[marden]

Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy - An alternative way forward for the US

Front Page
Sep 29, 2006

An alternative way forward for the US
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - After two years of consultations with more than 400 members of the US foreign-policy elite, a project headed by two leading international-relations academics is calling for the adoption of a new grand strategy designed to address multiple threats and strengthen Washington's commitment to a reformed and reinvigorated multilateral order.

In a wide-ranging report released in Washington on Wednesday, the Princeton Project on National Security suggested that the policies pursued by President George W Bush since September 11, 2001, had been simplistic - even counter-productive - for the challenges facing the United States in the 21st century.

To be effective, according to the report, US policy needed to rely less on military power and more on other tools of diplomacy; less on its own strength exercised unilaterally and more on cooperation with other democratic states; and less on rapid democratization based on popular elections and more on building what it called "popular, accountable, rights-regarding [PAR] governments".

The report also calls for performing "radical surgery" on the international institutions created in the aftermath of World War II, including significantly increasing membership in the United Nations Security Council and developing a "Concert of Democracies" that would provide an alternative forum for collective action, including the use of force.

On more specific issues, it calls for Washington to "take the lead in doing everything possible" to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict; to offer Iran security assurances in exchange for its agreement not to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity; and to neither "block or contain" China, but rather to "help it achieve its legitimate ambitions within the current international order".

The project and its 90-page report, "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: US National Security in the 21st Century", was co-directed by the head of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and John Ikenberry, a prominent international-relations scholar at the school.

Of greater significance, however, is the high-level and bipartisan cast of its participants. Honorary co-chairs of the project included George Shultz, who served as secretary of state under the late president Ronald Reagan and is considered particularly influential with the current secretary, Condoleezza Rice, and Anthony Lake, national security adviser under president Bill Clinton.

I haven't read the proposal but I like the idea and I like what I have read, so far.

Full Report: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/re...inalReport.pdf

[marden]

Princeton Project on National Security Set to Lead U.S. Foreign Policy: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Press Release Source: Princeton Project on National Security

Princeton Project on National Security Set to Lead U.S. Foreign Policy
Wednesday September 27, 10:00 am ET
Report Cites Most Prolific Threats to U.S. National Security, Offers Sweeping Changes to Foreign Policy

PRINCETON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Princeton Project on National Security, an effort spearheaded by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, today unveiled a bipartisan national security strategy for the United States in a report titled Forging a World of Liberty Under Law. The report addresses the most potent threats to U.S. national security throughout the next several decades including: global terror networks; the proliferation and transfer of nuclear weapons; instability in East Asia; the Middle East; global pandemics; and energy.
Forging a World of Liberty Under Law is the result of a two-year collaboration of more than 400 individuals from both political parties, privately and publicly held corporations, national and international educational institutions, governmental and non-governmental organizations and media outlets. The top six recommendations held in the report include:

1) The United States must address multiple threats, not just one;

2) Focusing on "Islamo-Fascism" is a strategic mistake that
strengthens America's enemies - the global war on terror must
be replaced by a global counterinsurgency focusing on global
law enforcement, intelligence and special operations;

3) Sweeping reforms are due for international institutions,
including democratizing the U.N. Security Council, setting up
a concert of democracies, and transforming the nuclear
non-proliferation regime;

4) The United States should build democracy around the world not
by jumping immediately to elections, but by bringing countries
up to PAR - Popular, Accountable, Rights-regarding government;

5) The United States must maintain a robust defense by sustaining
the military predominance of democracies, update doctrines of
deterrence and retain the option of preventive uses of
military force, but only as a last resort under strict
controls; and

6) A gas tax should be introduced to wean the United States off
its dependence on oil.

"We need to build an infrastructure of capacity and cooperation that tackles anything that comes at us - from another terrorist attack to an avian flu pandemic that could kill millions," said Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and co-director of the Princeton Project on National Security. "We no longer have the luxury of concentrating on one single, well-defined enemy."

