[iWrite]

Read here.

[chabig]

And this is why he isn't Presidential material:

"I never say the same thing every day." -- Wes Clark

Chris

[voodoo]

The US may just need a guy like Clark as president to get out of the MiddleEast shithole.

He sounds ok - but I'd vote Schwarzenegger so take my recommendation with a grain of salt bleedin' heart liberals

[eklipse]

Sounds like he's on the same page as North Korea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3145966.stm

[macvillage.net]

I agree, Iraq isn't managed right....

But that goes back to the whitehouse, not down the chain of command.

They have said repeatedly that Iraq plans existed in the last Bush administration, Clinton even had them revised an in his desk drawer "Just incase".

Why Bush chose the obvious wrong plan... is just beyond me.

But why go lower, when you should go higher?



Secondly. Me likes Rummy. He's brutally honest and polically incorrect. Funny guy.

Then again, I kinda like Clark as well. He realizes that as soon as we get out and stop messing where we shouldn't. Sooner we can remove ourselves from such high risks.

Terrorism is directly related to foreign policy. He's one of the few that see that.

[spacefreak]

Can't we get another cable news military analyst to run for president?

[AutoJC]

"So when I got out of the military and into business I looked at both parties," Clark explained to the crowd on why he was a Democrat. "I talked to Condoleeza Rice right away. I found out I didn't like her view on foreign policy. She said American troops shouldn't do peacekeeping they should do real fighting

Dr. Rice!!!!!

This, Specifically, Is What Makes Gen. Clark President Material

It makes him material all right.

Too bad it isn't presidential material.

[Logic]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Dr. Rice!!!!!

Since you don't think they should be involved in peacekeeping I guess you want them out of Iraq not later than today? Would that be correct?

[sideus]

Originally posted by chabig:
And this is why he isn't Presidential material:

"I never say the same thing every day." -- Wes Clark

Chris

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Logic:
Since you don't think they should be involved in peacekeeping I guess you want them out of Iraq not later than today? Would that be correct?

They aren't really involved in peacekeeping per se. Someone is needed to train the new police and the new army needed to be a part of a government whose obligation is to protect its citizens.

Once the new government is formed then the military presence should be terminated. Thanks to those who run our government, they haven't been able to either recognize nor sort out the major problems of transition.(which I note in the Iraqi constitution thread)

[Logic]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
They aren't really involved in peacekeeping per se. Someone is needed to train the new police and the new army needed to be a part of a government whose obligation is to protect its citizens.

How are they not involved in peacekeeping. They won the war without any problems, and now they are what exactly? What you said above is a typical peacekeeping mission. Train both a new military and law enforcement system. Typical peacekeeping mission IMO. But if you could elaborate on how this is "not a peacekeeping mission per se", I'll listen.

Once the new government is formed then the military presence should be terminated. Thanks to those who run our government, they haven't been able to either recognize nor sort out the major problems of transition.(which I note in the Iraqi constitution thread)

The problem with different ethnic and religious groups? Yes that is a problem, but in my opinion a problem the UN has the most experience in dealing with and also a problem the UN has been able to solve on several occasions. Meaning that if you(the US gov) would have gotten the UN with you in this operation much of your troops would have returned, you would need to put less money into rebuilding Iraq, and you wouldn't be as critised around the world.

So do you think it was a wise idea to go into this war alone?

[thunderous_funker]

I'm amused by all the Republicans saying Clark can't be pres because he's too Republican. In fact, his views on use of force sound exactly like Dubya during the 2000 campaign.

October 3, 2000: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that."


"I'm worried about the fact I'm running against a man who uses 'military' and 'nation-building' in the same breath." (St. Charles, Mo., November 2, 2000)

"I worry a lot about running against an opponent who uses the words 'U.S. military' and 'nation-building' in the same breath. I worry about an unfocused mission."(Tampa, Fla., November 5, 2000)


The following quotes are from the 3 Oct debates in 2000:

Q: If you had been president, would any of those interventions not have happened: Somalia?

Bush: It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.

Q: What is the role of the U.S. in the world?

BUSH: I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. We went into Russia, we said here’s some IMF money. It ended up in Chernomyrdin’s pocket. And yet we played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia are Russians. I’m not sure where the vice president’s coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

Q: Should the people of the world fear us, or see us as a friend?

