike whether or not there was firm evidence that the commanders were at the facilities.41

Considerable debate went to the question of whether to strike targets outside of Afghanistan, including two facilities in Sudan. One was a tannery believed to belong to Bin Ladin. The other was al Shifa, a Khartoum pharmaceutical plant, which intelligence reports said was manufacturing a precursor ingredient for nerve gas with Bin Ladin's financial support. The argument for hitting the tannery was that it could hurt Bin Ladin financially. The argument for hitting al Shifa was that it would lessen the chance of Bin Ladin's having nerve gas for a later attack.42 [/I] [I]

Ever since March 1995, American officials had had in the backs of their minds Aum Shinrikyo's release of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway. President Clinton himself had expressed great concern about chemical and biological terrorism in the United States. Bin Ladin had reportedly been heard to speak of wanting a "Hiroshima" and at least 10,000 casualties. The CIA reported that a soil sample from the vicinity of the al Shifa plant had tested positive for EMPTA, a precursor chemical for VX, a nerve gas whose lone use was for mass killing. Two days before the embassy bombings, Clarke's staff wrote that Bin Ladin "has invested in and almost certainly has access to VX produced at a plant in Sudan."43 Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke's staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the "bottom line" was that "we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously consider any options." She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was "rather uncertain at this point." Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.44 [/I] [I]
By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst, as well as hitting al Shifa. The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the "premise kept shifting."45

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.46 [/I] [I]

The air strikes marked the climax of an intense 48-hour period in which Berger notified congressional leaders, the principals called their foreign counterparts, and President Clinton flew back from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard to address the nation from the Oval Office. The President spoke to the congressional leadership from Air Force One, and he called British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from the White House.47 House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott initially supported the President. The next month, Gingrich's office dismissed the cruise missile attacks as "pinpricks."48[/I]


What I see there is Gingrich playing politics with national security, and flip-flopping on his support for these cruise missile attacks (which were absolutely the RIGHT thing to do!) when it became politically expedient for him to do so. But you have to read the report leading up that to put the whole scenario into context. At that time, bin Laden and his associates, as they were known (we didn't know that Al Quaeda even existed, let alone its name) had killed less than 100 Americans, most of them overseas. There was no real focus on terrorism in our government, or even in the CIA. The report says that even agents within the CIA who tried to make terrorism a priority were viewed as alarmists. That was the political and intelligence culture of the time; that was the environment those people inherited. So it's not really fair to try and lay blame on individuals. The whole friggin' system was flawed. And that is the probably the one and only good that can come from 9/11, and the one way we can ensure that those 3,000 people did not die in vain: we can not let America be complacent again.

I don't see any indication that Gingrich is the guy to do that. You were right in the letter of what you said, Geo, the commission report doesn't say Gingrich bears any blame, but Andrew is right in spirit: Newt played politics then, he has continued to do so after, and there's no reason to believe that won't be his practice if he's elected.

He was also right on another count: Newt is and always has been a very polarizing force in politics. You can try and "defuse" that all you want, but it's true. Moderates just won't vote for him.

Toad, that is a very serious stretch. Initially he supported the strikes. Maybe he was assuming they'd do something MORE than a couple tomahawk missiles. When they were a FAILURE..........DISMAL FAILURE, he stated so, saying they were a pinprick.

I actually think the same thing. AND when the strikes occurred way back when, I distinctly remember telling all my co workers that Clinton was a chicken-**** **** for not doing what needed to be done.

AND it seems to me that senior congressional leadership were notified about the strike when the missiles were already in the air......do you REALLY suppose that Gingrich or Lott were actually part of the Cabinet level planning sessions surrounding this strike??

I doubt it.......

Later,

Geo

Thanks Roadtoad. I've read the report, but its been a while. Good to see the specifics and correct my account.

Geo, as the report indicated, congressional leaders were notified about the attack. As speaker of the house, I have to assume that Newt was a congressional leader. As far as Clinton not doing what needed to be done, later in the report that aspect is discussed. Both Clinton and Gore felt that after Newts comments they did not have the congressional support for doing so. Yes, part of this stemmed from Clinton's scandles at the time and Newt going after him. The movie Wag the Dog had just come out and many felt that was what was happening for real (yes, the report specifically notes that movie).

Andrew

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;478770]So, the 911 Commission report SPECIFICALLY states that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are responsible for the actions of Terrorists that attacked our country.

I doubt that it is even implied.

THAT my friend, is exactly what you're implying......
[/quote]

No, that is not what I am implying at all. Newt and Bill are responsible for not following through and completing the mission (nailing Bin Ladin before he could strike again).

[QUOTE=apb;478882]No, that is not what I am implying at all. Newt and Bill are responsible for not following through and completing the mission (nailing Bin Ladin before he could strike again).[/QUOTE]

OK fair enough.....but a REAL LEADER would have not been worrying about his legacy. The WAR POWERS ACT allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted. Had Clinton wanted to eliminate the threat, he would have bombed the HELL out of them......BE DAMNED with what congress thought. But He was a meow- meow.

BUT I digress.

later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;478866]Toad, that is a very serious stretch. Initially he supported the strikes. Maybe he was assuming they'd do something MORE than a couple tomahawk missiles. When they were a FAILURE..........DISMAL FAILURE, he stated so, saying they were a pinprick.

I actually think the same thing. AND when the strikes occurred way back when, I distinctly remember telling all my co workers that Clinton was a chicken-**** **** for not doing what needed to be done.

AND it seems to me that senior congressional leadership were notified about the strike when the missiles were already in the air......do you REALLY suppose that Gingrich or Lott were actually part of the Cabinet level planning sessions surrounding this strike??

I doubt it.......

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
No, they weren't part of the planning, but they weren't told when the missiles were in the air, either:
"Gingrich said he was told "very precise details" of the attack before it occurred, and praised Clinton's aides for being "sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this."

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm[/URL]

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;478887]OK fair enough.....but a REAL LEADER would have not been worrying about his legacy. The WAR POWERS ACT allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted. Had Clinton wanted to eliminate the threat, he would have bombed the HELL out of them......BE DAMNED with what congress thought. But He was a meow- meow.

BUT I digress.

later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
Read the report. He said to the military leaders at the time, "We're going to take crap no matter what we do. We're just going to do the right thing."

In hindsight, maybe he didn't do enough, but it wasn't to protect his legacy.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;478930]Read the report. He said to the military leaders at the time, "We're going to take crap no matter what we do. We're just going to do the right thing."

In hindsight, maybe he didn't do enough, but it wasn't to protect his legacy.[/QUOTE]

Your're right.......I'm wrong......Just read the WP post.......****....

You too APB........double ****......

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=RoadToad;478930]Read the report. He said to the military leaders at the time, "We're going to take crap no matter what we do. We're just going to do the right thing."

In hindsight, maybe he didn't do enough, but it wasn't to protect his legacy.[/QUOTE]

Your're right.......I'm wrong......Just read the WP post.......****....

You too APB........double ****......

Later,

Geo

Me being right happens from time to time. Must have really unset Geo, he posted twice about it :p

Andrew