"These dangers arise against a background of enormous shifts in the landscape of the international system. It is time to unite our country and our allies, while dividing our enemies - rather than the other way around," said G. John Ikenberry, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and co-director of the Princeton Project on National Security.

The Princeton Project also convened and published the findings of seven working groups that addressed different aspects of national security, including: grand strategy; state security and transnational threats; economics and national security; reconstruction and development; anti-Americanism; relative threat assessment; and foreign policy infrastructure and global institutions.

"The Princeton Project is the most comprehensive and systematic effort in recent years to formulate a national security strategy for the 21st century," said Peter Bergen, CNN Terrorism Analyst and co-chair of the Princeton Project working group on state security and transnational threats.

About the Princeton Project on National Security

With support from the Ford Foundation, a generous gift from Mr. David Rubenstein, and under the stewardship of honorary co-chairs George Schultz and Tony Lake, the Princeton Project on National Security is a bipartisan effort to strengthen and update the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. national security strategy. A complete report of the Princeton Project on National Security, including its contributors can be obtained at The Princeton Project on National Security.


Contact:
Princeton Project on National Security
by
Live Wire Media Relations, LLC
Brett West, 703-519-1600 Ext. 103
bwest@livewiredc.com
Source: Princeton Project on National Security

[BRussell]

In other words, a complete reversal of everything we've been doing for the past 5 years.

[zwiebel_]

Where do I sign up?
At last, a voice of reason!

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

In other words, a complete reversal of everything we've been doing for the past 5 years.

I hear that in an emergency a pen knife has been used to open a dying patient's airway and a plastic straw inserted to prevent the patient from dying. And once he's taken to the hospital and undergone major surgery the surgeons credited the crude but effective first aid measures with saving the patient's life long enough for him to get on an operating table.

Be grateful.

[BRussell]

I also hear stories about physicians amputating the wrong limb.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I also hear stories about physicians amputating the wrong limb.

You are a hater, aren't you?

Is the only time of the year you think of all our blessings on Thanksgiving?

Do you bother even at that time?

Do you realize how bad things could have become if President Bush hadn't acted as he did?

Do you realize people who have gratitude about what they have are happier than haters?

[itai195]

This sounds a lot like what Kerry was saying 2 years ago and many liberals have been saying for 4 years.

[Dork.]

I think this is an idea I can get behind.

I also see this as direct repudiation of Bush foreign policy since 9/11, and especially items #2, #4, and #5.

marden, are you admitting that our foreign policy needs an emergency tracheotomy? Maybe I'm wrong about you, then, since I don't think Mojaberdeen would ever have said that.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by itai195

This sounds a lot like what Kerry was saying 2 years ago and many liberals have been saying for 4 years.

Yup, especially

5) The United States must maintain a robust defense by sustaining
the military predominance of democracies, update doctrines of
deterrence and retain the option of preventive uses of
military force, but only as a last resort under strict
controls;

where "strict controls" sounds like a Global Test to me.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

This sounds a lot like what Kerry was saying 2 years ago and many liberals have been saying for 4 years.

If Kerry had said this he could have won.

As long as he didn't change his mind.

Actually, a lot of different ideas from all across the American political spectrum will be seen in this proposal. That is one of it's strengths.

A few prominent neo-conservatives and aggressive nationalists, such as Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, were among the individuals who participated in the project's consultations.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I think this is an idea I can get behind.

I also see this as direct repudiation of Bush foreign policy since 9/11, and especially items #2, #4, and #5.

marden, are you admitting that our foreign policy needs an emergency tracheotomy?

On 9/11 George Bush took steps to keep America safe and in business and put our enemies on their heels.

There have been no other attacks on America since 9/11. Some people deny the individual attacks here and there have been home grown jihadi muslim attacks. They may or may not be. But nothing like 9/11. And there has been no major attack on Israel which would have forced Israel to retaliate and force other Muslim nations to respond to israel's attack, triggering WW4.

