Bluer White
New Yorker
The bills I mentioned were bad. Even the super-majority couldn't go along with them.
Obama General Discussion
- Thread starter diamond
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
The bills I mentioned were bad. Even the super-majority couldn't go along with them.
Look to the 1st point I made before I hit on the GOP obstruction. The Democrats are ideologically diverse. They had to give alot to get Nelson and Lieberman to support the bill.
Lieberman's issue
ublic option, which I have said elsewhere in this forum, was a bad idea to push and something not at all fundamentally necessary for health care reform. However, with 1% of people even going to choose this, it was bound to be as insignificant as it was ineffective in cutting costs, so I don't get Lieberman's filibuster threat over it. Nelson's issue: Who the hell knows. This joke seems like he played his "moderate" label to extort federal funds for Nebraska. That was despicable. And I fault Reid for this as well- and Obama. You get Nelson in a room and tell him he is dead to the WH and the people who hand out the money in the Democratic Party if he does not support this. That's how Delay did it. That's how LBJ did it. Preferable to us all paying for Nebraska's medicaid.
Plus, Nelson and Lieberman both are owned by the health care lobby, so that could cloud their judgement as to the merits of the bill.
So Obama did not have an automatic super majority.
Plus, the Democrats would not have needed 60 votes if the Republicans did not filibuster everything.
You talk about Collins and Snowe, your Maine Senators. The President reached out to both of them and in the end, both decided that they were not going to be the one profile in courage Republican who stood up and supported this. We are not even talking about voting for it- if they don't like it, that's fine, but don't stop it from coming to a vote. Obama is not completely blameless on this front, in my opinion. He should have turned away from Maine and looked at the 2 retiring Republicans who will not have to face the tea bag primaries- George Voinovich and Mel Martinez. Both are reasonably moderate guys in the mold of the Republicans who proposed what Obama is proposing now in 1994.
The problem is most certainly not the bills themselves.
Lets take Health Care: If, like many Americans, you believe what Republicans have told you is in the bill, like a government takeover and death panels, cuts in medicare and massive new debt(none of which are true) then there is a problem. However, lets look at what is actually in the bill.
If you poll the American public, you find broad support for specific provisions of the health care bill. Exchanges, restrictions on denial of coverage, requirement of individual and employer efforts, sliding scale subsidies, increased focus on prevention and cost cutting focused on outcomes based care.
The problem here was tactics. Obama rolled it out and let the Republicans define it as socialism(its actually undeniably centrist), let Palin and her crazies make up "death panels" and he did not defend it for 2 months. The other big mistake was him giving into Pelosi and pushing the public option, something that was not even remotely part of his campaign plan. Hell, it took Ted Kennedy until May 2009, 14 months after he began work on the bill, to even consider the public option. Obama reasoned this would be a bargaining chip he could drop to get Republican support. He is guilty here of thinking the Republicans were going to let anything he promoted go to the floor for debate. Nebraska we already discussed. All inexcusable, especially for someone who ran a tactically excellent campaign.
Remember that despite all this, and with some admitted mistakes, the House and Senate both passed a major health care overhaul in just one year. There is still the major difference over how to finance it, but taken in the context of the Truman, Nixon, Carter and Clinton attempts, it has been pretty successful. Legislation on such a huge, far reaching issue is always complicated and takes a long time, and this bill would not have gone the furthest the fastest when compared to all other attempts if it was as cringe-worthy as you claim.
Cape and Trade DOA?? It passed the House and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham are working on a version that can pass the Senate as we speak. So unless you want to give us a new definition of dead on arrival, then that's flat out wrong.
The problem here is surely not the idea itself, as this was first pushed in the US by McCain and Lieberman, supported by many Republicans and is modeled after successful existing programs on acid rain. It is not socialistic in any way, it is an innovative, market based, efficient program. The only problem with the idea of cap and trade is that Obama is pushing it, and anything that Obama says is reflexively opposed lockstep by Republicans.
This is the same thing that happened with Clinton. Since 1993, the Republican party has taken a bold stance: they will oppose lockstep anything a President with a "D" after his name proposes, and they will do so regardless of consequences for the country and regardless of the merits of the idea. Hell, the right never could accept the fact that Clinton was elected 2 times, and they can't accept the fact that Obama won by a much bigger margin than Clinton or W Bush ever did.
Ok, so he had a viewpoint. What is the big deal? I did not know being on one side or the other of Gulf War I defined whether you had knowledge of/credentials in middle east policy. Of course, it was a great military success, but it was also used by OBL as the reason for his official declaration of war on the US. Of course, I am not excusing him, and the real grievances of terrorists have to do with a non radical Islam society leading the world, but American troops in Saudi was a huge rallying cry, recruiting tool and fundraiser for OBL.
The way I read it, you take issue with Biden's 2003 vote and his 2007 opposition to the surge? Most Senators in both parties voted for the Iraq war and can only be guilty of believing their President when he says we are threatened. Bush lied to them flat out, and that has been proven factually in many places. If in 2007, after we found out there were no WMD and it became clear that we needed a political solution and could not stay in Iraq forever and wreck our military, Biden opposes the surge, what is wrong with that?
Notice you did not respond to what I said about the goals of the surge regarding political solutions and how what has made progress in Iraq is de facto EXACTLY WHAT BIDEN PROPOSED AS EARLY AS 2005. That plan got 75 votes in the Senate and was sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. The Iraqis basically adopted it and without calling it by its name.
This before we even get to Biden's constant warning about Pakistan being the real threat long before Bhutto was assassinated or most of the AQ leadership had crossed over the border from Afghanistan. The increased focus on the Pakistan tribal areas in the war on terror has been universally praised as successful and is almost entirely attributable to Joe Biden.
As Chair of the Foreign Relations committee, Biden wrote legislation dealing with the interdiction of drugs in Afghanistan, pushed hard for a consensus on Iran sanctions and sponsored the Palestinian Anti Terrorism Act of 2006, which among other things, cut off funds to the Palestinian Authority and other terrorist infiltrated groups posing as legitimate.
Granted, the Republicans were into picking someone who is completely ignorant on the foreign policy area of focus, the Middle East, as a Vice President, but the Democrats, for all their imperfections, certainly were not.
Even if he did none of this and just worked on Balkans and Narcotics, his previously known areas of influence, he would still have infinitely more credibility than Jim Inhofe on Iraq and the Middle East, just by virtue of the fact that he can string together a coherent sentence on these topics.
Come on, Biden, while a 30 something year old with 6 years in the Senate, was over in Moscow face to face with the Soviet prime minister getting him to drop production of naval bombers that was impeding the SALT II treaty. Has Inhofe ever even played a key supporting role in any foreign policy issue?
This
All credit to Bush for that. Bush, though he said/did so many things I disagreed with between 2006 and 2008, is to be credited for realizing that he had been repudiated at the polls in the midterms and for working to gain the confidence of the Congress and the people. He did this domestically too by accepting the minimum wage increase and the 9/11 recommendations, things he still opposed. The Republicans now should stop emulating his economic/budget policies and remember the one good thing about the man: he realized elections had consequences, and as a result, there were limited cases where he worked with the branch of government controlled by the other party. Not alot by any means, but its a start, and alot more than just saying no to everything.
Also, Daddy and his pals like Baker and Scowcroft certainly slapped W around a bit, let him know in no uncertain terms that any chance at saving face on Iraq would certainly require getting rid of the nuts like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz while marginalizing Cheney.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Which in the case of Iraq would essentially be partition. Even the Iraq study group rejected this idea. Much of the progress over the past few years has been do to the strengthening of the central grovernment. It is precisely the weakeness of the central grovernment years ago that contributed to so much of the instability of Iraq. Biden's plan would have only reinforced that.
