An open letter to George W. Bush

[Strongbow]

Anyone who talks themselves into the War in Iraq making us safer can talk themselves into anything.

If you don't understand how important the Persian Gulf has been to the United States and the world for 60 years now, then you will never understand any US military intervention in the region. If you don't understand Saddam's history in the region prior to 2003 and how he threatened US and global security in the region, then your not going to understand why Saddam needed to be removed in 2003. If you don't understand many of the reasons the United States sent half a million troops to the region in 1990-1991, then your definitely not going to understand why Saddam had to be removed in 2003. If you don't know or understand what took place during the UN inspection process of the 1990s as well as limited US military action against Saddam during that time, then your not going to understand why it was necessary to remove Saddam in 2003.

When did Iraq get more dangerous between January 20, 2001 and March 20, 2003 (or whenever the fuck we decided to give an ultimatum)?

Essentially every single day that went by during that time, the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain Saddam continued to erode, making it easier for Saddam to make money on the black market and potentially aquire new weapons and materials for his military. Thousands of stocks of WMD continued to remain unaccounted for according to UN weapons inspectors, who Saddam did not let into the country again until November 2002.

Why didn't Bush wait for the weapons inspectors to finish in Iraq?

The issue is not the weapons inspectors, but Saddam's LACK of full cooperation with the weapons inspectors which, based on evidence found after his removal, continued after he let the inspectors back in, in November 2002.

Why didn't Bush work with the UN?

Bush worked with the UN every step of the way. It was Bush's efforts that got UN inspectors back on the ground for the first time since November 1998. It was Bush who got a new UN resolution passed authorizing military action if Saddam did not comply. It was Bush that succeeded in getting UN approval for the operation every year after the invasion.

Why did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?

The only group that ever lied about WMD and WMD programs was Saddam's regime.

Why did Bush suddenly change his mind halfway through and make it no longer about weapons of mass destruction when there were none?

Bush never changed his reasons for invading, but the mission in Iraq did change, from one of regime removal to one of nation building to replace Saddam's regime.

Why did Bush take three years to figure out that the strategy they put into place was entirely destructive?

Counter insurgency and nation building are very difficult, time consuming operations. Progress was made during that time, and the Surge strategy built on the progress that had been made earlier. The military had resisted previously the stationing of troops over a wide area in small detachments, because individually they would be more vulnerable to being attacked and overrun. But doing this made it easier to intercept insurgents, work with and gain the confidence of the local population. Ultimately, it led to a huge reduction in US and Iraqi civilian casualties and the killing or capturing of large numbers of insurgents and Al Quada members.

Why don't Republicans give a straight answer to these questions?

They have time and again, but liberals refuse to listen to or acknowledge such answers.

Until a straight answer without spin is given, defenders of the War in Iraq are Republican lackeys, spreading propaganda and misinformation.

Talk about spin.

Here's some straight talk from Bill Clinton:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

 

[jesseu2]

At the swearing in of the new President, the current President is jeered and booed. I don't think it gets much more classless than that.

And did not the republicans do the same thing when McCain conceded? People boo, who gives a toss, they were disappointed, demos hate the ADMINS guts.

Then after McCain made a speech, some of the people in the crowd woke up and went...."oh maybe this guy isn't so bad after all"........ i remember seeing women cry in McCain's rally area after McCain lost, so pathetic..

I live in Arizona an have liked everything here except that its a damn red state.

 

[mobvok]

And having said that, Bill Clinton still refused to start a ground invasion to remove Saddam.

 

[BVS]

You think that today with improved technology, access to information, communications, it takes less time for the US, history to assess how well a President has done or whether or not they approve of something.

So, had such advantages existed decades earlier, Truman might have had a higher approval rating either as President or the new assessment about his time as President and the Korean war would not have taken as long. Correct?

They would not have taken as long... that's it, nothing more nothing less.

