Did When Clinton Lied, No One Died Ignore Larger Issues?

[Curious3141]

The motive for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam.
I fully accept the fact that folks believe it is possible to say one without the other; folks have aptly demonstrated their belief in that belief, several times, including this latest reaffirmation, and I fully accept that you find no inconsistancy in the above. In fact, I rely on your acceptance of that, in a public forum, to illustrate the logic behind you and yours.
1] Saddam deposed, and sons murdered, based on nothing but "lies and bull****."
2] Saddam and sons were bad, bad men, yet, not bad enough to actually have the US do anything about.
3] Yet...tyhe US actually did something about them, to wit, deposed not bad enough Saddam and murdered his not bad enough sons.
4] Yet, where is the cry for justice for bad but not bad enough Saddam and his bad but not bad enough murdered sons, from those who claim to believe that they were at most bad but not bad enough to do anything about?
Here is where, I suppose, I should get some fantasy Bactine to spray on my imagined raw nerves.
and, here is where you say again, "Sure, he was a bad, bad, man, but not sufficiently bad to do something about."
...and where I say, "If not sufficiently bad to do something about, and yet, something about was still done, then still unjustly deposed, so the logic remains and you and yours still do not get to have it both ways, so choose, or I'll acknowledge the emptiness of your position, and regard it as meaningless political sniping."
Don't bother; I can live with the certain knowledge that logic is not an absolute requirement by some to cling to their petty little hatreds, as has been amply demonstrated.

Wow, way to be a historical revisionist and an apologist for the administration.

I remember the lead up to the war quite clearly. It was on CNN for all the world to see, for goodness' sake. The main justification for going into Iraq was because Saddam was thought to have WMDs, was not cooperating with the world in accounting for those WMDs, and was perfectly prepared to use those WMDs against the USA or another international target. I clearly recall that under the US' threats to go to war, Saddam capitulated fairly quickly and allowed full access to the international agencies to tally up his weapons. The man is despicable and evil, but he is not stupid, and he has a strong instinct for self-preservation.

But it was crystal clear that America was not to be moved from its purpose, which evidently was to invade Iraq at all costs. Even as Saddam was complying and the UN agencies were issuing statements that they were at last getting full access and there was nothing yet found, Bush relentlessly and implacably pushed for war. There was a sickening feeling of inevitability about the whole thing. Because, as much as I wanted to see Saddam and his sons removed from power (and killed as far as I could care, they were monsters), I dreaded the loss of innocent Iraqi and American lives with a half-cocked invasion. That is exactly the situation you see playing out right now.

Saddam was a terrible man, so were his sons, and I'm glad they're gone. But at what cost ? Noone in their right mind would've supported a war of aggression simply to remove a dictator who did not pose an immediate danger to the world with WMDs. You don't go in and depose a leader "just because" !There are other similarly evil dictators in N. Korea and the African continent who deserve removal purely on the basis of their tyranny, why has America under Bush not touched them ?

Regime change is NOT a justification for war in and of itself, this is enshrined in YOUR laws. Protecting the security of America and the world IS a justification, which is why the WMD thing was used from the get-go. This, it became rapidly apparent, was a barefaced LIE to justify the unjustifiable !

 

[Zlex]

Wow, way to be a historical revisionist and an apologist for the administration.
I remember the lead up to the war quite clearly. It was on CNN for all the world to see, for goodness' sake. The main justification for going into Iraq was because Saddam was thought to have WMDs, was not cooperating with the world in accounting for those WMDs, and was perfectly prepared to use those WMDs against the USA or another international target. I clearly recall that under the US' threats to go to war, Saddam capitulated fairly quickly and allowed full access to the international agencies to tally up his weapons. The man is despicable and evil, but he is not stupid, and he has a strong instinct for self-preservation.
But it was crystal clear that America was not to be moved from its purpose, which evidently was to invade Iraq at all costs. Even as Saddam was complying and the UN agencies were issuing statements that they were at last getting full access and there was nothing yet found, Bush relentlessly and implacably pushed for war. There was a sickening feeling of inevitability about the whole thing. Because, as much as I wanted to see Saddam and his sons removed from power (and killed as far as I could care, they were monsters), I dreaded the loss of innocent Iraqi and American lives with a half-cocked invasion. That is exactly the situation you see playing out right now.
Saddam was a terrible man, so were his sons, and I'm glad they're gone. But at what cost ? Noone in their right mind would've supported a war of aggression simply to remove a dictator who did not pose an immediate danger to the world with WMDs. You don't go in and depose a leader "just because" !There are other similarly evil dictators in N. Korea and the African continent who deserve removal purely on the basis of their tyranny, why has America under Bush not touched them ?
Regime change is NOT a justification for war in and of itself, this is enshrined in YOUR laws. Protecting the security of America and the world IS a justification, which is why the WMD thing was used from the get-go. This, it became rapidly apparent, was a barefaced LIE to justify the unjustifiable !

The dismantling of Saddam's regime has been on the US books continuously, unbroken, since 1991. Covertly until Oct 31, 1998, overtly since. It is a total fabrication to claim that the 'neocons' in Bush Administration showed up in Jan 2001 with the brand, new fresh idea, "Hey, let's go overthrow Saddam."

Mission Accomplished in Irag? Who said that, and when?

The third crisis, Desert Strike, was a response to a skillful attack against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Irbil. Iraqi forces surrounded the city, smashed the Kurdish forces, and destroyed a protracted covert operation funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to destabilize the regime.