Sorry, but no one in either the Bush or Obama administration has seriously considered the Biden plan. The military was forced years ago to often work with locals rather than the central government because the central government was so weak at that time and incapable really of accomplishing much outside of Baghdad. But today that has dramatically changed and most of the country now supports and wants the central government to work.
The United States began to offer Sunni tribes and insurgence money to join forces with the US and the central government to help secure their local area's. Unemployment in these area's was extremely high, and insurgents and Al Quada had succeeded in paying people to attack Iraqi and coalition troops. Many of these former insurgents were in fact people who were just looking for money to help feed their families and were not acting for reasons for ideology or politics. In the absence of economic development at the time because of the security situation, this helped to employ people and reduce the influence of insurgents and Al Quada.
But this was started in 2006. The enormous reductions in violence did not occur until there was a 33% increase in the number of US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq. That increase coupled with a new deployment plan that involved widely dispursing the combat units in small groups over a large area to protect the population is what really turned things around in Iraq. It is the exact same plan under way in Afghanistan at the moment. Its classic counterinsurgency tactics. Clear, hold, and build!
The lion share of what was responsible for turning the situation in Iraq around belongs to the SURGE which Obama and most democrats opposed. Even Obama now admits that it worked and that it was a "good thing".
Unfortunately, some of are forum members still refuse to see the truth.
The political process, elections, work at the local level, the Sunni Awakening, all happened prior to the Surge but FAILED to reduce the violence. It was only AFTER increasing US combat forces in Iraq by 33% and the dramatic change in how US forces were deployed across the country that violence levels began to significantly decrease. Thousands of Sunni insurgents were killed and captured in Baghdad and then across the country. The operation took over 15 months and involved some of the most intense fighting of the war. The population was finally isolated and protected from the insurgence and Al Quada which allowed for development at the economic and political level to finally proceed in many of the troubled area's.
In addition, the Iraqi military has rapidly increased its strength and capabilities, and as US troops have been withdrawn, there has now been capable Iraqi military units to REPLACE those withdrawn US forces in order to maintain security.
Most of the people were not concerned about any Shiite advancement. The central government at the time was powerless to help out in Sunni area's like Anbar. Al Quada and Sunni insurgents were able to harras control and manipulate the population in these area's because of the lack of security. The Surge brought with it more troops and different strategy that involved US troops clearing and staying and living with Iraqi's in their communities instead of coming into them on a random patrol and then going back to a large secure base. The 24 hour, 7 days a week of staying out in the field with the population helped to clear insurgents from the area and prevent their return. It helped to win the support of the population and create an environment in which people were not afraid to work with the United States and the Iraqi central government to develop and protect their communities.
That is not the case in 2010. The murder rate in Iraq today is about the same as that in the United States. Instead of 3,000 or 4,000 people being murdered in a month, there are only hundred or so. Its been like that for a long time now. Iraqi military units and police are now doing nearly all of the security work through out the country. 6 years ago, there were only 700 people in the actual Iraqi military! There has been a massive change in the country.
Iraq's standard of living is now ahead of a country like Morocco. Iraq has the 15th FASTEST growing economy in the world right now! Iraq's vastly improved political, economic, and security situation points to a bright future. While their could be more setbacks, as long as the United States and other countries maintain their support, Iraq will succeed in developing into a relatively prosperous and stable country!
LOL well, I have a little video for you. Watch and listen carefully:
YouTube - Obama Says The Surge Will Fail, We Will Fail.
Obama says in the video:
"We can send, 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, ah I don't know any expert on the region, or any military officer that I have spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground"
Well, guess what, the Iraqi's have gone well beyond that stated goal.
Here is your metric as provided by icasulaties.org.
Iraqi civilian deaths in the last full month available 01/2010: 118
Iraqi military and police deaths in the last full month available01/2010: 17
Now compare that with the situation at the start of the surge in February 2007:
Iraqi civilian deaths during February 2007: 2864
Iraqi military and police deaths during February 2007: 150
Lets look at United States combat deaths in Iraq in February 2007: 71
Now lets look at United States combat deaths in Iraq in January 2010: 2
The change is incredible and its thanks to the SURGE which OBAMA and BIDEN OPPOSED! Again, even Obama now admits that the SURGE was a "good thing"!
Well, the murder rate in Iraq in January was about the same as the murder rate in the United States! That is indeed progress, almost unbelievable progress actually in this amount of time. No one ever claimed that the Surge would end all violence in Iraq or that there would not still be political challenges or hurdles afterwards. Your holding the SURGE to a standard that no major operation has ever met before, 100% perfection, which is absurd.
The surge has worked when you look at nearly every reasonable metric you could use. General Patreus, General Ray Ordiano, Ryan Crocker, Admiral Mike Mullen, say the surge has worked. Even President Obama was qouted as saying that "IT WAS A GOOD THING". Now Obama is conducting a similar strategy in Afghanistan and we won't have to wait 5 or 10 years to claim that it has worked.
I would not call Iraq a source of stability in the Persian Gulf before the US invasion. LOL LOL LOL
But yes, lets make that comparison 10 years from now, Iraq in 2020 compared to Iraq in 2003 under Saddam. Will the most stallwart oponents of removing Saddam and opposing the surge in Iraq finally admit they were wrong? We will see.
No one in Iraq, US central command, or in fact even Obama, is following Biden's plan from 2005. Iraq has continued along the path planned for it by the Bush administration. Obama adopted all of Bush's policies on Iraq when he became President. The power of the central Iraqi government is increasing, not decreasing. The United States has been training and building the Iraqi military force for years now.
It was Bush who stated in 2004: "as they stand up, we'll stand down"
Obama was against that. In January 2007, he wanted to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008 which would have been a disaster. Biden was also in favor of that as well. It was the opposite of the surge strategy and would have led to chaos in Iraq and the region.
All the key decisions on Iraq that have brought us to the point were at today were made DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. The only credit Obama and Biden will get will be for continuing Bush administration policy in Iraq!
Really, well lets see what President Clinton said about Saddam in December 1998 in regards to whether he was a threat or not:
YouTube - President Clinton attacks Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
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 same thing had to be done with Germany, Japan, and is being done in Afghanistan. The Surge helped to reduce US casualties to extremely low levels. It massively reduced civilian casualties in Iraq. Casualties that would have greatly increased if Obama had succeeded in withdrawing all US combat forces by March 31, 2008!
People who are still against the removal of Saddam in 2003 need to ask themselves what the CONSEQUENCES of leaving Saddam in power could have been for the world? What would it have cost the Iraqi people, the Persian Gulf, and the rest of the world, based on what Saddam had cost these groups in his previous 24 years in power.
Again, you can't properly assess this unless you have a firm and knowledgable understanding of the security importance of countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the United States and the history of Saddam's behavior, the wars he started, and how this threatened the United States in the decades before he was finally removed from power.
The number of people willing to defend keeping Saddam in power in 2003 gets less every day.
Sorry, wrong again. All 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed against Saddam were passed UNDER CHAPTER VII RULES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Chapter VII rules allow for the use of military force to bring about COMPLIANCE! All resolutions that have been passed against Israel were passed under CHAPTER VI rules which DO NOT ALLOW the use of military force to bring about compliance.