Don't listen to Rush or Hannity, listen to what President Bill Clinton said before he left office:

Once again you miss my point.

In the liberal bubble of FYM that is certainly true. Among the general public nearly 40% think removing Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Among members of the US military, the vast majority think it was the right and necessary thing to do. The publics view of the war is likely to change over time just as it did with respect to the Korean war.

But you're talking AROUND the subject, like always... I'm not talking to you from a bubble, I'm telling you what I see out in the real world, the debates playing out on TV, the conversations that are occuring on the streets, for this is what will be writing history. And the debate is not over should Saddam have removed, you are living in delusion if you think otherwise... The debate is everything else I mentioned.

The public's view of the war will more than likely be one of "the misguided and misexecuted war". But it all depends on what happens in the next year or so...

 

[Strongbow]

And having said that, Bill Clinton still refused to start a ground invasion to remove Saddam.

He didn't refuse a ground invasion, but felt there was still time for alternatives to work. Those alternatives failed. In 2003, Bill Clinton publically supported the ground invasion to remove Saddam.

 

[namkcuR]

Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether. And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. And why was that lie told? Because Saddam hadn't yet done anything to us. Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion. The 9/11 lie was told so that the public debate would be whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11, and NOT what the ethical dilemmas and implications of the Bushist 'preemptive war' doctrine/philosophy were.

Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable, and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable.

 

[Bluer White]

In 2003, Bill Clinton publically supported the ground invasion to remove Saddam.

Also....Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Among others.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

 

[namkcuR]

Also....Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Among others.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Who all voted for it based on faulty intelligence. Two of three you mentioned have since said they were wrong. How many times must we go over this?

 

[mobvok]

If you want to use Clinton's support for Bush's invasion as a bludgeon, then use a contemporary quote ~ 2003. In the 1990s, Clinton decided that despite all the awful things Saddam had on his ledger, a ground invasion still wouldn't be productive. Even though regime change was (I think) the official policy of the US government re: Saddam, that is not an automatic endorsement of several hundred thousand troops going to war.

 

[Strongbow]

But you're talking AROUND the subject, like always... I'm not talking to you from a bubble, I'm telling you what I see out in the real world, the debates playing out on TV, the conversations that are occuring on the streets, for this is what will be writing history. And the debate is not over should Saddam have removed, you are living in delusion if you think otherwise... The debate is everything else I mentioned.

The public's view of the war will more than likely be one of "the misguided and misexecuted war". But it all depends on what happens in the next year or so...

The issue, especially for Americans will always rest on whether it was a plus or minus for US and global security just like every previous war in US history. Currently its 60% against, 40% for removing Saddam from power based on the latest gallup polls. Not too different from the polling during the Korean War. Opposition to the Iraq war has clearly topped out, and as this question is asked in the future, you will over time see the numbers reverse themselves. Just as they did for the Korean War.

Just ask yourself this, do people discuss US intervention in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Gulf War mainly from the perspective of whether it was legal, what was the "true" motive, how many allies did we have, was it related to other conflicts; or is the most important thing they discuss is the impact it had on US and global security at the time and why or why not it was necessary for the US to intervene to positively impact US and global security.

In the case of Iraq, the main security issue was whether or not to remove Saddam from power in 2003. The majority of the military to this day still supports that removal of Saddam from power. The publics approval will begin to move closer to the military's in the coming years. The only reason the public approval dropped for the war was its length with the associated costs. Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq it will succeed in its mission there which will go a long way to impacting public approval on the issue in the future.

Its not the legal issues or the number of allies that people will be talking about and making their judgement on, its what the military intervention meant for US and global security. Thats how its been done with previous US wars, and the current Iraq war will be no different. The only thing that is going to seem misquided in the future is the idea of leaving Saddam in power.

 

[BVS]

Just ask yourself this, do people discuss US intervention in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Gulf War mainly from the perspective of whether it was legal, what was the "true" motive, how many allies did we have, was it related to other conflicts; or is the most important thing they discuss is the impact it had on US and global security at the time and why or why not it was necessary for the US to intervene to positively impact US and global security.