We have had no oil embargoes. Oil access has not been denied. Oil supplies have only been minimally affected by attacks. That has kept America in business. Without oil our businesses and agriculture and economy would grind to a halt. If oil prices rose quickly to over $100 a barrel we would suffer a major crisis.

We have killed and caught more jihadists than they have of us, their targets. We have eliminated their leadership continually targeting them wherever they might be. We have seen the world slowly become aware of the real threat and the real goals and the real tactics of the radislamics. Six years ago people thought the terrorists were just like Methodists or Baptists with a grievance that we should be sensitive to and just negotiate away.

How has your life changed since 9/11? Is it the same? Has is gotten worse? Has it gotten better?

My life is pretty much unchanged.

It is really easy to imagine that if President Bush had done a few things differently our lives would not be nearly as pleasant as they are.

We should recognize that.

He kept us safe and functioning and alive.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

On 9/11 George Bush took steps to keep America safe and in business and put our enemies on their heels.

There have been no other attacks on America since 9/11. Some people deny the individual attacks here and there have been home grown jihadi muslim attacks. They may or may not be. But nothing like 9/11. And there has been no major attack on Israel which would have forced Israel to retaliate and force other Muslim nations to respond to israel's attack, triggering WW4.

To quote Jopn Stewart, there haven't been any more major hurricanes either. Does this mean Bush has made America safe from major hurricanes?

An Islamic terrorist strike at home is a once every 10 years event. Call me back when it's time for another one and it doesn't happen.

Edit: You know, another problem with this argument is that it relies on Muslims being the only ones able to carry out terror strikes.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

If Kerry had said this he could have won.

As long as he didn't change his mind.

He did say it and was mocked by the right for it, which I think led to the Democrats "watering down" their stance on this.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

To quote Jopn Stewart, there haven't been any more major hurricanes either. Does this mean Bush has made America safe from major hurricanes?

An Islamic terrorist strike at home is a once every 10 years event. Call me back when it's time for another one and it doesn't happen.

Edit: You know, another problem with this argument is that it relies on Muslims being the only ones able to carry out terror strikes.

Some people think that when Jon Stewart is ill and upchucks that every bit and drop that comes from his mouth is precious. Maybe you don't. But then why use this silliness as your banner? It says that there is nothing Bush did that would have made a difference one way or the other to affect the attacks on America. He is obviously ill. goMac, you should stop waving that around. Throw that chunk into the toilet where it belongs and give Bush the props, man.

We know the right wing Christian fundis are not attacking America in planes so please spare us the political correctness.

We know not all Muslims are terrorist, ok? We get it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

He did say it and was mocked by the right for it, which I think led to the Democrats "watering down" their stance on this.

No, I'm talking about EVERYTHING in this Princeton Review. Not just an idea here or there.

Like I said, there fact that so many ideas from all across the American political spectrum have gone into this makes it stronger than what Bush and the Neo-cons said, and stronger than what Kerry said or stronger than what any one person, group or school of political thought dreamed up before.

[DBursey]

There've been no Grizzly bear attacks in downtown Atlanta during the GWB era. Of course we have George and his policies to thank for that dearth of ursine maulings.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

There've been no Grizzly bear attacks in downtown Atlanta during the GWB era. Of course we have George and his policies to thank for that dearth of ursine maulings.

I just talked badly about someone for using this same flawed argument in another thread. I'm sorry to see you have chosen to use it.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3148910

Oooops. It was THIS thread and it is like 4 posts up from yours. My bad.