UN security council resolution 1441 specifically states that Iraq was in violation of multiple UN resolutions and must come into compliance or face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES! UN Security Council resolution 1441 also recalls UN security council resolution 678 which authorized the use of military force to bring Iraq into Compliance in regards to any violations. The Clinton administration sited resolution 678 every time it used military force against Saddam in the 1990s!
SADDAM NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE UN INSPECTORS. To do so they would have had to account for 500 pounds of sarin gas, 1,000 liters of anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 Bio-Chem capable shells all of which remained unaccounted for at the start of the invasion!!!!!!
Just as important, PROGRAMS related to production of WMD that violated UN resolutions were found after the US overthrew Saddam. Clear proof that Saddam was decieving the international community, just as he had done for 12 years since the 1991 Gulf War.
Thats only because there were numerous reasons why Saddam had to be removed, and weapons of mass destruction was obviously the most convincing reason with the general public.
The majority of the intelligence communities in various countries around the world had evidence that Saddam either had WMD or that they simply could not tell whether he did or not. NO ONE, had factual evidence to prove that Saddam had NO WMD in 2003.
Its also irrelevant. The issue here is SADDAM, his behavior, and willingness to comply with UN resolutions passed after the 1991 Gulf War. THE ISSUE IS VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT, and preventing Saddam from being able to rearm again.
By the year 2000, the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to keep Saddam from getting new conventional weapons and WMD components from abroad had nearly collapsed. Iraq was selling BILLIONS of dollars worth of oil on the black market. Syria was no longer complying with sanctions or the embargo along its entire border with Iraq. France and Russia were both openly violating the sanctions. China was installing new communications for Iraq's airdefense system which would allow Iraq better capability in shooting down coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.
These factors would allow Saddam the chance to rebuild and rearm much of his weapons industry, and the attempts to prevent the erosion of this vital key element of containment had been rebuffed by countries such as Russia, Syria, Jordon, Iran, France and China, all key in maintaining the sanctions and weapons embargo. Containing Saddam into the future would be impossible without fool proof sanctions and weapons embargo, so regardless of what you think Saddam's capabilliites were or were not in 2003, removing him before he could aquire new capababilities do to the erosion of the key component of containment, was a necessity!
Its a fact that in 2003, Saddam's Iraq military had the following:
An army of 400,000 troops, over 3,000 tanks, over 2,000 armored personal carriers, over 2,000 artillery pieces, and over 300 combat aircraft. Even the most uninformed person on political/military issues would understand that such conventional military forces in possesion of a man like Saddam was indeed a threat to a country like Kuwait. All US military and CIA assessments showed that Saddam still had the strength to launch a military strike to overrun Kuwait and probably enough strength to strike at the some of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. This is without considering WMD, or any capabilities Saddam could now get because of the sudden erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo.
Colin Powell, Democratic anylyst such as Michael O Halon, and Kenneth Pollack, many of President Clintons advisors on Iraq, and the vast majority of the United States military as found from the military times polls every year, still to this day feel that Saddam was a threat worth removing from power!
It goes FAR, FAR BEYOND just the intelligence that suggested what was Saddam's WMD capabilities in 2003 and goes into his decades long defiance of UN inspectors, his four invasions and attacks on other countries in the region, his massive use of WMD on the battlefield and against his own people, his attempts to overrun and annex Kuwait cutting the world off and threatening much of the worlds oil supply, and perhaps most important, the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo which were THE ONLY MEANS SHORT OF REGIME REMOVAL of insuring that he could not threaten and harm the region as he did in 1990/1991.
Well, just to inform you, plans for the surge which started in February 2007 were WELL UNDER WAY before the November 2006 election results. The Bush plan at the time right after the Democrats took control of congress, involved a MASSIVE increase in the number of troops in Iraq. It was the exact opposite of what the new democratic congress was proposing. The November elections did not force Bush to do anything. The division between Bush and the Democrats only became WIDER after the November 2006 election!
The surge was far more in keeping with what Gates and Cheney wanted to see rather than ANYTHING OBAMA, BIDEN or any of the Democrats were proposing at the time.
Once in office, Obama adopted all of Bush policies on Iraq and in fact kept his secretary of Defense, the Republican leaning Robert Gates. There has never been a bigger endorsement of another administrations defense policy by the opposite party than Obama keeping Robert Gates on board as secretary of defense!
This
All credit to Bush for that. Bush, though he said/did so many things I disagreed with between 2006 and 2008, is to be credited for realizing that he had been repudiated at the polls in the midterms and for working to gain the confidence of the Congress and the people. He did this domestically too by accepting the minimum wage increase and the 9/11 recommendations, things he still opposed.
This never happened. Bush went FURTHER away from congress after the November 2006 election Iraq. Bush should be credited for sticking to the right plan for Iraq regardless of the democrats political success or what the polls were saying. The Democratic congress tried repeatedly in vain during 2007 to FORCE Bush to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq. Instead, Bush successfully launched a massive 33% increase in combat forces with the Surge despite the new Democratic congress's fierce opposition to the plan and proposals to do the EXACT OPPOSITE!
Baker by the way to this day still supports the removal of Saddam, the surge and credits Bush with succeeding at all these things as well as putting Iraq on the road to successful development!
Bluer White
New Yorker
Actually, Snowe's vote helped the health care bill out of the Finance Committee and onto the floor of the Senate.
I was poking fun at Biden's complete spin job on the Larry King show. I could care less about Inhofe.
Well, guess what, the vote on the Gulf War I was a major issue, a defining moment. Its the reason why Senator Sam Nunn never ran for president in the 1990s. In fact, I don't think any democrats in congress ran for President in the 1990s and also voted against Gulf War I. Al Gore vote for Gulf War I which is one reason why Clinton selected him. Clinton was governer of Arkansas at the time and was wishy washy on his position. Gore's vote and placement as vice presidential candidate helped to defend Clinton's lack of a record on this issue.
It was vital and the stationing of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the war to help maintain the sanctions and embargo on Saddam were also vital to containing Saddam which was the only alternative to regime removal. Unfortunately, other countries refusal to continue with the sanctions and weapons embargo after the year 2000 meant this strategy against Saddam was no longer viable, leaving regime change as the only solution.
BUSH NEVER LIED and saying such is just the a matter of belief of the most zealos liberals out there. Nearly every country with serious intelligence capabilities had intelligence which showed a certain level of WMD capability by Saddam in 2003. Even French intelligence officials came to that conclusion based on their evidence!
Another liberal myth is the idea that Bush wanted to remain in Iraq forever. Bush had always stated that "as they stand up, we'll stand down"
Even in the speech on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, Bush said that the long hard work of rebuilding and securing Iraq was JUST BEGINNING!
What Iraq needed in 2007 was a certain level of security in order for the political and economic development of the country to continue at a reasonable pace! Bush achieved that with the surge, while Democrats attempted to abandon the whole thing by yanking all US combat troops out of the country as fast as possible. Bush succeeded in implementing the surge and stopping any Democratic plans to do the opposite which would have led to chaos.
No one in Iraq is following the Biden plan! The power of the central government is increasing which is needed to keep Iraq together. Nearly all of the benchmarks congress laid out for political and economic progress in Iraq have been met. Bush's plans in Iraq have gone well beyond his stated goal in the surge!
Bluer White
New Yorker
Where do you get the 1% number?
Bluer White
New Yorker
Here is what Peter D. Feaver, professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, recently said about Biden and his plan for Iraq:
Will Biden's plan come back to haunt him? - By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government
Will Biden's plan come back to haunt him? - By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government
1.)you were told by the moderators to ignore me.