I think you should compare preemptive wars to preemptive wars...

 

[Strongbow]

Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether.

Thats false, because the search for Saddams WMD and WMD programs could not be successfully done until Saddam and his regime were removed as shown by Saddam's constant deception and hiding of materials during the 1990s. While actual WMD's were not found, multiple programs related to the production of WMD were found that violated the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement. It also remains a fact that thousands of stocks of Iraqi WMD remain unaccounted for. Failure to find them does not change the fact that it was Saddam's responsibility to verifiably dismantle such weapons in front of inspectors. The fact that their missing also does not mean they don't exist. The weapons are either intact, or were dismantled.

And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.

There was intelligence that Saddam might have had contacts with Al Quada. But the President NEVER told the public that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion.

Saddams previous actions, including the invasion and annexation of Kuwait, plus during the 1990s his refusal to cooperate on the verifiable disarmament of his WMD and WMD programs, his violation of 17 different UN Security Council resolutions, and the crumbling of the sanctions and inspections regime designed to help contain, and his failure to abide by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement were more than enough justification for the US and its allies to invade and remove the regime.

Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable,

Saddam's Iraq had already seriously hurt multiple countries in the region and threatened global security. Because of this, he was required to to abide by a series of strict rules under the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and to fully cooperate in the dismantlement of all WMD and WMD related programs or else face renewed military action to accomplish those goals. Given what Saddam did, the invasion in 2003 was actually overdue.

and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable.

No one lied and the ethical debate you speak of does not exist in this situation.

 

[Strongbow]

I think you should compare preemptive wars to preemptive wars...

After Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait and the Gulf War that removed his forces from Kuwait, the United States and its allies had the authorization from the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions to resume military action against Iraq in order to bring about compliance.

You can call that preemptive, preventive or what every you like, but it was done to insure US and global security after the crises of 1990-1991. The one thing that all these major wars have in common that the United States as been in, is US and global security, and the positive or negative effect that intervention has had on that is how each one will be judged.

 

[Strongbow]

If you want to use Clinton's support for Bush's invasion as a bludgeon, then use a contemporary quote ~ 2003. In the 1990s, Clinton decided that despite all the awful things Saddam had on his ledger, a ground invasion still wouldn't be productive. Even though regime change was (I think) the official policy of the US government re: Saddam, that is not an automatic endorsement of several hundred thousand troops going to war.

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


The above statement by Bill Clinton was made in December of 1998 after the failure of years of inspections, sanctions, and other means to solve the problem. The ultimate conclusion at that time was that Saddam needed to be removed. The ONLY way that could happen proved to be a full scale military invasion. Other options were tried and failed.

Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, the statement is an early endorsement of that option.

 

[mobvok]

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


The above statement by Bill Clinton was made in December of 1998 after the failure of years of inspections, sanctions, and other means to solve the problem. The ultimate conclusion at that time was that Saddam needed to be removed. The ONLY way that could happen proved to be a full scale military invasion. Other options were tried and failed.

Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, the statement is an early endorsement of that option.

If Clinton endorsed invasion it would have happened. He was the President. But it didn't.

 

[Strongbow]

If Clinton endorsed invasion it would have happened. He was the President. But it didn't.

Clinton endorsed regime change in December of 1998. Most of his advisors new that ultimately an invasion may have been the only option to remove Saddam, but wanted to exhaust other methods before that was tried. Kenneth Pollack, Bill Clintons chief expert on Iraq ended up endorsing a full scale military invasion in the Spring of 2002. Bill Clinton and his wife signed on to invasion in the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003.

 

[mobvok]

Most of his advisors new that ultimately an invasion may have been the only option to remove Saddam, but wanted to exhaust other methods before that was tried.

What's the source for this claim?