BUSH: They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.

Bush: But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Bush: I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the US and world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that’s well-equipped. I want to have antiballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail a friend.

Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means:

• Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.
• Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
• Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.
• And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.



BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I’d come in second. I readily admit, I’m not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. [There was a question about] deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I’m concerned that we’re overdeployed around the world. You see, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In fact, his views on use of force sound exactly like Dubya during the 2000 campaign.

Thousands of american civilians slaughtered on American soil as a result of a terrorist attack will do that.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Thousands of american civilians slaughtered on American soil as a result of a terrorist attack will do that.

Do we have to remind you that nobody from Iraq were on those planes?

At the very least he's guilty of bad aiming (Iraq is not Saudi Arabia!!!)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Do we have to remind you that nobody from Iraq were on those planes?

At the very least he's guilty of bad aiming (Iraq is not Saudi Arabia!!!)

You obviously didn't read the post to which I was replying. My point was that we came under attack. T_funk's post, nor my reply, even mentioned Iraq.

I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people. Even though you have no problems with Saddam's actions, or the actions of his sons (like stealing 12-year-old girls from their families and raping them), you really need to get over the fact that they are no longer in power.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You obviously didn't read the post to which I was replying. My point was that we came under attack. T_funk's post, nor my reply, even mentioned Iraq.

That IS the point.

Retaliation is fine. There was very little opposition to the war on Afghanistan. We didn't come under attack from Iraq. Or did I miss that one? Preemptive, unilateral invasion is NOT retaliation.

BTW, I supported military action against Iraq. Just not in the haphazard, bungled way Bush went about it.

Originally posted by spacefreak:

I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people. Even though you have no problems with Saddam's actions, or the actions of his sons (like stealing 12-year-old girls from their families and raping them), you really need to get over the fact that they are no longer in power.

Just because I disagree with my governments actions doesn't mean I support despots. What an idiot. You obviously equate dissent with treason. That'll do you fine whenever you get your own fascist potentate. Until then you're going to have to live with people who respect clivil liberties. Why is it all the flag-waving fascists who gush about how great America is are so threatened by people who are exercising their rights (dissent)? The very rights they are supposedly so proud of?

[vmpaul]

Great post t_f.

I do believe there's an exit strategy though. We're just not hearing it now. When it's politically valuable (say around July - Sept of 2004) for Bush to release he will. Of course it will have no basis in reality or effectiveness. It will only be what Bush & Rove think will satiate the public. I just hope the Dems can see the play and are ready for a counter.

Not to derail the thread but I heard this yesterday. By April or May of next year no matter what the situation in Iraq is we'll see the majority of the troops stationed being barricaded more and more to remove them from potential harm. It won't due to have Americans being killed daily to hamper Bush's re-election campaign. We shouldn't underestimate Karl Rove's machiavellian machinations.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people.

You must have us confused with your heroes Reagan and Rumsfeld.

[chris v]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You must have us confused with your heroes Reagan and Rumsfeld.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

CV

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You obviously didn't read the post to which I was replying. My point was that we came under attack. T_funk's post, nor my reply, even mentioned Iraq.

I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people. Even though you have no problems with Saddam's actions, or the actions of his sons (like stealing 12-year-old girls from their families and raping them), you really need to get over the fact that they are no longer in power.

You just contradicted yourself, again. The point is that Bush changed his tune even though we weren't attacked by Iraq or anyone even affiliated with Iraq. In other words, before 9/11, Bush the isolationist was also guilty of, to borrow your own words: "supporting Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens" etc. and so were you if you voted for him on that basis (of course, that isn't really true, but then it isn't really true that vmpaul "supported" those things either - you're just being skewered with your own "hateful" hyperbole).

Bush, therefore, has become a rather avid "nation-builder," directly contradicting his own campaign rhetoric, overcommitting and failing to have a well-defined exit strategy. I don't condemn him for changing course - it's often necessary - but it hardly seems reasonable to condemn others for expressing some of the very same views that he campaigned on.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people. Even though you have no problems with Saddam's actions, or the actions of his sons (like stealing 12-year-old girls from their families and raping them), you really need to get over the fact that they are no longer in power.

Look at this image:



How many colors do you see?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Look at this image:



How many colors do you see?

Hah!