2.)We have been over Iraq a million times before, no one except for you is still saying they were a threat.
Just 2 examples of where you still don't get it: -
A.)Obama's never said in his video that the military could not make security progress. The question is how sustainable the political situation is, which is still very much in question, though progress has been made.
B.)Clinton was speaking in 1998, when the weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and Saddam was having tiffs with them. Plus, Clinton was under a significant amount of pressure to call Iraq a threat by PNAC. Here is what Scott Ritter, the head inspector in Iraq, had to say about Iraq's WMD capability after 1998:'Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed' - Scott Ritter.
Statements Clinton made under pressure from people who were forming Gore's opposition team are to be viewed somewhat dubiously, especially since they were from the same people who pushed the war. Plus, even if Clinton meant it, which common sense says he was just posing, I will believe Scott Ritter over him.
There is no way you can claim Iraq was a threat or that they had WMD given this and Powell/Rice's statements in 2001. Wolfowitz even admitted that they knew in advance there were no WMD, just settled on it for bureaucratic reasons.http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Everything you mentioned about "the belief of liberal zealots" and foreign government intelligence was comprehensively rebutted by me here in 2008. The facts have proven me right over time, so I am not going over it again. If France was so worried about Iraq, they would have supported the war.
So we have years of you making roundabout, unsubstantiated claims about Iraq's capability to threaten us, and we have the facts. I'll go with the facts.
Peter Feaver, and you, do not even know the definition of partition.
Anyone who calls the Biden plan a forced partition ends the debate right there. They don't understand the issue.
Nothing in the planned called for a partition, it was, for the 100th time, FEDERALISM.
1.)you were told by the moderators to ignore me.
2.)We have been over Iraq a million times before, no one except for you is still saying they were a threat.
Gulf War I-No Democrat ran for President who opposed it in the 90s. Nothing remarkable here, no one was running in a Primary against an incumbent President. The Democrats had no problem putting up Kerry in 2004, nor did Biden have to explain his opposition in order to be on a ticket that won big. Neither you or I have any idea why Sam Nunn did not run for President in 1992, but lets look at some facts: Nunn was widely considered for Sec Defense or Sec of State under Clinton, widely considered as running mate for both Gore and Kerry, was tapped by Clinton to lead the forcible departure of Cedras from Haiti, led the securing of loose nukes in Russia and was widely praised by military brass and colleagues of both parties as an expert on defense issues. Still is today. Safe to say, the people who actually make these decisions, not Republican hacks like you, do not see Gulf War I as some kind of foreign/defense policy litmus test. Not an issue that defines expertise. One can be an expert regardless of their stance on an issue. Another thing we went over in 2008.
Before the Gulf War, containing Saddam was not necessary, he was our friend. I am not going to debate the Gulf War with you again, but suffice it to say, Bush Sr was consulted about Saddam's designs on Kuwait and said nothing when he was given ample opportunity to forcefully tell him that was a no go. Something we would respond to strongly. The whole thing could have been avoided.
No, the sanctions were not over in 2000. You are just dead flat wrong. Once again. The sanctions were in place up until the war began, and what are you talking about the only means of addressing the threat? There was no threat, the inspectors took away all of Saddam's weapons between 1991 and 1998, and Colin Powell and Condi Rice said as much. Condi said he was not even a regional threat. Sanction enforcement could have been done from Kuwait and the no fly zones alone, we did not need the troops in Saudi as Saddam never threatened Saudi in 1990 anyway.
Just 3 examples of where you still don't get it: -
A.)Obama's never said in his video that the military could not make security progress. The question is how sustainable the political situation is, which is still very much in question, though progress has been made.
B.)Clinton was speaking in 1998, when the weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and Saddam was having tiffs with them. Plus, Clinton was under a significant amount of pressure to call Iraq a threat by PNAC. Here is what Scott Ritter, the head inspector in Iraq, had to say about Iraq's WMD capability after 1998:'Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed' - Scott Ritter.
Statements Clinton made under pressure from people who were forming Gore's opposition team are to be viewed somewhat dubiously, especially since they were from the same people who pushed the war. Plus, even if Clinton meant it, which common sense says he was just posing, I will believe Scott Ritter over him.
There is no way you can claim Iraq was a threat or that they had WMD given this and Powell/Rice's statements in 2001. Wolfowitz even admitted that they knew in advance there were no WMD, just settled on it for bureaucratic reasons.Letter to President Clinton on Iraq
Everything you mentioned about "the belief of liberal zealots" and foreign government intelligence was comprehensively rebutted by me here in 2008. The facts have proven me right over time, so I am not going over it again. If France was so worried about Iraq, they would have supported the war.
So we have years of you making roundabout, unsubstantiated claims about Iraq's capability to threaten us, and we have the facts. I'll go with the facts.
3.)Bush and the aircraft carrier. What other President has done anything remotely similar, taking credit for the bravery of the troops? It was a photo op, pure and simple. Does not matter that he acknowledged the long rebuilding process ahead, he said "major combat operations are over" when we had thousands more casualties after that. Whatever, keep defending your draft dodging loser President for using the troops as a photo op while simultaneously proposing to cut combat pay and restrict the viewing of fallen troops' flag draped caskets.
4.)The security situation was already improving in 2006, the surge helped with security, no one denies this, but the political situation is still extremely volatile and not really capable of being judged as of yet. The Democrats were not advocating immediate withdrawl or abandonment, but a responsible time line that left a residual training force behind to assist the Iraqis. A time line which, by the way, Bush accepted. Bottom line, you have no idea what would have happened had the surge not taken place, don't pretend to, it makes you look bad. The casualty levels in 2010 are very small, good observation- I was talking about the Spring/Summer of 2007, right after the surge, when they were EXTREMELY HIGH.
MOST ABSURD THING EVER SAID ON INTERFERENCE IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE MURDER RATES IN IRAQ AND THE US ARE EVEN COMPARABLE: FOXNews.com - Iraq Homicide Rate 10 Times New York City's - U.S. & World
Informed Comment
Iraq Body Count
Take the total number of 2008 murders, divide by the population of Iraq: .012 The US: .0054: No time to work out the exact per/100,000 rate, but it is clear from this that the murder rate is exponentially lower here.
Common sense, Strongbow, is America a war zone? Do you need a tank to go down any streets here? Do we have a functioning government with the capacity to defend and enforce its laws, or are we like Iraq? Are we the most dangerous place in the world for any religious group? Iraq: The most dangerous place in the world for Christians – Telegraph Blogs
You really show your ignorance when you make statements like this. If you really think Iraq is safer than here, maybe you should go live there! You'd want this country back pretty damn quick.
My parting suggestion to you before I add you to my ignore list as I should have done before: Stop the cutting and the pasting of material you clearly do not understand from discredited Republican sites. Step away from the propaganda, pick up an intelligence report, pick up Congressional hearings testimony, google intelligence officials and world leaders who have testified to Bush's lying or blatant misrepresentation of Iraq intelligence, read the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union address and Bush getting called out by Tenet for this, etc. Why would he out Plame if he had nothing to hide? Long story short, look in the real world where the one man you are manically defending regardless of the facts has been repudiated many times over by credible people(not just liberal zealots) all across the political spectrum.
2.)We have been over Iraq a million times before, no one except for you is still saying they were a threat.