 

[Strongbow]

What's the source for this claim?

A notable source would be Kenneth Pollack, in his book, the Threatening Storm(2002). Kenneth Pollack was Bill Clintons chief advisor on Iraqi policy and he carefully explains the options for regime change and why a military ground invasion was the only option that could achieve that goal.

Then again, anyone who was aware of the size of Saddam's military, security network, the history and total failure of multiple uprisings against the regime, and the multiple failed assasinations attempts(as well as how assasination by itself could lead to a worse situation and does not in fact remove the regime), would likely know that a ground invasion was the only reliable way to remove the regime from power.

 

[phillyfan26]

If you don't understand how important the Persian Gulf has been to the United States and the world for 60 years now, then you will never understand any US military intervention in the region. If you don't understand Saddam's history in the region prior to 2003 and how he threatened US and global security in the region, then your not going to understand why Saddam needed to be removed in 2003. If you don't understand many of the reasons the United States sent half a million troops to the region in 1990-1991, then your definitely not going to understand why Saddam had to be removed in 2003. If you don't know or understand what took place during the UN inspection process of the 1990s as well as limited US military action against Saddam during that time, then your not going to understand why it was necessary to remove Saddam in 2003.

Essentially every single day that went by during that time, the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain Saddam continued to erode, making it easier for Saddam to make money on the black market and potentially aquire new weapons and materials for his military. Thousands of stocks of WMD continued to remain unaccounted for according to UN weapons inspectors, who Saddam did not let into the country again until November 2002.

The issue is not the weapons inspectors, but Saddam's LACK of full cooperation with the weapons inspectors which, based on evidence found after his removal, continued after he let the inspectors back in, in November 2002.

Bush worked with the UN every step of the way. It was Bush's efforts that got UN inspectors back on the ground for the first time since November 1998. It was Bush who got a new UN resolution passed authorizing military action if Saddam did not comply. It was Bush that succeeded in getting UN approval for the operation every year after the invasion.

The only group that ever lied about WMD and WMD programs was Saddam's regime.

Bush never changed his reasons for invading, but the mission in Iraq did change, from one of regime removal to one of nation building to replace Saddam's regime.

Counter insurgency and nation building are very difficult, time consuming operations. Progress was made during that time, and the Surge strategy built on the progress that had been made earlier. The military had resisted previously the stationing of troops over a wide area in small detachments, because individually they would be more vulnerable to being attacked and overrun. But doing this made it easier to intercept insurgents, work with and gain the confidence of the local population. Ultimately, it led to a huge reduction in US and Iraqi civilian casualties and the killing or capturing of large numbers of insurgents and Al Quada members.

They have time and again, but liberals refuse to listen to or acknowledge such answers.

Talk about spin.

Here's some straight talk from Bill Clinton:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Alright, first of all, cut the bullshit about "ignorance" and "not understanding." Enough is enough. I've fucking had it. Listen carefully: Just because you are on a different side of the issue DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER SIDE IS IGNORANT. Over the time you've posted in here, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who disagreed with you, you've labeled them as ignorant, or lacking understanding, or refusing to recognize. Just fucking stop it. It's the perfect way to turn logical discourse into frustrating arguments. It's something you've mastered. And DO NOT REPLY THAT THIS IS OFF-TOPIC: it's not. Your posting style disrupts everyone here, and is relevant to the discussion at hand for that reason. This is a plea to get you to make reasonable discourse possible, which is necessary for me to continue this.

That's the first time I've used all-caps in probably a year. Fuck, this makes me mad.

On to your post:

Weapons inspectors were finally let back into Iraq in November 2002. That was a huge step. And instead of recognizing it as such, Bush impatiently pushed for an invasion in just a couple of months. The UN wasn't for it because the inspectors were not done with their job yet. And by going against the UN's wishes that the inspection be finished, your statement that "Bush worked with the UN every step of the way" is utterly false. He did not, as he went against them and, uh, invaded the fucking country.