[BRussell]

The problem aberdeen is thinking that the Bush government would ever consider any kind of consensus plan, or any plan that isn't outrageously extreme and destructive (like invading Iraq or legalizing torture or violating privacy rights). No, if anyone supported this - and by anyone I mean Democrats, because Republicans would never propose anything unless it followed the destructive plan set out by this administration - we know exactly what the Republicans would do. They'd morph supporters' pictures with Osama in election ads and talk radio would say that Bush is God's gift and Democrats are terrorist-lovers and this plan is preemptive appeasement. And you know what abe? You'd join right in with them.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The problem aberdeen is thinking that the Bush government would ever consider any kind of consensus plan, or any plan that isn't outrageously extreme and destructive (like invading Iraq or legalizing torture or violating privacy rights). No, if anyone supported this - and by anyone I mean Democrats, because Republicans would never propose anything unless it followed the destructive plan set out by this administration - we know exactly what the Republicans would do. They'd morph supporters' pictures with Osama in election ads and talk radio would say that Bush is God's gift and Democrats are terrorist-lovers and this plan is preemptive appeasement. And you know what abe? You'd join right in with them.

See how wrong you can be? How many mistakes can one man make in one little post?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Some people think that when Jon Stewart is ill and upchucks that every bit and drop that comes from his mouth is precious. Maybe you don't. But then why use this silliness as your banner? It says that there is nothing Bush did that would have made a difference one way or the other to affect the attacks on America. He is obviously ill. goMac, you should stop waving that around. Throw that chunk into the toilet where it belongs and give Bush the props, man.

We know the right wing Christian fundis are not attacking America in planes so please spare us the political correctness.

We know not all Muslims are terrorist, ok? We get it.

He made a point. I thought it was good. Now I'm repeating it. If you'd like to go on a rant about how you hate Jon Stewart, and therefore anything that comes out of his mouth, please feel free to post it on your MySpace.

I'm not sure why you think that if I'm not talking about Islamic facets I'm talking about Christians. There are other places in the world too, you know. There are a few other continents known as Asia and Europe. Even a few other countries such as Korea. And yes, this may come as a shock, but there may also be other people outside this country that are not Islamic that hate America.

And yes, I'm surprised you did forget about local terrorism from our Christian nuts, but that wasn't my point anyway.

Edit: You also seem to be forgetting about the new report that says the war in Iraq has made us less safe.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

If Kerry had said this he could have won.

He pretty much did say most of these ideas, even if they weren't in easily digestible report format. Note the vast differences between the nuanced positions in this report and the narrow-minded simplicity of our current strategies. The section on the Middle East and Terrorism strategies is more than 10 pages, for Bush it's one sentence.

Toward this end the United States should adopt a national gasoline tax that would start at fifty cents per gallon and increase by twenty cents per year for each of the next ten years. This measure should be accompanied by stricter automobile fuel efficiency standards. The United States should also lead international efforts to deal with climate change, seeking a third way between the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for emission reductions and opposition to any binding constraints.

How many Republicans in Washington today would support any of that?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by itai195

He pretty much did say most of these ideas, even if they weren't in easily digestible report format.

Could Marden be a satire? He's almost an invocation of Stephen Colbert.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden

See how wrong you can be? How many mistakes can one man make in one little post?

You have a long history of supporting whatever Bush does and criticizing those of us who put our country over Bush-worship. You now say you support a plan that condemns and reverses all that you've been supporting. In other words, we've been right all along, and you've been wrong - but that's all water under the bridge now, huh?

You know I shouldn't be so harsh. If you've come around to understanding the absurdity and destructiveness of what you've been supporting for the past 3-4 years, I shouldn't begrudge you your change of heart just because it came later than the rest of us. Rock on, marden.

[itai195]

Thus, the preventive use of force should not be used indiscriminately or as a first resort. The United States should put in place strong internal controls to ensure that policymakers have their facts right and that any particular action is proportionate. We should also work actively with other liberal democracies to establish a set of agreed guidelines on uses of force against terrorists. These steps will help ensure that the preventive use of force against terrorists remains a viable and effective tool.

...