Gulf War I-No Democrat ran for President who opposed it in the 90s. Nothing remarkable here, no one was running in a Primary against an incumbent President. The Democrats had no problem putting up Kerry in 2004, nor did Biden have to explain his opposition in order to be on a ticket that won big. Neither you or I have any idea why Sam Nunn did not run for President in 1992, but lets look at some facts: Nunn was widely considered for Sec Defense or Sec of State under Clinton, widely considered as running mate for both Gore and Kerry, was tapped by Clinton to lead the forcible departure of Cedras from Haiti, led the securing of loose nukes in Russia and was widely praised by military brass and colleagues of both parties as an expert on defense issues. Still is today. Safe to say, the people who actually make these decisions, not Republican hacks like you, do not see Gulf War I as some kind of foreign/defense policy litmus test. Not an issue that defines expertise. One can be an expert regardless of their stance on an issue. Another thing we went over in 2008.
Before the Gulf War, containing Saddam was not necessary, he was our friend. I am not going to debate the Gulf War with you again, but suffice it to say, Bush Sr was consulted about Saddam's designs on Kuwait and said nothing when he was given ample opportunity to forcefully tell him that was a no go. Something we would respond to strongly. The whole thing could have been avoided.
No, the sanctions were not over in 2000. You are just dead flat wrong. Once again. The sanctions were in place up until the war began, and what are you talking about the only means of addressing the threat? There was no threat, the inspectors took away all of Saddam's weapons between 1991 and 1998, and Colin Powell and Condi Rice said as much. Condi said he was not even a regional threat. Sanction enforcement could have been done from Kuwait and the no fly zones alone, we did not need the troops in Saudi as Saddam never threatened Saudi in 1990 anyway.
Just 3 examples of where you still don't get it: -
A.)Obama's never said in his video that the military could not make security progress. The question is how sustainable the political situation is, which is still very much in question, though progress has been made.
B.)Clinton was speaking in 1998, when the weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and Saddam was having tiffs with them. Plus, Clinton was under a significant amount of pressure to call Iraq a threat by PNAC. Here is what Scott Ritter, the head inspector in Iraq, had to say about Iraq's WMD capability after 1998:'Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed' - Scott Ritter.
Statements Clinton made under pressure from people who were forming Gore's opposition team are to be viewed somewhat dubiously, especially since they were from the same people who pushed the war. Plus, even if Clinton meant it, which common sense says he was just posing, I will believe Scott Ritter over him.
There is no way you can claim Iraq was a threat or that they had WMD given this and Powell/Rice's statements in 2001. Wolfowitz even admitted that they knew in advance there were no WMD, just settled on it for bureaucratic reasons.Letter to President Clinton on Iraq
Everything you mentioned about "the belief of liberal zealots" and foreign government intelligence was comprehensively rebutted by me here in 2008. The facts have proven me right over time, so I am not going over it again. If France was so worried about Iraq, they would have supported the war.
So we have years of you making roundabout, unsubstantiated claims about Iraq's capability to threaten us, and we have the facts. I'll go with the facts.
3.)Bush and the aircraft carrier. What other President has done anything remotely similar, taking credit for the bravery of the troops? It was a photo op, pure and simple. Does not matter that he acknowledged the long rebuilding process ahead, he said "major combat operations are over" when we had thousands more casualties after that. Whatever, keep defending your draft dodging loser President for using the troops as a photo op while simultaneously proposing to cut combat pay and restrict the viewing of fallen troops' flag draped caskets.
4.)The security situation was already improving in 2006, the surge helped with security, no one denies this, but the political situation is still extremely volatile and not really capable of being judged as of yet. The Democrats were not advocating immediate withdrawl or abandonment, but a responsible time line that left a residual training force behind to assist the Iraqis. A time line which, by the way, Bush accepted. Bottom line, you have no idea what would have happened had the surge not taken place, don't pretend to, it makes you look bad. The casualty levels in 2010 are very small, good observation- I was talking about the Spring/Summer of 2007, right after the surge, when they were EXTREMELY HIGH.
MOST ABSURD THING EVER SAID ON INTERFERENCE IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE MURDER RATES IN IRAQ AND THE US ARE EVEN COMPARABLE: FOXNews.com - Iraq Homicide Rate 10 Times New York City's - U.S. & World
Informed Comment
Iraq Body Count
Take the total number of 2008 murders, divide by the population of Iraq: .012 The US: .0054: No time to work out the exact per/100,000 rate, but it is clear from this that the murder rate is exponentially lower here.
Common sense, Strongbow, is America a war zone? Do you need a tank to go down any streets here? Do we have a functioning government with the capacity to defend and enforce its laws, or are we like Iraq? Are we the most dangerous place in the world for any religious group? Iraq: The most dangerous place in the world for Christians – Telegraph Blogs
You really show your ignorance when you make statements like this. If you really think Iraq is safer than here, maybe you should go live there! You'd want this country back pretty damn quick.
My parting suggestion to you before I add you to my ignore list as I should have done before: Stop the cutting and the pasting of material you clearly do not understand from discredited Republican sites. Step away from the propaganda, pick up an intelligence report, pick up Congressional hearings testimony, google intelligence officials and world leaders who have testified to Bush's lying or blatant misrepresentation of Iraq intelligence, read the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union address and Bush getting called out by Tenet for this, etc. Why would he out Plame if he had nothing to hide? Long story short, look in the real world where the one man you are manically defending regardless of the facts has been repudiated many times over by credible people(not just liberal zealots) all across the political spectrum.
Of course it did. He accepted minimum wage, 9/11 recommendations and a time line. The Democrats did not get their way on the surge, which was a 23% increase, not 33 as you say. I'm not wrong here.
All well and good. I never denied that. I don't have to agree with Baker on everything to know that he is not an ideological nut like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney. That is the point I was making.
On to the ignore feature, Strongbow.
All well and good. That did not translate to allowing the full bill to go for a vote in December. A bill that was now without a public option entirely, something she had reservations about when she voted it out of Finance Committee. So it is a little odd that Snowe had what was her biggest public reservation removed entirely from the bill between when she voted yes and when she voted no. In a cynic's world, it shows just how far "R" party loyalty goes these days.
10-4. I shouldn't have suggested it was you using Inhofe, it was the Fox article.
Biden has a way of talking and never shutting up(lol), but his position, as I pointed out is not unreasonable. He at least defends it with examples, explains himself, etc. Nothing like Republicans who bring the talking points to Larry King and just repeat them endlessly.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Office of Management and Budget had it at 1%. Could not find the numbers, but that is not too far from what we have been hearing from objective sources all along.
The Congressional Budget Office did a study debunking Republican claims that this would kill the private market. 6- 10 million would sign up they figured. Divide that by 305 million Americans and you have 1.9% and 3.2% respectively.
PERRspectives: CBO Slams GOP Claim on Public Option and Employer Coverage
A Public Option Primer - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1(I know this is Obama, but everything he says here can be verified with a few google clicks)
The point I was making is that the public option was way too insignificant(in terms of market share) to make a difference in prices and by the same token, was way too insignificant an item for Lieberman to get his panties in a bunch over. Sure, he could have registered his preference for dropping it, as I certainly would of had I been a Senator, but to let something this small derail your support for the entire bill as he was doing? I think not. That was an excuse for the real reason- the health care lobbyists own Lieberman.
My personal opinion is and always was that the public option is a bad idea- it left the Democrats open to false socialism charges and at the same time, did nothing to address competition or costs. It was a bone for the far left in hopes they would take it in place of the single payer they have always wanted but do not have anywhere the number of Democratic Party votes to get. In spite of what Republicans say, the US is not Sweden. That is just as true with Democrats in power as it is with Republicans.