<sarcasm>I had to look really close, but now I'm sure: 3 - red, green, and blue. </sarcasm>

BG

[vmpaul]

Touche, t_f, chris v, zigzag. Nice retorts.

Too bad we probably won't hear a response from spacefreak. That's his M.O. - just another hit-and-run troll.

Has he ever argued a point on merit?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Touche, t_f, chris v, zigzag. Nice retorts.

Too bad we probably won't hear a response from spacefreak. That's his M.O. - just another hit-and-run troll.

Nice personal attack.

I'm just amazed that you have to cheer and encourage supporters to feel big and strong. If you want to debate me, go for it. But there is no need to play this "let's gang up on him and attack him" strategy, similar to the way you and your cohorts try to rouse up each and every hatchet job aimed at Bush and Co.

If you don't hear a response from me, it is becuase (1) your responses are whacked out and too looney to get into, or (2) I am working so that I can pay my mortgage and living expenses, and so that I can grow my business.

I realize that sounds foreign to you, but it's the truth nonetheless.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You just contradicted yourself, again. The point is that Bush changed his tune even though we weren't attacked by Iraq or anyone even affiliated with Iraq. In other words, before 9/11, Bush the isolationist was also guilty of, to borrow your own words: "supporting Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens" etc. and so were you if you voted for him on that basis (of course, that isn't really true, but then it isn't really true that vmpaul "supported" those things either - you're just being skewered with your own "hateful" hyperbole).

Bush, therefore, has become a rather avid "nation-builder," directly contradicting his own campaign rhetoric, overcommitting and failing to have a well-defined exit strategy. I don't condemn him for changing course - it's often necessary - but it hardly seems reasonable to condemn others for expressing some of the very same views that he campaigned on.

Wrong. I've wanted Saddam out of power since the 1st Gulf War. Unfortunately, none of the candidates ran on that platform, and I had to select my choice based on other issues.

Bush campaigned with the foreign policy view that we are not the policemen of the world. He said our military's purpose was to "win wars", not act as a global police force.

There is also no evidence that Bush made any type of comment hinting at a willingness to appease Saddam during his campaign. And if the UN, on Bush's inauguration day, came to Bush and said "we want your approval and help to rid Iraq of the Saddam Regime, I highly doubt he would have disagreed.

Since we both seem (?) to agree that 9/11 changed a lot of things, that is what I am trying to focus on. EVEN THOUGH SADDAM DID NOT FLY THE PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS, my views definitely turned towards supporting pre-emptive actions. The Bush Admin as well.

Ultimately, I am questioning the left's judgement and reasoning, and I despise the left's blinding hatred of Bush and their attempted hatchet jobs at any official with an (R) next to their name - folks who have worked hard, made the right decisions, and dedicated themselves to public service.



I understand the general point you are making in this post, but you're a bit off.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
What an idiot.

Thanks for the attack, again.

You obviously equate dissent with treason. That'll do you fine whenever you get your own fascist potentate. Until then you're going to have to live with people who respect clivil liberties. Why is it all the flag-waving fascists who gush about how great America is are so threatened by people who are exercising their rights (dissent)? The very rights they are supposedly so proud of?

It is not your dissent or freedom of speech that is being questioned. It is your judgement, logic, and reasoning.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Thanks for the attack, again.


It is not your dissent or freedom of speech that is being questioned. It is your judgement, logic, and reasoning.

Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot, Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot, Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle

At least you're original.

BTW - to question one's judgement, or debate a viewpoint, is not the same as calling someone an idiot or a troll.

Does anyone here want to discuss the CNN analyst running for president?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nice personal attack.

I'm just amazed that you have to cheer and encourage supporters to feel big and strong. If you want to debate me, go for it. But there is no need to play this "let's gang up on him and attack him" strategy, similar to the way you and your cohorts try to rouse up each and every hatchet job aimed at Bush and Co.

If you don't hear a response from me, it is becuase (1) your responses are whacked out and too looney to get into, or (2) I am working so that I can pay my mortgage and living expenses, and so that I can grow my business.

I realize that sounds foreign to you, but it's the truth nonetheless.

And I suppose you were taking the High Road when you posted:

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I realize that you supported Saddam's slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and that you supported his desire to stay in power and add to the over 150 palace compounds he had built with money stolen from his people. Even though you have no problems with Saddam's actions, or the actions of his sons (like stealing 12-year-old girls from their families and raping them), you really need to get over the fact that they are no longer in power.