Bush absolutely changed his reasons for invading: in March 2003, I was told that we were seizing the weapons of mass destruction we knew they had, because we were in imminent danger. Five years later, I was told that we went in to stop a dictator from being cruel to his people. Which is a complete change in the reason we went in, and which means he lied to me and everyone else at the beginning. Why did he do this? Because he wanted to save face since he lied and was actually just guessing that they had weapons. Maybe had he let the weapons inspections finish he'd have known this. Instead, he took the first diplomatic action Saddam gave him in quite a while (the return of the inspectors) and rendered it completely useless.

You act as if I'm some huge fan of Clinton, which is not the case. That said, stating that is one thing, going blindly into a full scale invasion is another. Clinton didn't start a stupid war based on guesses and exaggerations. Bush did. To quote Bill Hicks, "End of fucking story."

 

[Strongbow]

Weapons inspectors were finally let back into Iraq in November 2002. That was a huge step. And instead of recognizing it as such, Bush impatiently pushed for an invasion in just a couple of months. The UN wasn't for it because the inspectors were not done with their job yet.

Saddam has to fully cooperate for the UN inspectors to be able to do their job. The UN inspectors made no progress, NONE, on accounting for thousands of stocks of WMD that had remained unaccounted for since they were last there in November 1998. Saddam did nothing to try to account for such stocks, and hid programs related to the production of WMD that were in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. If Saddam had any intention of coming clean, he could have taken the UN inspectors to these programs as soon as they stepped off the plane in November 2002. Instead, these things were found by the US military and other investigators in the summer and fall of 2003 after Saddam had been removed from power.

And by going against the UN's wishes that the inspection be finished, your statement that "Bush worked with the UN every step of the way" is utterly false. He did not, as he went against them and, uh, invaded the fucking country.

Bush got resolution 1441 passed in November which along with other UN resolutions authorized the coaltion to take military action to bring about compliance. Saddam's had several months to peacefully come into compliance, and he did NOTHING to successfully resolve any of the outstanding issues and its been proven that he never disclosed program related WMD activities. The UN inspectors were never authorized to inspect for set period of time, nor was any minimum time set before which military action could begin.

If the UN was opposed to the invasion, where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to condemn the invasion in 2003? Where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to call for the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraqi territory? Instead, we have resolution UN resolution 1483 being passed in the summer of 2003 authorizing the occupation of Iraq by US and coalition forces. The UN has authorized the occupation every year since then, yet you claim that Bush did not work with the UN.

Bush absolutely changed his reasons for invading: in March 2003, I was told that we were seizing the weapons of mass destruction we knew they had, because we were in imminent danger. Five years later, I was told that we went in to stop a dictator from being cruel to his people. Which is a complete change in the reason we went in, and which means he lied to me and everyone else at the beginning. Why did he do this?

The need for military action is explained in UN resolution 1441 and continues to this very day to be the chief reason why the Bush administration supported the removal of Saddam from power. Colin Powell and Condi Rice to this day still explain the need to remove Saddam based on his failure to comply with UN resolutions, his past behavior, and the crumbling of sanctions and the weapons embargo. No one has ever claimed that the United States removed Saddam from power because he was being "cruel" to his own people. Sorry, but no one lied.

Because he wanted to save face since he lied and was actually just guessing that they had weapons. Maybe had he let the weapons inspections finish he'd have known this. Instead, he took the first diplomatic action Saddam gave him in quite a while (the return of the inspectors) and rendered it completely useless.

Once again the inspections process is a peaceful process that requires the FULL ACTIVE cooperation of Saddam regime. The UN inspectors never got that from Saddam either in the 1990s, or in late 2002 and early 2003. Simply being allowed into the country resolves nothing as Bill Clinton found out at the end of his administration.