Only you would find it better to discuss things condensed down to a few bullet points. Better than intelligent discussion, right?
The insinuation here is that I am a predictable broken record and not you??
I have never seen you depart from a talking point, where I always have issue specific points to bring.
So try it again, Indy and tell me where anything I said did not happen.
Go ahead and show me where the Democrats filibustered large amounts of Bush's agenda. Show me more than a few Republicans who are not on board with the extreme right wing of their party. I can give you a whole list of various ideologically diverse groups within the Democratic party. We have liberals, moderates, conservatives, what do you have? What was wrong with my analysis of the Republican nuclear option threats in 2005? Where am I wrong about Delay's tactics in holding the floor open for a vote on the prescription drug benefit longer and longer so he could go to appropriations and get the wavering Republican some pork? Tell me how you like paying for the prescription drug benefit, which could have been done with about 500% more effectiveness at half the cost.
Yes, but this does not show how this legislation is "so bad even the supermajority would not take it."
Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Conrad and Durbin have all supported cap and trade.
This is not a repudiation of the idea itself, but rather, a perfect case study in the "politicians have no balls" textbook.
They are talking elections, and election year politics, only worried about their short term electoral prospects. Obama has my respect because he sees the fundamental issues like health care and climate change as worth losing an election to get done. He talks to the American people like adults, which is somehow, in the world of people like Palin, talking down to them. Makes him an elite.
Congress will never live up to the standards of you or I, bluer white! They can not walk and chew gum at the same time, and they routinely get so little done that we would be fired from our jobs for doing 50% more than them!
They can pass a jobs bill, that is actually going quite smoothly, but there is only so much they can do about the economy. Any economist will tell you that no matter who was in office, unemployment was going to keep rising throughout 2009. Obama told us this. I don't know why these Senators don't go out there and explain this- that there was no economically feasible way to have 5.5% unemployment this year and we have actually done quite a bit that has helped: the stimulus(yes, its helped alot) and now the jobs bill.
As usual, they have decided to do all this economic posturing when in reality, anything they do beyond stimulus, jobs bill and credit loosening(done or advancing at a fast pace) will not knock the unemployment rate down by more than it already will fall just due to the recovery.
It will be these Senators who regret talking tough and promising to be one man job creating machines when in November, we have around 8.5% unemployment. The economy is getting better, and the Congress deserves credit for bringing it back from the brink, but they should be honest and not pretend to be able to defy economic gravity.
Either way, showing disagreement with the timing of climate change legislation on the part of Democratic Senators is no way a repudiation of the entire idea of cap and trade. More an acknowledgment of the fact that we don't feel like working or explaining our positions to the voters.
Obama acknowledged this reality that the Senators speak to by trying to do Climate Change in 2009, which the Democrats were on board with and the Republicans were not. So it was the GOP obstruction machine that pushed things into 2010 in the first place.
Well this is a surprise. I was never told to put anyone on an ignore list. I do recall you claiming that you would never ever respond again to someone with the name strongbow or STING2. But, I guess you changed your mind.
What a turn around. Thanks for responding. LOL, the majority of the US military as shown through the annual military times polls still consider Saddam a threat worth removing from power. Colin Powel, Michael O'Halen, Kenneth Pollack, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, James Baker, as well as many other prominent figures still consider that removing Saddam from power was the right thing given the threat he posed to the region and the world.
He said in the video that "we can send 15,000, 20,000 or 30,000 more troops, but that it would not make any significant difference on the ground. In fact, there is another video where he says the SURGE will make things WORSE! LOL
Wrong again! On December 16, 1998, all of the inspectors had been withdrawn from Iraq because they Iraqi's were preventing them from being able to do any work.
LOL, Clinton did what he thought was in the best interest of the United States at the time and simply stated what the intelligence showed, and what Saddam's behavior showed, that he was indeed a THREAT. Can find anyone in December 1998 that did NOT consider Iraq a THREAT?
If people did not consider Saddam a THREAT, there would be no attempt to keep together the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history ever mounted against a single government. The United States would not be dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of bombs on Iraq in the middle of December 1998 if Saddam was NOT a threat.
Well, the last time that Scott Ritter was actually in Iraq and in fact in his testimony before congress in December 1998, this is not at all what he said.
Something happen to Scott Ritter after 1998, and he even made a movie with the help of Saddam.
Then Scott Ritter was arrested attempting to pick up a 15 year old girl at Burger King. To bad Chris Hanson's Dateline MSNBC show was not around at the time.
Scott Ritter's on testimony from 1998 contradicts what he said later. His strange behavior later on also shows that he seemed to be having some problems.
In any event, the overwhelming resources of the US intelligence community showed that Saddam still had WMD capabilities and other assets that were in violation of the Gulf War Ceace Fire agreement.
Even Scott Ritter in December 1998 in his testimony before Congress said that Iraq had not been disarmed and that there were still thousands of stocks of WMD unaccounted for!!!!!!!!
If you want to believe one person, Scott Ritter statements years later after 1998, over the entire US intelligence community and foreign policy establisment as well as the President and his national security team go ahead. Clinton was not being pressured into anything, nor was he posing! LOL
If anyone's behavior was indeed questionable, Scott Ritter's attempts to pick up underage girls and make a movie with the help of Saddam would show that he is the only one who's thinking may have been compromised in some way!
Powell and Rice did not say Saddam was not a threat in 2001. They never said Saddam had complied with the UN Security Council Resolutions, and that there was no need to try and rebuild the crumbling sanctions and weapons embargo at the time.
Again, even if we disregard WMD capabilities lets just look at Saddam's conventional military capabilies in 2001:
Total Armed Forces manpower: 400,000
Total number of main battle tanks: nearly 3,000
Total number of artillery pieces: over 2,000
Total number of armored personal carriers: over 2,000
Total number of combat aircraft: A little over 300.
Those are well known facts. That level of conventional military strength alone would pose a threat even to a medium sized well armed country. But the country were really looking at is little Kuwait. The CIA and US military admitted at the time that Saddam still had the capability to OVERRUN KUWAIT and even strick into the Saudi Oil Fields in northern Saudi Arabia if SADDAM made an ALL OUT effort to do so!
In fact, in October of 1994, Saddam moved just TWO of his Republican Guard Armored divisions to the border with Kuwait and the United States mobilized nearly 100,000 troops and sent them to Kuwait. The only problem was that it took TWO MONTHS for all these troops to get there and be in place.
It only took 12 hours in August of 1990, for TWO of Saddam's Republican Guard divisions to overrun Kuwait!!!!!!
All this WITHOUT considering how WMD would play a role in adding to Saddam's capabilities of what he could do in the Persian Gulf!
LOL, maybe in ones dreams.
When it came for voting for things at the United Nations, France voted for the resolution 1441 which authorized the the coalition invasion of Iraq. Then in the summer of 2003, FRANCE voted to support the resolution that AUTHORIZED the occupation which resulted from the INVASION of Iraq, RESOLUTION 1483. EVERY YEAR SINCE 2003, FRANCE HAS VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ BY COALITION FORCES!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, you have not listed any facts. I have listed factual figures for Iraq's conventional military forces at the time. There is also the factual intelligence the CIA had at the time on Iraq which indicated he had WMD. There is also the UN weapons inspectors who still said that Saddam had not accounted for THOUSANDS OF STOCKS OF WMD. Remember, the key issue here is VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT! Saddam was still in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions at the time of the March 2003 invasion.