You continue to assert that lack of support for Dubya's war is total support of Saddam's regime. That is not only a personal attack, but either a calculated effort at ignoring the real historical choices of action or systematic self-delusion.

The fact remains that no two Americans helped Saddam more than Rumsfeld and Reagan. Men for whom you seem to demonstrate unwavering support at every opportunity.

This critical bit of cognitive dissonance would indicate you are either in complete denial over the events of the 1980's or your supposed concern for the plight of Iraqis is nothing more than hollow rhetoric to be used at your convenience in villifying those with whom you disagree.

I'm not sure how much of your UltraPatriot facade will come crumbling down once you wake up to the ugly reality of the Reagan administration's complicity in the atrocities you never hesitate to play lip service to when bashing "Liberals", but perhaps its simply time to let that happen.

Now as for Dubya's total conversion from a Traditional Conservative admittedly suspicious of "nation building" and eshewing "arrogance" to PNAC neoconservative bodly undertaking the complete reordering of the middle east--Dubya is either uncritically defering to the judgement of his cabinet betters or has undergone a radical and fundamental shift in his entire worldview. You can chalk that up to 9/11 trauma if you like, but this is not the policy he pledged to during the campaign.

[vmpaul]

t_f.

He started it first Mom!!!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Wrong. I've wanted Saddam out of power since the 1st Gulf War. Unfortunately, none of the candidates ran on that platform, and I had to select my choice based on other issues.

Bush campaigned with the foreign policy view that we are not the policemen of the world. He said our military's purpose was to "win wars", not act as a global police force.

There is also no evidence that Bush made any type of comment hinting at a willingness to appease Saddam during his campaign. And if the UN, on Bush's inauguration day, came to Bush and said "we want your approval and help to rid Iraq of the Saddam Regime, I highly doubt he would have disagreed.

Since we both seem (?) to agree that 9/11 changed a lot of things, that is what I am trying to focus on. EVEN THOUGH SADDAM DID NOT FLY THE PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS, my views definitely turned towards supporting pre-emptive actions. The Bush Admin as well.

Ultimately, I am questioning the left's judgement and reasoning, and I despise the left's blinding hatred of Bush and their attempted hatchet jobs at any official with an (R) next to their name - folks who have worked hard, made the right decisions, and dedicated themselves to public service.

Those are valid points, but mine was to illustrate that it can be equally blind for you to say that a person "supported" Saddam's brutalities just because they disagree with administration policy, especially when some of their criticisms are consistent with Bush's own campaign statements. That doesn't make them "supporters" of Saddam's brutalities any more than Bush himself was 3 years ago.

[edit: tf already put it more eloquently than I did.]

A President can change his mind if he feels that circumstances warrant it. But if what Bush said about overextending, exit planning, and overspending was valid in 2000, it's probably still valid in 2003, 9/11 notwithstanding.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Those are valid points, but mine was to illustrate that it can be equally blind for you to say that a person "supported" Saddam's brutalities just because they disagree with administration policy, especially when some of their criticisms are consistent with Bush's own campaign statements. That doesn't make them "supporters" of Saddam's brutalities any more than Bush himself was 3 years ago.

Ah, that's just spacefreaks pattern.

Somebody challenges his point. He makes an ad hominem attack.

You respond. Then he charges you with making personal attacks.

It's really tiresome.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You continue to assert that lack of support for Dubya's war is total support of Saddam's regime. That is not only a personal attack, but either a calculated effort at ignoring the real historical choices of action or systematic self-delusion.

I support the US war effort that removed Saddam from power, regardless of whether it was 'Dubya's war', or Wesley Clark's war (directed from CNN studios), or anyone else's war. Saddam was a brutal, murderous criminal and menace who needed to be removed, period. All the UN resolutions, sanctions, etc. were not altering Saddam's destructive, thieving, deceitful ways.

Those who arued for appeasement (or more sanctions, years more of inspections, etc.) simply did not consider the plight of the Iraqi people. So when I hear people voice out against the war, I truly feel that they are not looking at the bare essentials of the situation.

Do I feel they were an imminent threat - NO. But I did side with Bush's view that we must confront and remove Saddam "before the threat becomes imminent".

