Good response, Catch. Once again it's living proof that the left (Sayanything) gets caught in the trap they think they have set. And why? It's because they sincerely don't believe that facts and data mean anthing. Instead, if you scream it loudly enough, then it must be true. Nothing else matters -- oh, except for the nausiating "I'm so much superior than you" attitude they all put on.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

This is exactly what I mean. Its so easy to lay blame on an administration (like Cheney is doing now based on no measurements and prematurely). And here you are laying blame on something that happened on Bush's Watch onto Bill Clinton. Amazing.

Well you can read Richard Clarke's book and get the real facts on this (the same Richard Clarke that worked with Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and then Bush). Also, lets not forget that the Bush adminsitration was already warned about this in a memo entitled, memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.".

This is EXACTLY what I am getting at. See the hypocrisy? I don't expect you to, but its all right there.

NL...Appreciate the prompt response--other than it underscores the severe tardiness of mine. [In my defense, I had intended to reply days ago, but I've been under the weather much of the past week, and I had been searching for an article I recalled from 2001 that referred to the Bush response to the cell phone intel.]

Regarding the Marxist issue, I guess we'll just continue to disagree.  I'm no fan of Ayers or Wright, but it would seem if Obama were truly a radical and/or a Marxist, he would have installed individuals in his cabinet and administration who embraced political philosophies similar to that of Ayers or Wright [or associated radicals] rather than emplacing more mainstream liberals, Democrats, and even Republicans--which was in fact the case.  Furthermore, even if it were conceded there were elements of Marxism woven into the fabric of Obama's world view, such fact would not make him a true Marxist any more than a sprinkling of anti-government principles would transfigure a free-market conservative into an anarchist.

I doubt the midair was intentional.  The Chinese pilot made a serious error in judgement.  The crew of P-3 wimped out.  They were supposed to ditch it at sea.  As much as I admire the aviation skill of that pilot, he gets quietly sidetracked and passed over for further advancement and quietly cashiered if I have anything to say about.  I think that is in fact what eventually happened to him.

I must admit, I agree with you completely.  It was only recently that I learned that protocol dictated ditching in order to prevent precisely what happened in this case:  An intact surveillance aircraft falling into the hands of a potential adversary.  And perhaps this was a crucial point in explaining the haste and accomodative manner in which the administration acted to resolve the crisis.  I know the pilot wrote a book four or five years ago--which I haven't read--about which there was a good bit of information and a number of reviews on Amazon.  None of it addressed the question of deliberateness with respect to the collision however.

As to the US response:  What should Bush have done?  Our aircraft, by violating Chinese Airspace and landing in China without permission, after flying approximately one hundred miles AFTER the collision, intentionally violated international law and erased our status as the injured party.  Recall the midair in international airspace cannot be categorically classified as an act of war.  Bush made the only reasonable public response the circumstances allowed.  We do not know what else was done outside public view.

If what you say is true, then it does put the administration in a position where its actions seem more appropriate, perhaps even the only viable option open to them.  However, if the Chinese pilot's actions were calculated and deliberate, and the EP-3 had little alternative but to "intrude" into Chinese airspace and crash land, then an apology--of the type issued--seems weak, gratutitous and unnecessary.

 Do you recall the terrorist bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beruit, Lebanon in 1984?  Absent the freedom of action to go on the offensive, I agree with Bush getting all of our exposed personnel out of those places in the face of credible threats.

Vividly.  It's a close question, and illustrates the complexities of formulating and executing the "correct" polcy in tricky cases fraught with broad and dangerous implications in the geopolitical arena.  Many would argue the precipitous pullout in Beirut was a critical catalyst in subsequent acts of terrorism.

As for those twerps in the State Department, they are the same morons who endorsed the Clinton fiasco in Mogadishu.  How much more investigation was needed to know AQ did this?

As far as Mogadishu, other than the obvious fact that Aspin screwed up, there are two sides to that story too.  But let's save it for another day.  With respect to the Cole and AQ, the issue is not whether the latter's involvement may have already been reasonably deduced.  But rather, regardless of such knowledge, it was wise to withdraw in the face of AQ "threats".

Jer