Colin Powel, James Baker, the Clintons, most of Clintons advisors from when he was president, the majority of the US military all still say that Saddam was a threat that had to be removed from power.
The issue goes far beyond simply whether or not Saddam had WMD in 2003. It involves the the crumbling of the key components of containment, the Sanctions and Weapons Embargo placed on Iraq. This was starting to severely erode by 2000 and the ability to fix or restart it was being rebuffed by many key countries. Without an effective sanctions and embargo regime, containment of Saddam would be IMPOSSIBLE! The only alternative to containment, is REGIME REMOVAL!
So even if you dismissed all the CIA intelligence on Saddam's WMD capabilities at the time, and you dismissed all the unaccounted for stocks of WMD which the UN Weapons inspectors reported at the time, the mere fact that the key components of containment were essentially gone by 2003 by itself made the removal of Saddam from power a necessity!
Yes, three largely autonomous regions with a weak central government to control the borders and distribute the oil. IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN IRAQ TODAY? Of course not!
The Iraqi military which is majority SHIA is deployed through out a Iraq except in the very far north. The Bush plan for a palimentary style government is what is being followed. Its how each election is being conducted. There is no such thing as Sunni-stan or Shia-stan. You don't have a seperate constitution or seperate laws for these non-existent autonomous regions.
The only region that has some sort of autonomy are the far northern Kurdish area's. But Mosul and Kirkuk are largely under the control of the Iraqi central government.
You do not have a Shia military, Sunni military and Kurdish military like in Bosnia early on where there was a Serb military, Croat military and Bosnian muslim military. OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE IRAQI MILITARY!
Biden is not even following the Biden plan!
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Well it would be easier than answering your "all over the place" posts. I applaud you for taking the time but there is something to be said for concise answers as well.
And your tone. Maybe it's just me but when you write "I think it was Bush who did whatever the f he wanted at all costs, pal," I feel like you're pushing me in the chest trying to provoke a bar fight or something. Are you auditioning to be spokesman for the "angry-Left" or something?
Dems held up what was to be a center piece of Bush's 2nd term. Social security reform. They also stymied banking reform. We're paying for both of those now.
You completely misread the internal fight in the GOP. The rebellion is against the "go along with big govnt, just get along" moderates, not the "extreme right wing," whatever that is.
So can I. You have the socialists, the progressives, the liberals, the anti-capitalists, the militants, the radicals, the hyphenated caucuses, the truly unhinged and a few moderates on abortion or out-of-control spending.
"We" have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, hawk conservatives, squishy moderates, the Maine gals, a maverick, a terminator, a Palin and of course an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, sexist, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees, aka Scott Brown.
The Republicans only threatened the "nuclear option" in response to the Democrat's before unknown filibustering of judicial nominees. Republicans have respected the senate's advise and consent role whereas Democrats act more to block or embarrass. You can point to no Republican senate doing to a Clinton or Obama selection what Democrats did to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or judge Alito. The last 3 Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court passed with an avg of 14 no votes. The last 3 nominees of Republican presidents got an avg of 37 no votes.
All I remember in detail is that the 2003 Democratic Drug Benefit was much more expensive and was to be government-managed whereas the final bipartisan bill passed in the Republican congress was much less expensive (400 billion) and insisted on private insurance plans.
Well this is a surprise. I was never told to put anyone on an ignore list. I do recall you claiming that you would never ever respond again to someone with the name strongbow or STING2. But, I guess you changed your mind. What a turn around. Thanks for responding.
LOL, the majority of the US military as shown through the annual military times polls still consider Saddam a threat worth removing from power. Colin Powel, Michael O'Halen, Kenneth Pollack, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, James Baker, as well as many other prominent figures still consider that removing Saddam from power was the right thing given the threat he posed to the region and the world.
Sam Nuns position on the Gulf War at the time in 1992 prevented him from running for President. In hind site, the Democrats position that SANCTIONS alone could get Saddam out of Kuwait proven resoundly false, and was rejected by the rest of the international community including FRANCE which supported the invasion with military forces.
The decision of whether to use force or not in 1991 was a key litmus test from the point of political/security/ and military decisions. It involved ones ability to accurately assess Saddam's capabiliities as well as the coalitions military capabilities. You had to understand why sanctions would not work in this situation, the consequences to the world of waiting, as well as understand technical military capabilities and strategy of the forces involved.
Time has a way of eroding events of the past and the overwhelming success of the 1991 Gulf War and its short duration has meant that there are many people who have either forgotten the events that surrounded it or are in fact completely ignorant of what happened. Thats part of the reason why Kerry was able to run in 2004 without this dogging him too much as well as Biden in 2008. But in 1992 it would have been impossible for either of them to win the nomination for the Democratic party, let alone be elected as President because of their position on the Gulf War.
LOL, another liberal Democratic myth. In July of 1990 when Saddam first moved his Republican Guard divisions to the border of Kuwait, almost no one believed that Saddam would actually invade the country let alone overrun it and annex it. All of the Arab states were adament that Saddam was only bluffing. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE ARAB WORLD HAD ONE ARAB STATE INVADED OR ATTACKED ANOTHER!!!!!
AT the CIA and throughout the US intelligence community, the overwhemling concensus was that an invasion was definitely not going to happen. There were only 3 CIA officers that believed and invasion was going to happen. One of them was KENNETH POLLACK who later became Clinton's chief advisor on Iraq.
Kenneth Pollack also felt after the invasion that Saddam believed that the United States would respond immediately with military force. The evidence for this is the fact that it only took 2 Republican Guard divisions to overrun the country in 12 hours, but in the hours after that, Saddam sent the rest of his Republican guard divisions into Kuwait along with regular Iraqi army troops.
This shows that Saddam fully expected a US military response to his invasion and that he was not at all detered by such a prospect. After all Saddam had often said that the United States was weak in that they "gave up after losing 50,000 troops in Vietnam, while he had continued in his war with Iran after losing 50,000 troops in ONE BATTLE!
It was actually only after the United States demand Saddam to leave Kuwait and began sending military troops to Saudi Arabia, that Saddam officially annexed Kuwait.
Next, Saddam was given 6 months to withdraw his forces in the face of a massive coalition military build up in Saudi Arabia. If Saddam was not really intent and taking and holding Kuwait in the face of certain US military opposition, he had a perfect opportunity here to just walk away. HE DIDN'T, which is the nail in the coffin in this idea that some sort of US diplomacy in the summer of 1990 could have prevented Saddam's invasion of the country!
Bluer White
New Yorker
I think it can get better, but we'll probably have to wait until the shenanigans of an election year are over. The jury is out on Scott Brown, but he has the chance to be an independent-minded guy. I was watching a little Meet The Press this morning, former Congressman Harold Ford was on, and he would be an excellent Senate candidate out of NY. Ford's on the Morning Joe show pretty often too, he makes a lot of sense and has a great presence.
I agree, presidents can't push a button and magically create or destroy jobs. And that goes for the economy under Clinton, Bush, and Obama (since that's argued in here all the time). It's so much more complicated than simply attributing success or failure to the White House.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Remember Miguel Estrada being blocked from the federal bench?
When Sotomayor was picked, and politicians were making a big deal about her personal Latina story, it reminded me of some of the same politicians derailing Estrada. I think he would've made it to the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic...and they must have thought the same.
I never said sanctions were over in 2000, I said they had been severely eroded! If there was NO threat as you claim then there would not be any reason for sanctions or weapons embargo. If there was no threat as you claim, there would not be any need for "No Fly Zones" or to contain Saddam in any way shape or form. You're basically contradicting yourself.