You act as if I'm some huge fan of Clinton, which is not the case. That said, stating that is one thing, going blindly into a full scale invasion is another. Clinton didn't start a stupid war based on guesses and exaggerations. Bush did. To quote Bill Hicks, "End of fucking story."

Clinton carefully stated, in the same way Bush would four years later, that Saddam was a threat to the region and the security of the world. That the ONLY way to remove this threat once and for all was through regime change, not endless inspections that Saddam could always fool.

Not a surprise that Bill Clinton, his chief advisor on Iraq Kenneth Pollack, and his wife then a Senator, all supported Bush's ground invasion to remove Saddam.

 

[drivemytrabant]

can you think of any differences between Bush 2 and Clinton or Regan? i mean, more specifically, do you think the fact that Bush presided over the biggest mass murder in American history, manipulated intelligence to start an unnecessary war that's dragged on for 6 years, destabilized Pakistan, emboldened Iran, failed to get anywhere with Israel/Palestine, cut taxes and increased spending in a time of war, authorized torture, wildly expanded the powers of the executive branch, turned the DOJ into a tool of political revenge, and lost the city of New Orleans might have something to do with it? think of the hundreds of thousands of people that have died. perhaps that's why people booed?

Ok, let us examine these "facts" you speak of. President Bush was in office when 9/11 occurred. Yes, that is a fact. Did he fly the planes into the buildings? I think that was the murdering terrorists if I recall correctly. The very sort of people Bush has tried to fight and defeat--will he be successful? I don't know--neither do you or anyone else for that matter. To me, that statement makes no sense. You would ridicule him for simply being in the job when this tragedy occurred (I assume because you somehow wanted him to stop it from happening), then ridicule him for trying what he believed would work best to prevent the same thing from occuring again. I don't believe you can have it both ways.

The manipulating intelligence thing is really utter nonsense. It has been widely shown that many countries had the same intelligence that we had, and simply did not choose to act on it. If you want to say the use of this intelligence was misleading (as to our actual purpose in going to war), I'd be more apt to listen. But he did not "manipulate" the actual intelligence, it was just simply incorrect.

Pakistan was stable before for extended periods of time? Iran never wanted a nuke or to kill Jews? "failed to get anywhere with Israel/Palestine" -- the same can be said for the entire world for nearly the entire known history of the world. Next.

I agree with the argument that you cannot cut taxes while at the same time spending as a democrat would--although the war was the not singular example of excessive spending. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't spend, you just can't cut taxes and then spend like he did.

The definition of torture is difficult, but I think most experts would agree that he did indeed authorize some forms of torture in order to extract information. I suppose whether or not you believe this is ok depends on your moral/political views.

"wildly expanded the powers of the executive branch, turned the DOJ into a tool of political revenge" I'm not 100% certain what you mean by these statements without being more specific--i.e. what specific actions are you referring to when you make these claims?

A hurricane is responsible for the loss of the city of New Orleans. I was not there, but many who were say the response to the hurricane was not fast or efficient enough. If this is indeed the case, the President bears some responsibility since his administration is responsible for setting up the hierarchy. However, it is not the President's responsibility to assess the structural integrity of levies or the functionality of water pumps. These flaws are what was mostly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. It was Bush who finally convinced local law enforcement officials to call for a mandatory evacuation--something that without a doubt saved countless lives.

At the swearing in of the new President, the current President is jeered and booed. I don't think it gets much more classless than that.

And did not the republicans do the same thing when McCain conceded? People boo, who gives a toss, they were disappointed, demos hate the ADMINS guts.

And I would be the first to say that those people are classless as well. I didn't say Democrats were classless and Republicans were not. I said the people (irregardless of party) booing the President in this situation were entirely classless.

 

[mobvok]

Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, [Clinton's] statement is an early endorsement of that option.

Either the Clinton Administration thought in 1998 that:

1) Saddam was an enormous threat that could only be removed through a full invasion, then did nothing for the next 2 years,

2) they didn't invade because they thought invasion was the very last option on the list of ways to remove Saddam, to be used only after everything else had failed, which is hardly an endorsement of that option!