The fact remains that no two Americans helped Saddam more than Rumsfeld and Reagan. Men for whom you seem to demonstrate unwavering support at every opportunity.

This critical bit of cognitive dissonance would indicate you are either in complete denial over the events of the 1980's or your supposed concern for the plight of Iraqis is nothing more than hollow rhetoric to be used at your convenience in villifying those with whom you disagree.

I'm not sure how much of your UltraPatriot facade will come crumbling down once you wake up to the ugly reality of the Reagan administration's complicity in the atrocities you never hesitate to play lip service to when bashing "Liberals", but perhaps its simply time to let that happen.[

That was decades ago, well before Saddam murdered the bulk of his hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis. Furthermore, decades ago, the situation and US foreign policy challenges in the world were quite different.

Just because Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber)'s high school calculus teacher had a large impact on Kaczynski's life doesn't equate to that teacher being an accessory to murder decades later. Stuff happens. Things change.

Now as for Dubya's total conversion from a Traditional Conservative admittedly suspicious of "nation building" and eshewing "arrogance" to PNAC neoconservative bodly undertaking the complete reordering of the middle east--Dubya is either uncritically defering to the judgement of his cabinet betters or has undergone a radical and fundamental shift in his entire worldview. You can chalk that up to 9/11 trauma if you like, but this is not the policy he pledged to during the campaign.

I specifically remember Bush saying in debate of military deployment...

OCTOBER 3, 2000
"Well, if it's in our vital national interests, and that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances are -- defense alliances are threatened. Whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear; whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to -- to -- win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war....I believe we're overextended in too many places. And -- and therefore I want to rebuild the military power."

Where is this radical and fundamental shift in his entire worldview that you advertise? It looks pretty damn consistent to me.

Gotta love the cut/paste/manipulating of a sentence from this Bush debate, a few words mumbled in the john at a Rangers game, a few words spoken to a limo driver on the way to a gala, etc. to further your attempts to discredit Bush. You'll get your cheers from your fellow liberal following here, but mainstream America sees it for what it is - a cheap attempt at a hatchet job.

You also seem to be stuck on the false notion that there is no exit strategy (which there definitely is) There have been numerous estimates given for all different types of scenarios - anywhere from 2-5 years. Don't you keep up on the stories? BTW: Nobody wins a war and pulls out its troops immediately.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Those are valid points, but mine was to illustrate that it can be equally blind for you to say that a person "supported" Saddam's brutalities just because they disagree with administration policy, especially when some of their criticisms are consistent with Bush's own campaign statements. That doesn't make them "supporters" of Saddam's brutalities any more than Bush himself was 3 years ago.

A President can change his mind if he feels that circumstances warrant it. But if what Bush said about overextending, exit planning, and overspending was valid in 2000, it's probably still valid in 2003, 9/11 notwithstanding.

But the context in which Bush stated such was that he felt we were over-extended, so therefore we must invest more into our military (which he did). As for exit planning, there is an exit plan, it's just going to take a few years. Nobody fights and wins a war, then pulls everyone out.

I don't think Bush (or Gore for that matter) anticipated a major reconstruction/renovation of Iraq when discussing budgets on the campaign trail. How could they? We didn't have the 'arguments' for removing Saddam then, and the Clinton/Bush Sr. administrations didn't have the balls to attempt a reconstruction in Iraq.

The supporters of Saddam's brutalities bit...look, if Saddam's not in play, the arguments don't reach a loud enough volume. BUT, when it comes down to our nation pressing for Saddam's adherence to UN resolutions, then with his defiance - the pressing for the removal of Saddam, this is where it's time to step up.

(1) Should Saddam remain in power? This was the decision to be made. Some of you said 'yes'. I said no.

(2) Should the US remove Saddam from power? Some said 'no'. I said yes.

We can go into debates forever over #2. Some will say we needed UN mandates, others will claim that then Saddam would have too much time to prepare counter measures, etc. Whatever....I'd rather not revisit, at least not n this thread.

So you are correct...the "Yes-on-#1" team does not equal the "No-on-#2" team. My bad on that.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm just amazed that you have to cheer and encourage supporters to feel big and strong.

Supporters are the basis of all power. If one has supporters, one is justified in feeling big and strong (not that this necessarily makes one right or wrong).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Supporters are the basis of all power. If one has supporters, one is justified in feeling big and strong (not that this necessarily makes one right or wrong).