Maybe in disneyland but not in the real world. Let me explain to you some basic geography. Iraq is bordered by 6 countries, not just one! Iraq is bordered by Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and yes Kuwait. The no fly zones were not in any involved in sanctions enforcement. They were simply put up to intercept Iraqi combat aircraft over a certain area.
Of all the countries that border Iraq, Kuwait probably has the smallest border. If you only did sanctions enforcement from Kuwait, goods could pass freely overland from Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordon and Saudi Arabia. Sanctions enforcement just from Kuwait would accomplish NOTHING, except to prevent Kuwait from conducting several forms of trade with Iraq.
In order to have an effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime, Iran Turkey, Syria, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait all have to secure and inspect any goods going back and forth across their borders and BLOCK anything that is illegal. Any purchase buy Saddam of food or humanitarian assistence had to be done through the United Nations. The selling of any Iraqi oil for anything outside of that framework was ILLEGAL!
Any such claim by either Powell or Rice would have been 100% incorrect. One's past behavior and current capabilities vs bordering countries is what determines whether one is a threat. The size of Saddam's military conventional military forces alone made him a threat in the region. The proximity of so much of the worlds oil supply to the borders of Iraq made Saddam a threat in the region. If Saddam were not a threat, there would be no need for a sanctions regime and weapons embargo, no need to contain him at all. You don't try to contain and periodically bomb a country that is supposedly not a threat! Why can't you see that?
Now lets take a detail look at the erosion of the sanctions and weapons embargo regime around the year 2000.
1. In 1999, Iraq made $350 million dollars in illegal oil sales. By 2002, this figure had increased to an annual total of $3 BILLION
2. The greatest problem at the time in terms of violating Sanctions was Syria. Syria was letting Iraq pump 250,000 barrels of oil per day through the Iraqi-Syrian Oil pipeline, with the possibility of boosting this figure to as high as 800,000 barrels a day. Trucks are shipping another 50,000 barrels of oil per day across the Syrian border in 2002. The Syrians were also allowing Iraq to import essentially anything it wanted by 2002.
3. Turkey, a US ally was also involved in smuggling Iraqi oil in 2002. On average trucks carried about 150,000 Barrels of oil per day over the Iraqi-Turkish border in 2001, with Turkey planning to increase the level of smuggling by 50%.
4. Iraq made nearly half a Billion dollars from smuggling Iraqi oil through Jordon in 2001.
5. Even Iran has allowed Iraq to smuggle oil over its border or through its waters in the Gulf.
6. As said before with Syria, its not just that Iraq is picking up billions of dollars from smuggling oil by 2002, but that ever more illegal goods are now allowed to flow into Iraq. That was the real danger from the break down of the sanctions and weapons imbargo. That Iraq would be able to import import items illegally for its conventional military forces and WMD programs. With more cash available, Iraq could make breaking the embargo more worthwhile for arms dealers and scientists. Saddam could use the cash to bribe customs agents and other government officials to look the other way when shipments that were claimed to be going to say Jordan or Syria, but were actually headed for Iraq. As smuggling became more important to Iraq's neighbors, they would be more than willing to turn a bliind eye to the flow of illegal goods across their borders.
7. It was very difficult to know at the time what Saddam was successfully able to import by 2002. But here are a few things that were discovered: In June 2002, the Indian government brought charges against the executives of an Indian company for selling atomized aluminum powder and titanium engine parts to Iraq in such quantity and of such quality that India's Defense and Research Development Organization concluded they could have only been intended for chemical warfare and ballistic missile production.
Another example would be in 2000 when the United States discovered that China was constructing a nationwide fiber-optic communication system for the Iraqi government that would have been employed by the Iraqi military and internal security forces. China is a permanent member of the Security Council and here it is violating UN resolutions against Iraq. If a country like China no longer respected the UN sanctions and weapons embargo, its only a matter of time before other countries that were formaly respectful decide to get in on a some of the money being made through illegal trade with Saddam.
8. Another indication of the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo, is the disintegration of the ban on air travel to Iraq. In August of 2000, the Russians began to fly commercial aircraft into Baghdad without permision from the United Nations or an inspection. After this, the floodgates opened. Iraq demanded that countries resume flying to Baghdad if they wanted a share of its oil, and since the Security Council did nothing, Iraq's trade partners lined up. Jordan followed Russia's lead, followed by planes from Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emerites, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Ireland, Iceland, Greece, and FRANCE.
9. A problem with trying to fix the sanctions and weapons embargo by 2002, was that Saddam was now using the sale of his oil, either illegally or through the UN-oil for food program, to politically influence key countries adherence to maintaining any sort of sanctions or an embargo on the country.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You're right. Thanks for reminding me.
He did not take credit for the bravery of ANYONE! Major combat operations were over in Iraq as of May first, 2003. Anyone in the military can testify to the fact who was there at the time. The second phase, the REBUILDING AND SECURING, yes thats right SECURING of Iraq had just begun. Bush said this in the speech at the time. It acknowledges what had just happened in Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the new phase that the mission was entering into. He makes no statement at all about casualties or what type of cost would be the result of the process of REBUILDING AND SECURING IRAQ but that it would be difficult!
As for the other crap, President Clinton also dodged the draft, had his own so called photo ops with the military and restricting the viewing of fallen troops.
Overall military pay under George Bush was increased more than at any other time in US history. According to the Military Times poll nearly 80% of people in the military supported the re-election of George Bush in 2004!
The security situation was improving in 2006? Your obviously completely ignorant of the casualty levels during that year as well as the major explosion in sectarian violence that occured during 2006 do to the bombing of a Key shiat Mosque. The last half of 2006 and the early part of 2007 before most Surge troops got to Iraq was the bloodiest time of the war for Iraqi civilians. Here are the montly casualties charts from iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties. Read and learn!
First is the month and year followed by Iraqi military and police deaths and then civilian deaths:
Aug-08 85 226
Jul-08 98 321
Jun-08 77 373
May-08 110 396
Apr-08 113 631
Mar-08 161 819
Feb-08 110 564
Jan-08 69 485
Dec-07 72 476
Nov-07 89 471
Oct-07 114 565
Sep-07 96 752
Aug-07 76 1598
Jul-07 232 1458
Jun-07 197 1148
May-07 198 1782
Apr-07 300 1521
Mar-07 215 2762
Feb-07 150 2864
Jan-07 91 1711
Dec-06 123 1629
Nov-06 123 1741
Oct-06 224 1315
Sep-06 150 3389
Aug-06 233 2733
Jul-06 217 1063
Jun-06 132 738
May-06 150 969
Apr-06 201 808
Mar-06 191 901
Feb-06 158 688
Jan-06 189 590
Now lets take a look at US monthly combat deaths in Iraq from December 2006 through December 2007:
Dec 2006 - 95
Jan 2007 - 78
Feb 2007 - 71
Mar 2007 - 71
Apr 2007 - 96
May 2007 - 120
June 2007 - 93
July 2007 - 67
Aug 2007 - 56
Sep 2007 - 43
Oct 2007 - 29
Nov 2007 - 29
Dec 2007 - 14
Its important to not that all the surge troops did not ARRIVE in Iraq until the middle of the summer of 2007 and its after that time, once all the surge troops had arrived that there is a steady significant drop in casualties among US troops and among Iraqi civilians and Iraqi military forces.
This dramatically shows the success of the surge. Obama is on record as saying that the Surge would make things in Iraq worse, or do the reverse of what it intended!
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
Latest posts
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