These are both things you've said in the span of a few posts. These can't both be true.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Will the jeering of the outgoing President Bush go down in folklore with 'hanoi' Jane Fonda and hippies spitting on Vietnam vets?

Let's have a deep and thought provoking 32 page thread about it, guys.

Also, UN Resolution 1441.

 

[Strongbow]

Either the Clinton Administration thought in 1998 that:

1) Saddam was an enormous threat that could only be removed through a full invasion, then did nothing for the next 2 years,

2) they didn't invade because they thought invasion was the very last option on the list of ways to remove Saddam, to be used only after everything else had failed, which is hardly an endorsement of that option!

These are both things you've said in the span of a few posts. These can't both be true.

I stated that the following statement by Bill Clinton in December 1998:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


Is essentially an endorsement of what Bush ended up doing in 2002. The necessity of removing Saddam because he was a threat to the security of the world was already in place before Bush was in office.

Liberals claim that the ideas that Saddam was a threat to the world to such a degree that it was necessary to remove him started with Bush. It did not.

I never stated that the Clinton Administration believed in December 1998 that ONLY a full scale ground invasion of Iraq could remove Saddam from power. I did state though that several of his advisors were beginning to see that was probably the only way he could be removed from power.

The Bush Administration's decision to commit ground troops to invade Iraq is not the inevitable descendant of the Clinton Administration

It essentially is, because what motivates the action is the need for regime removal do to the regimes threats to global security as stated by the Clinton administration. Once you accept the need for regime change, and begin to see that the options short of a ground invasion won't ever achieve that objective, you move from hoping an option short of a ground invasion will be found to work to accepting that it is the only option available. Thats not something that happened over night of course, but in looking back, this evolution of thought on the options available to achieve this goal is what did happen to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Kenneth Pollack based on the record. All of them supported Bush's early 2003 ground invasion of Iraq.

I thought the neocon criticism of Clinton was that he was unwilling to risk troops! Just lob a few cruise missiles and hit a camel in the butt.

Neocon is not really a term that was used back then, to the degree that it is today. Clinton was criticized by both parties for using troops too much or too little during his administration. Clinton was far from being unwilling to intervene with the military when one looks at Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afganistan, Sudan. Its true that if the Clinton administration had been prepared to use large numbers of ground troops before the Kosovo air campaign started by moving them into position, Milisovic might have given in to NATO's demands without the air campaign.

With Afghanistan, the Clinton administration wanted to be careful, and wanted to find a way to eliminate Al Quada without having to invade and remove the regime. The Clinton administration was engaged in military action in Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Serbia, and Iraq from August 1998 to June 1999.

While the Clinton administration wanted to avoid sending large numbers of ground troops into either Serbia, Afghanistan, or Iraq, they were aware that it could very easily become the only option and the US military was actively studying and training for each possibility.

The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was no more of a break with Clinton administration policy than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

[Irvine511]

Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether. And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. And why was that lie told? Because Saddam hadn't yet done anything to us. Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion. The 9/11 lie was told so that the public debate would be whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11, and NOT what the ethical dilemmas and implications of the Bushist 'preemptive war' doctrine/philosophy were.

Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable, and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable.

i'm entirely done with arguing with old whatshisname ... but thank you for pointing out that the entire debate over WMDs would have been entirely unnecessary if even a word of what whatshisname writes was true. if it was so obvious that every smart person ever wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1998 -- which begs the question of why Blair and Clinton didn't invade -- then why on earth did we go through the entire WMD drama and combine every statement about Iraq not in terms of oil but in terms of how WMDs are going to kill Americans like on 9-11?

obviously, the Bush administration didn't think that the rationale laid out in 1998 was enough to justify an invasion. so they decided to amp up the WMD rhetoric and harness some 9-11 fear in order to push through a policy that was always only supported on the far right. simply supporting "regime change" in Iraq is NOT at all the same thing as supporting the invasion of 2003. there were ways of working with anti-Saddam forces on the ground in Iraq where we'd possibly provide air coverage and funding. no one thought that putting 165,000 boots on the ground was the way to go about securing regime change. until Bush came to power.