The preventive use of force against states should not be ruled out, but the following conditions should be met before it is seriously considered: 1) it should be a last resort; 2) we must have overwhelming
confidence in the intelligence and in the prospects for success; 3) we must be prepared to deal adequately with the aftermath; and 4) we must gain approval from the U.N. Security Council or at least from another broadly representative multilateral body, such as NATO.

...

The world is on the cusp of a new era of nuclear danger. The non-proliferation regime is in crisis: Iran is seeking the capacity to build nuclear weapons; North Korea has a small nuclear arsenal; the nuclear
“haves” have failed to live up to their commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); the “have nots” are questioning their continued participation in the regime; and the NPT itself is in a state of limbo

I think I've heard that before too...

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden

Actually, a lot of different ideas from all across the American political spectrum will be seen in this proposal. That is one of it's strengths.

Different ideas across the political spectrum a strength?

Go figure.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by marden

I just talked badly about someone for using this same flawed argument in another thread. I'm sorry to see you have chosen to use it.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3148910

Oooops. It was THIS thread and it is like 4 posts up from yours. My bad.

It's not a flawed argument. It's a rediculous argument. And I am a deceptively dry bit of wind.

[spacefreak]

1) The United States must address multiple threats, not just one;

Do we really need these 2 Princeton academics to tell us this? We already are acting against numerous threats.

2) Focusing on "Islamo-Fascism" is a strategic mistake that
strengthens America's enemies - the global war on terror must
be replaced by a global counterinsurgency focusing on global
law enforcement, intelligence and special operations;

Yeah, that stuff is already in motion. In the meantime, do we fight back, or do we sit idle and let the bad guys take free shots at us and out people?

3) Sweeping reforms are due for international institutions,
including democratizing the U.N. Security Council, setting up
a concert of democracies, and transforming the nuclear
non-proliferation regime;

The U.N. needs serious reform. Bolton's on top of it.

4) The United States should build democracy around the world not
by jumping immediately to elections, but by bringing countries
up to PAR - Popular, Accountable, Rights-regarding government;

Because we all know that leaders of non-Democratic nations are going to be all for this idea. What a joke.

5) The United States must maintain a robust defense by sustaining
the military predominance of democracies, update doctrines of
deterrence and retain the option of preventive uses of
military force, but only as a last resort under strict
controls;

And who sets these "controls" -- the UN whom we just established needed significant reform? We do use force as a last resort. We don't like to spend money and lives on war.

6) A gas tax should be introduced to wean the United States off
its dependence on oil.

As if gas isn't taxed enough. When the left was whining about Exxon-Mobil profits of $8.4 billion, there was no mention of our governments' take of more than $25 million for the same quarter ($7 billion in income tax, $7.6 in excise tax, $11 billion in other taxes).

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Do we really need these 2 Princeton academics to tell us this? We already are acting against numerous threats.

Note that you're reading a summary, read the report for more detail.

Yeah, that stuff is already in motion. In the meantime, do we fight back, or do we sit idle and let the bad guys take free shots at us and out people?

They give several suggestions for new things we can do and improvements. I don't understand how doing what they suggest amounts to 'sitting idle' ???

The U.N. needs serious reform. Bolton's on top of it.

Except the reforms they talk about are mostly not things Bolton would support.

Because we all know that leaders of non-Democratic nations are going to be all for this idea. What a joke.

The actual report has more details on how they propose achieving this.

And who sets these "controls" -- the UN whom we just established needed significant reform? We do use force as a last resort. We don't like to spend money and lives on war.

The actual report has more details on how they propose achieving this.

As if gas isn't taxed enough. When the left was whining about Exxon-Mobil profits of $8.4 billion, there was no mention of our governments' take of more than $25 million for the same quarter ($7 billion in income tax, $7.6 in excise tax, $11 billion in other taxes).

What is 'enough?' And what does Exxon have to do with it?

[Spliffdaddy]

More diplomacy and more UN involvement?

hahahahahahaha.

um, yeah, that has a great track record of success.

