1. That is exactly what I have heard. I also understand that rumor has it that 41 warned him about taking Saddam out..
2&3. thanks for the links!

4. I have heard this a number of times this week: Clinton said he tried and failed to have OBL killed, but in the next breath he says that he didn’t see where he had the legal authority to authorize the death of OBL…which is it?(rhetorical)

1. I did hear from a number of people (3rd hand of course) that Bush1 quite literally had Saddam in the crosshairs, but declined to take him out. Some have said (oh man do I feel like a Fox commentator now) that it was because Bush1 knew the awful job ahead of him if he had to rebuild the nation. I’ve passively wondered whether there was enough information to untangle the details and figure out why. I’m sure there’s a good rundown somewhere out there. If you know of one, I’d like to see it.

2. Absolutely! Airline security is even crazier than that though. Think about this, if prisoners can have guns, drugs and knives in a maximum security prison facility, what makes the TSA think that it has any hope against a determined/creative terrorist? Within IT Security, we can severely restrict the domain of attacks to the orderly realm of electrons and structured protocols. *EVEN STILL* we never say that anyone can be 100% secure. In fact, it’s a mantra that even the best security can’t protect you forever from a determined well funded professional. Take a look at Bruce Schneier’s work. He’s on the TSA advisory board and puts out a fascinating monthly newsletter on security called Crypto-Gram.

3. Give this one a try. It’s a really good read.

4. It’s a tough call. I think Bush isn’t as concerned with the legal consequences of being in the “grey zone” as Clinton was. I make no value statement there, only because I haven’t thought about it long enough. There are positives to both approaches. On the one hand you can argue that Clinton has a greater respect for the COTUS and wanted to be more careful to balance his mandate with the rules of the game. On the other hand, you can argue that Bush has the same level of respect for the COTUS and simply assumes that there are sufficient protections built into the executive office that he’ll be insulated from any major fallout.

..Chuck..

That was the standard reaction at that point though. There were few deaths of civilians in that instance and to that point and as such it was handled as it was handled for the last forty years. The threat was not perceived as we do so now, and thus we thought our reaction was guaged appropriately.

It seems we are all hindsight 20/20 armchair quarterbacking now.

The reaction by both Clinton and Bush2, as well as every president since the 60′s (actually, further back that that, but we won’t get into that UN debacle) was the result of a standard policy the the US has always held. It is quite different than the USSR, whose very well known standard policy was not to kill the terrorist, but their family (including children) and pretty much the entire tribe/village (BHarbaric, but effective)

My point is that laying blame for those “reactions” prior 9/11 is inane. We gauged our standard reaction with the perceived threat. At 9/11, that perception changed, plain and simple.

The result of both Clinton and Bush’s inaction regarding Al Queda was the result of 40 years of foreign policy towards said threats. I don’t blame either administation, but for Clinton to sit there and claim he came closest to killing bin Laden is ridiculous.

See, “dead” is an absolute. One is dead, or they are alive.

That said though, I’ve watched both sides ridicule the other regarding this topic and this finger pointing is inane. the sole blame for 9/11 should be directed at the people who planned and executed it, period.

1. I do think that the Bush 43 adm., came in with an agenda to get Saddam. At the same time, I think that 41 failed to take him out when he should have.
2. I think that 43 should have warned the public about that Aug 01′ memo. If we needed to disrupt air transport..so be it. We didn’t do that and look what happened…I know I say that in hindsight, but let’s look at present day air..we know that liquid bombs have been confiscated..we restrict personal bottles for all of 1 month! Go figure that out:roll:
3. I think we blew the chance to get OBL in Tora Bora, but I can’t find good links to show where the mis-steps were made. (If you have them, I would love them)
4. I do believe that Clinton was paralyzed by fear of negative poll numbers. We can argue back and forth about how people feel that Bush has trampled on the COTUS, but the suits about warrantless wiretaps are not moving forward..the 1 judge that did rule on it will be overturned and we have yet to have another successful attack…I will not sit by and watch what I did yesterday..the man had the opportunity to clear the record and he did nothing to further his cause…He had the support of the Republican leadership…yet he allowed the lawyers to fail all of us.

..Chuck..

P.S. I really do enjoy debating with you. You are very intellectually honest.

As for your example, I could take away from it that yes, they did have plans for them. And that is a good thing…but I think that the example is a good one for your arguement.. Where did you get it? What context was it used in?