Yes on the first.

On the second, i disagree. I'd change it to "When one has supporters, one is more likely to feel big and strong"

It's very much like a pack mentality.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yes on the first.

On the second, i disagree. I'd change it to "When one has supporters, one is more likely to feel big and strong"

It's very much like a pack mentality.

If you have supporters then you have power (at least over people with fewer supporters than you). So, whether or not you're likely to feel big and strong, your justified in doing so if you do.

It is like a pack mentality, but it's still valid.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If you have supporters then you have power (at least over people with fewer supporters than you). So, whether or not you're likely to feel big and strong, your justified in doing so if you do.

"I am justified in my feeling big and strong because I have some supporters. I have power".

This is a Mac message board. The only ones with power here are the moderators.

If some person posting here feels powerful because he has a few people agree with him, he likely needs therapy, counseling, etc.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But the context in which Bush stated such was that he felt we were over-extended, so therefore we must invest more into our military (which he did). As for exit planning, there is an exit plan, it's just going to take a few years. Nobody fights and wins a war, then pulls everyone out.

I don't think anyone can reasonably interpret Bush's campaign statements - even the unedited version - to mean that he was preparing to unilaterally invade Iraq as he has done. Unless he was lying, he was clearly inclined to the contrary. You've said yourself that 9/11 changed everything. Let's not try to play it both ways.

I'm not necessarily criticizing him for changing course - I'm only saying that it's not unreasonable for Clark or anyone else to raise questions about how he has implemented his strategy, especially if those questions are consistent with his own campaign statements. Whether you invade Iraq or not, and whether 9/11 happens or not, you don't want to (a) overextend, (b) overspend, or (c) fail to have a well-defined exit strategy.

Whether an exit strategy of "2-5 years" is "well-defined" can be left for another thread, but I think reasonable people can disagree on the question.

I don't think Bush (or Gore for that matter) anticipated a major reconstruction/renovation of Iraq when discussing budgets on the campaign trail. How could they? We didn't have the 'arguments' for removing Saddam then, and the Clinton/Bush Sr. administrations didn't have the balls to attempt a reconstruction in Iraq.

No one has suggested that Gore or Bush should have anticipated a major reconstruction of Iraq in 2000. Indeed, you've just reinforced my point that Bush himself probably didn't have any such plans in 2000. We're only suggesting that, if one decides to invade a country, one should have a solid, comprehensive, post-war plan. Reasonable people can disagree on whether there was adequate planning in this case. IMO the gross understating of the costs and of the troop and security requirements, the gross overstating of the potential oil revenues, and so forth raise legitimate questions about the planning in this case. Hopefully it'll work out despite those problems.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Whether an exit strategy of "2-5 years" is "well-defined" can be left for another thread, but I think reasonable people can disagree on the question.

We're only suggesting that, if one decides to invade a country, one should have a solid, comprehensive, post-war plan.

There are, and always have been solid, comprehensive post-war plans. Attempts to present otherwise are completely fraudulent. 2-5 years is the range of where the various exit plans (each based on different scenarios) end up. The plan is not a single plan targeted for 2-5 years.

Who's "we"? Who else are you speaking for?

[scoxx]

Clark Campaigns at Light Speed

"We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it," Clark told a group of about 50 people in Newcastle attending a house party -- a tradition in New Hampshire presidential politics that enables well-connected voters to get an up-close look at candidates.

Then, the 58-year-old Arkansas native, who retired from the military three years ago, dropped something of a bombshell on the gathering.

"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it."

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There are, and always have been solid, comprehensive post-war plans. Attempts to present otherwise are completely fraudulent. 2-5 years is the range of where the various exit plans (each based on different scenarios) end up. The plan is not a single plan targeted for 2-5 years.

I don't doubt that there were plans, only whether they were sufficiently solid and comprehensive. The Pentagon is alleged to have said in its own internal evaluation a couple of weeks ago that inadequate time was allowed for planning.

I've defended Wolfowitz on these boards as a very smart cat. Yet he told Congress that, among other things, the invasion would pay for itself from oil revenues. I won't even go into the weapons stuff, the troop estimates, the cost estimates, the security problems, etc.

We're now asking the U.N. for help, apparently because the plan was seriously flawed and we got overextended. Put it all together and you have legitimate questions about whether the plan was "solid and comprehensive."