[marden]

I really suggest we all read the whole thing and not just what's posted here.

Really.

[Spliffdaddy]

A quick look at the folks behind the Princeton Project on National Security ....



Anne-Marie Slaughter, co-director of the Princeton Project on National Security

In 2003, she was involved in a controversy when she defended an art exhibit at the Wilson School that desecrated Christian symbols as "educational", but said she would not allow an exhibit if it desecrated the symbols of religions such as Islam. This led commentators to note that although Princeton has a speech code prohibiting speech that denigrated religious beliefs, under Dean Slaughter "some beliefs are more sacred than others."

In the 1980s she was part of the team, headed by Harvard Professor Abram Chayes, that helped the Sandinista government of Nicaragua bring suit against the United States of America in the International Court of Justice for violations of international law.

-----------------------------------------------------------

George Shultz -

defender of neocons! After leaving public office in 1989, Shultz surprised many of his fellow conservatives by becoming the first prominent Republican to call for the legalization of recreational drugs.

(this is the only conservative mentioned)

---------------------------------------------------

Ford Foundation -

The Ford Foundation has been criticized for its support of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Planned Parenthood and other Abortion-Rights groups. As well as funding the leftwing PBS network.

----------------------------------------------------

Tony Lake -

National Security Advisor under US President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. 'nuff said.

-----------------------------------

John Ikenberry -

Ikenberry is known for vehement criticism of what he describes as the "neoimperial grand strategy" of the United States under the Bush administration.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

A quick look at the folks behind the Princeton Project on National Security ....



Anne-Marie Slaughter, co-director of the Princeton Project on National Security

In 2003, she was involved in a controversy when she defended an art exhibit at the Wilson School that desecrated Christian symbols as "educational", but said she would not allow an exhibit if it desecrated the symbols of religions such as Islam. This led commentators to note that although Princeton has a speech code prohibiting speech that denigrated religious beliefs, under Dean Slaughter "some beliefs are more sacred than others."

In the 1980s she was part of the team, headed by Harvard Professor Abram Chayes, that helped the Sandinista government of Nicaragua bring suit against the United States of America in the International Court of Justice for violations of international law.

-----------------------------------------------------------

George Shultz -

defender of neocons! After leaving public office in 1989, Shultz surprised many of his fellow conservatives by becoming the first prominent Republican to call for the legalization of recreational drugs.

(this is the only conservative mentioned)

---------------------------------------------------

Ford Foundation -

The Ford Foundation has been criticized for its support of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Planned Parenthood and other Abortion-Rights groups. As well as funding the leftwing PBS network.

----------------------------------------------------

Tony Lake -

National Security Advisor under US President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. 'nuff said.

-----------------------------------

John Ikenberry -

Ikenberry is known for vehement criticism of what he describes as the "neoimperial grand strategy" of the United States under the Bush administration.

From the news article:

A few prominent neo-conservatives and aggressive nationalists, such as Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, were among the individuals who participated in the project's consultations.

[Spliffdaddy]

400 people participated. "A few" weren't liberals.

The handful I mentioned are the ones in charge of it.

No thanks. I don't want anything to do with this Princeton Project.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

400 people participated. "A few" weren't liberals.

The handful I mentioned are the ones in charge of it.

No thanks. I don't want anything to do with this Princeton Project.

Well, I can understand your hestiance. But as far as there being only a few non-liberals, it doesn't take much for you to smackdown a bunch of libs here. A one to 10 ratio might be all that's needed.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ford Foundation -

The Ford Foundation has been criticized for its support of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Planned Parenthood and other Abortion-Rights groups. As well as funding the leftwing PBS network.

----------------------------------------------------

Tony Lake -

National Security Advisor under US President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. 'nuff said.
[/i]

And that's enough for you to dismiss it out of hand?

You guys really are uniters, not dividers... Then again, I should be used to it by now.

[Spliffdaddy]

You don't have any problem dismissing our current strategy - created by conservatives.