 

[Irvine511]

Harry Reid beat purpleoscar to the punch, almost two years ago.

The Surge had failed, and the Iraq war was lost.

Over.

i see -- so all the people in Gitmo are Iraqi insurgents?

or did Gitmo open before the Iraq war and is for general GWOT detainees.

please, let me know when the GWOT is scheduled to end.

 

[Irvine511]

some info on Pollack:

Many critics, as well as many of those who used the book to justify their support of the invasion, overlooked the more balanced presentation on the pros and cons of war to be found in The Threatening Storm. As Chris Suellentrop of Slate pointed out before the invasion on March 5, 2003:
“ Six months after The Threatening Storm's publication, however, Pollack's book reads as much like an indictment of the Bush administration's overeagerness to go to war as it does an endorsement of it. A more appropriate subtitle for the book would have been The Case for Rebuilding Afghanistan, Destroying al-Qaida, Setting Israel and Palestine on the Road to Peace, and Then, a Year or Two Down the Road After Some Diplomacy, Invading Iraq. In interviews and op-ed articles, Pollack himself still supports the war, saying that now is better than never. But it's fair to say that his book does not—or at least not Bush's path to it.[4] ”

Pollack responded to the Suellentrop article by saying that he was unhappy that many people seemed to have read only the subtitle of his book, which had not been his choice. He also said:
“ "given how far down the road the Bush Administration has taken us, I think that we have no realistic choice but to go to war this year. And yet I think the Administration has handled the diplomacy and public diplomacy of coalition building very poorly, and I am deeply concerned about the impact this will have both on postwar reconstruction and on our ability to garner allies for the inevitable next crisis." [5] ”

Pollack later was a strong supporter of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 advocated by General David Petraeus, which entailed a buildup of US ground forces to improve the security of the Iraqi population and help Iraq increase its governmental capacity, develop employment programs, and improve daily life for its citizens. He laid out some of his arguments in support of the surge in the June 2007 NY Times article "A War We Just Might Win," which was co-authored with Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings. [6]

Kenneth Pollack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mobvok]

I did state though that several of his advisors were beginning to see that was probably the only way he could be removed from power.

And if that was Clinton's perspective, he would have invaded.

At this point though I'm repeating myself so we've hit the end of the argument.

 

[Irvine511]

1. even if this were the inevitable conclusion of Clinton's policy, it's obvious that we know now that it was the wrong policy; it's true, Clinton is capable of getting things wrong.

2. we shouldn't mistake political cowardice in 2002/3 as being the same as full-throated support for the invasion, especially now that so many people regret their votes and HRC well knows that had she voted against the authorization of Bush to invade -- a distinction in that vote that so often gets lost -- she would have taken the Oath of Office a few days ago.

3. i marched in the streets against the invasion regardless of how certain Democrats in the Senate voted. just because they were wrong doesn't mean that i'm any less right then as i am now in being opposed to the invasion.

 

[mobvok]

1. even if this were the inevitable conclusion of Clinton's policy, it's obvious that we know now that it was the wrong policy; it's true, Clinton is capable of getting things wrong.

2. we shouldn't mistake political cowardice in 2002/3 as being the same as full-throated support for the invasion, especially now that so many people regret their votes and HRC well knows that had she voted against the authorization of Bush to invade -- a distinction in that vote that so often gets lost -- she would have taken the Oath of Office a few days ago.

3. i marched in the streets against the invasion regardless of how certain Democrats in the Senate voted. just because they were wrong doesn't mean that i'm any less right then as i am now in being opposed to the invasion.

All fair points.