But the larger point is that one should be able to direct legitimate criticism at the administration's methods without being called a "supporter" of Saddam's atrocities.

Who's "we"? Who else are you speaking for?

I meant "we" as a reference to those of us who appear to think that criticism of the administration's methods isn't the same as being a "supporter" of Saddam's brutalities. I thought that was pretty self-evident, but I don't mean to speak for anyone else.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Those who arued for appeasement (or more sanctions, years more of inspections, etc.) simply did not consider the plight of the Iraqi people. So when I hear people voice out against the war, I truly feel that they are not looking at the bare essentials of the situation.

Again your formulation is absurdly binary.

Not only were their non-military alternatives for ousting Saddam, but different military solutions as well.

We can argue all we want about whether or not those alternatives would have worked to one degree or another, but you're not even allowing anyone to hold an alternate viewpoint. You're asserting that rejection of a US/UK military coup is the same thing as the status quo (before the war, that is). That is wrong. Plain wrong.

Again, you can disagree that other options would have succeeded, but quit pretending there were no options or that anyone not accepting Dubya's option was a Saddam supporter.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That was decades ago, well before Saddam murdered the bulk of his hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis. Furthermore, decades ago, the situation and US foreign policy challenges in the world were quite different.

Just because Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber)'s high school calculus teacher had a large impact on Kaczynski's life doesn't equate to that teacher being an accessory to murder decades later. Stuff happens. Things change.

Seems you've chosen denial.

You know all those mass graves Rummy likes to allude to in his fundraising speeches? Guess when the bodies were put in those mass graves. Go ahead, guess. Yeah, the 80's. When Rummy and Reagan took Iraq off of the "terrorist state" list so they could sell Saddam weapons and technology.

Almost all of the major skeletons in Saddam's closet of brutality are from the 80's using US hardware and money. Not to mention Russian, German, French, etc hardware and money.

Yes. Things change. In 2001, the Kurds were enjoying peace, propserity and autonomy thanks to the no-fly zones. Saddam's death grip on the Shia was lessoned because of the southern no-fly zone.

Yes, some groups continued to suffer from Saddam's brutality, but he was basically operating a regime on par with many of the autocratic regimes that enjoy full US and European support around the world icluding Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kurdistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Columbia.

Recap:

When Saddam was inflicting the worst atrocities on Iraqis he got US money, weapons, technology and the loyalty and protection of Rummy and Reagan.

When Saddam was defanged and basically operating as the ruthless mayor of Bagdad, suddenly the plight of Iraqis is keeping Rummy and you up at night.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Gotta love the cut/paste/manipulating of a sentence from this Bush debate, a few words mumbled in the john at a Rangers game, a few words spoken to a limo driver on the way to a gala, etc. to further your attempts to discredit Bush. You'll get your cheers from your fellow liberal following here, but mainstream America sees it for what it is - a cheap attempt at a hatchet job.

Um, did you not notice that I already posted the exact same Bush quote in it's entirety in my earlier post?

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You also seem to be stuck on the false notion that there is no exit strategy (which there definitely is) There have been numerous estimates given for all different types of scenarios - anywhere from 2-5 years. Don't you keep up on the stories? BTW: Nobody wins a war and pulls out its troops immediately.

I guess you don't remember Gen. Shinseki telling Congress in Feb-May (before the war) that occupation might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers, up to 5 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld said he was "widly off the mark" and Shinseki was forced to resign a month or so later.

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:




That was decades ago, well before Saddam murdered the bulk of his hundreds of thousands of fellow Iraqis. Furthermore, decades ago, the situation and US foreign policy challenges in the world were quite different.

Just because Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber)'s high school calculus teacher had a large impact on Kaczynski's life doesn't equate to that teacher being an accessory to murder decades later. Stuff happens. Things change.

Stuff Happens? Things change? Did you not read the relevant part of the article I posted:

"The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25]."

Of course, that's just the ultra-liberal rantings of George Washinton University's National Security Archive, so I suppose it's not worth the webpage it's printed on.

The point is, "Stuff happens" does not explain away the fact that the Reagan admin. knew that saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran before they redered aid, and normalized relations. Your heroes are quite complicit in the crimes that you rail against in your justification for war. Face the facts.