You guys are dividers, not uniters.

I'm fine with what we're doing now.

The Princeton thingy is bad mojo.

[itai195]

I don't dismiss all of it, but I think much of it is wrongheaded. And I have logical reasons for thinking so, other than 'Bush and Rumsfeld were involved? No thanks!'

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden

Do you realize how bad things could have become if President Bush hadn't acted as he did?

Explain how invading Iraq has deterred any terrorist threat to the USA.

I can see a causal link between Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Al Quaeda training camps -- but no such link exists for Iraq.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't dismiss all of it, but I think much of it is wrongheaded. And I have logical reasons for thinking so, other than 'Bush and Rumsfeld were involved? No thanks!'

Logical thinking should dictate that diplomacy never works - and the UN has never accomplished anything.

That's my reasoning behind my dislike of the Princeton thingy. Notwithstanding the fact that it was born in a liberal collegiate setting.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink

Explain how invading Iraq has deterred any terrorist threat to the USA.

Safety valve. Jihadi die for Allah there, not here.

Originally Posted by ink

I can see a causal link between Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Al Quaeda training camps -- but no such link exists for Iraq.

Think about what would happen to you and your family if:

-Israel had been egged into a nuclear attack on any Arab/Muslim nation.

-Saddam had used oil as a weapon against the USA.


Why did the Congress and the Senate and President Clinton make regime change in Iraq official US policy?

The Iraq Liberation Act

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

[...]

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.
Iraq Liberation Act

If you knew the following what would you have done?

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

RICHARD CLARKE: During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

It's true there were no WMD's found. But how could the Bush administration trust the peace of the world to such questionable intelligence?

Tell me, if you knew that the CIA TOTALLY missed identifying a Nuclear Weapons Production plant in Gulf War I that was a year from having a bomb, how confident would you be that Iraq didn't have WMD's, despite what the CIA told you. Despite what the Weapons Inspectors said, you know the Iraqis played games with the inspectors. You know that your intelligence was questionable.

You know that 15,000,000 Israelis could be endangered by your wrong decision.

You know that the peace of the Middle East or even the entire world could depend on your trusting that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

What would you do?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by itai195

This sounds a lot like what Kerry was saying 2 years ago and many liberals have been saying for 4 years.

Kerry didn't have any substantial plan for Iraq that lasted more than a week before he changed it. According to public opinion of course.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink

Explain how invading Iraq has deterred any terrorist threat to the USA.

I can see a causal link between Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Al Quaeda training camps -- but no such link exists for Iraq.

Well you wouldn't know if you were in denial about Iraq having anything to do with terrorism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

There have been no other attacks on America since 9/11.

How many terrorist attacks on America were there before 9/11? Aren't there almost daily terrorist attacks on America in Iraq?

That said, this "bold, new alternatve" sounds promising ... if it's actually endorsed by people from both sides of the fence.

[besson3c]

Wow Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2/Marden,

This might be one of the first posts of yours where I've noticed some sort of concession implying that the approach of the current administration is less than perfect?

What ever happened to your unconditional support of the president during this time of war? I thought you were a patriotic American!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What ever happened to your unconditional support of the president during this time of war? I thought you were a patriotic American!

They better be careful, or they'll cause the Shiite's and the Sunni's to hate each other more by encouraging them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How many terrorist attacks on America were there before 9/11?

2 to 4 depending on your definition of "attack"

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Kerry didn't have any substantial plan for Iraq that lasted more than a week before he changed it. According to public opinion of course.

Says you. But Bush's plan has lasted more than 3 years with no changes and seems to work wonders...

[goMac]

Does anyone else find it odd that the liberals suggest something, and it's deemed crazy, but when the conservatives suggest the exact same thing, it's a "New Bold Alternative"?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Kevin

2 to 4 depending on your definition of "attack"

2 to 4? Actually I think it depends on your definition of 'terrorist' as well