CV

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
The point is, "Stuff happens" does not explain away the fact that the Reagan admin. knew that saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran before they redered aid, and normalized relations. Your heroes are quite complicit in the crimes that you rail against in your justification for war. Face the facts.

The fact is that what happened 20+ years ago should and does not affect decision making by the current administration, or that of myself.

Additionally, turning a blind eye away from Saddam's use of weapons against Iran during a war (in an era where Iran was an enemy of ours) is quite different than appeasing a current enemy who in the last decade or so has exterminated hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. The situation was completely different.

Nice try.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact is that what happened 20+ years ago should and does not affect decision making by the current administration, or that of myself.

History shouldn't effect policy? No wonder you like Bush.

You can't claim 20 year old mass graves and war crimes as justification for war and at the same time say what happened 20 years ago doesn't matter.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Additionally, turning a blind eye away from Saddam's use of weapons against Iran during a war (in an era where Iran was an enemy of ours) is quite different than appeasing a current enemy who in the last decade or so has exterminated hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. The situation was completely different.

So gassing people is ok as long as you're gassing people we don't like. Got it.

Brutal dictator killing his own people and invading other countries? US approves and sells him what he needs

Brutal dictator killing a lot less of his own people because he's boxed in and not invading anyone?
US invades

Yes. They are completely different.

Here's the thing. Its ok for you to support the Iraq invasion on humanitarian grounds. You're allowed. That's fine.

However, not recognizing that our policy was utterly and completely inhumane for 30 years means you're either in denial or your idea of humanitarian is very very warped.

Its ok to admit that Reagan and Rummy were wrong in the 80's. Its ok. They made a terrible mistake. Lots of them. We can admit that now. Let the healing begin.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by scoxx:

quoted from link:
"We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it," Clark told a group of about 50 people in Newcastle attending a house party -- a tradition in New Hampshire presidential politics that enables well-connected voters to get an up-close look at candidates.

Then, the 58-year-old Arkansas native, who retired from the military three years ago, dropped something of a bombshell on the gathering.

"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it."

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative."

Now that's a candidate that thinks big.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yeah, the 80's. When Rummy and Reagan took Iraq off of the "terrorist state" list so they could sell Saddam weapons and technology.

My research tells me most were within the last 15 years. Please provide a link if you could.

Almost all of the major skeletons in Saddam's closet of brutality are from the 80's using US hardware and money. ....When Saddam was inflicting the worst atrocities on Iraqis he got US money, weapons, technology and the loyalty and protection of Rummy and Reagan.

At some point, you need to stop blaming America for every atrocity. By your logic, every drug addict on public assistance (welfare) is being enabled, and even encouraged, to remain drug-dependent by GW Bush.

Um, did you not notice that I already posted the exact same Bush quote in it's entirety in my earlier post?

Looks to me like you combined quotes from multiple debates, seamlessly stringing them together to further an agenda. Some Bush responses look to even been given after Gore's response, while you present them as straight-up questions.

As for the exact quote that I posted, i wanted to isolate it and present it without the t_funk selected phrases bolded - so that others could read the quote in it's entirety without prejudice.

I guess you don't remember Gen. Shinseki telling Congress in Feb-May (before the war) that occupation might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers, up to 5 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld said he was "widly off the mark" and Shinseki was forced to resign a month or so later.

July is when he left the Joint Chiefs. It wasn't Shinseki's speaking to Congress that alienated him. It was his constant criticism of the administration to the press, his neglected work responsibilities, and his insubordination that made him unfit to be a military officer.

Shall we discuss why Wesley Clark had to be removed of his command by Bill Clinton in what must have been an agonizing decision?

[thunderous_funker]

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
[list=1][*]Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002 [*]Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91 [*]Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002 [*]Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002 [*]ABC Nightline. June9, 1992 [*]Counter Punch, October 10, 2002 [*]Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994 [*]Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State [*]Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear [*]Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002 [*]Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991 [*]Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002 [*]Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com [*]Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate [*]Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal [*]Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992 [*]Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair [*]Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez [*]Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986 [*]Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com [/list=1]

[thunderous_funker]

I don't "blame America" for all the world's problems.

But I do hold individuals accountable for their actions. Which individuals helped Saddam murder hundreds of thousands, gas his own people and brutalize his own nation are abundantly clear. And they knowingly did it.