American officials vowed retaliation and in September 1996 launched two waves of cruise missiles against targets in southern Iraq. In addition, the United States announced the unilateral extension of the southern no-fly zone to the 33d parallel, depriving Iraq of two air bases and moving the one closer to Baghdad. Saddam began aggressively rebuilding air defenses damaged by cruise missile strikes as more allied fighters were deployed.
SAMs engaged coalition aircraft during the following weeks, but tensions subsided and the crisis was over by mid November.

This confrontation was a victory for Iraq. Weakened by economic and political turmoil, Saddam performed some internal housecleaning. He settled a grievance with a Kurdish faction and annihilated U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts in the north. He also drove another wedge into coalition strategy as Turkey and Saudi Arabia decided not to
allow air strikes from their territory (hence the cruise missile strikes) and France suspended its participation in Southern Watch. The attack on Irbil also highlighted the limits of containment in the north. Because of its distance from land- and carrier-based assets and the inability to employ forces in Turkey, the coalition had few options to stop the attack on Irbil other than an all-out assault on Baghdad.

Source

But...this was about Bush lurching into office with a brand new fixation on Iraq.

So...Bush should have relied on imperfect intelligence to tell us exactly when the T-30 second point in some future launch was going to occur.

The "T-30" seconds assessment was clearly imprecise.

The assessment of the motivation, capability, past history, past behaviour and desire to pursue was not.

Why was this a Clinton Administration priority "We'll get him this time," sufficient to damage our national credibility? (ie, caught in a Do Nothing pose, flying $30M fighter jets in 'NoFlyZones' taking pictures while Saddam demonstrated to the entire world that we were its star spangled 'Do Nothing' *****es?

Iraqi nukes?

Thankfully, moot. That's exactly the point.

Bush had the balls to publicly lead and do precisely what previous administrations privately and covertly concluded had to be done; depose Saddam Hussein and his sick twist Ba'ath Socialist Party Regime of Fear.

The Road Formerly Taken (ie, do it on the cheap in the dark while we all sip our Cappucinos, lie, mislead the Kurds to do it themselves with false promises of backing, then leave them to swing in the wind while we tsk-tsk-tsk their demise on p8 of the local paper over our Danish and Lattes) had consequences for this nation precisely because it was gutless and cowardly and destroyed our national credibility. It --and other similar have it both ways cowardly failures of leadership--did nothing but foment the contempt and chaos that escalated in the 90s, and that to this very day we are paying a price for; the throat slitters and ****fighters contesting the current outcome in Iraq do not believe for one second that we are not that same cowardly, gutless nation.

And, why should they? They can read the papers; they can watch CNN.

So, "NUKES"--staged and ready to launch, stacked up waiting for us to count and Saddam to press the button-- were the only justification for effectively deposing Saddam Hussein.

Yet, if that is so, then why was that a covert/private priority of the Clinton Administration?


No, that's not what you mean. You mean, "for going to war." Ie, to actually publicly DO what your are secretly, furtively, covertly trying to do. To lead. To effectively achieve a goal that some yet decided was sufficiently in need of doing to furtively and ineffectively do, not recognizing/believing that the ineffectiveness of the course taken was itself fomenting the contempt and chaos we were attempting to thwart on the cheap.

To thwart on the cheap, in the dark, on the sly, with our wet finger on our limp wrist in the wind, mindful mostly of our legacy. Gee, it would be important to give this a half assed try, as long as it is not messy or inconvenient and can be accomplished with no pain or accountability. A total slave to Gesture Politics, to polls, to poses, to image, to perception, all of which the hardasses of the world find contemptable, a glaring sign of foundational weakness, and an open invitation to go for the throat.


Such sentiments would be unfathomable around the civilized trendy Georgetown Bistros, around the crab spread at Renaiisance Weekend events, and at all the other havens of delusional comfort delivered by others long ago.

But ok, I'll try to put this in the best worst light. GWB cranked up the claims of WMD to get license to kick Sadaam&Co out of Iraq.

there must be a reason he wanted Saddam&Co out of their gig, running the Republic of Fear. Some kind of personal gain. Oh, yeah--Haliburton; he wanted to throw a war and hand out huge war contracts for his crony friends.

Well, run with that. If that is why he did this, and there is no other context, then fry the bastard.

Oh, come on, there has to be THE reason. It can't be something like the following math:

"No Fly Zone" War running for 12 years straight, day in, day out. UN kicked in and out of Iraq at will anyway.

"Some have said that we must wait until the threat is imminent..."

Forget it GWB; nobody is listening to the 2003 SOTU Address; too hidden, too fringe. They are going to say that you said, "The threat is imminent."

No, Saddam may be a little 'harsh' just like the Hutu majority was a little harsh, but it's none of our self-interest bidness. No, let's get back to our self interests, and do something about the ME. Like, leave Israel tied naked to a stake in the desert, so the local KKK can have at it. You know, '***** up.' The Western disease on the slide to Hell.

Subtract one modern state Arab thug running the Republic of Fear in the ME like a loose cannon in his personal amusement park of Death, defying both the UN and the US mere contention that it had actually won Gulf War I. Knock state thug #1 off the list, tell the world 'So, he wasn't #1? No problem, who's next?'

Add one free Arab democracy in the region, where the success of 25 million Arab people is suddenly aligned lockstep with the interests of the US.

Remove yet one more Club Terroism open arms/safe landing pad in the region. That retirement home is officially closed.

So, GWB et al knowingly cooked up all the WMD stuff from whole cloth, never mind the Ministers of Ministries That Did Nothing But Pretend To Do What They Once Actually Did But Did No More, Not Covertly, Not Secretly, Not Anything, It' Just Takes 12 Years To Clean Out The Office In Iraq".

He(and they) did all of that lieing on the gamble that, once Saddam&Co were actually kicked out of Iraq and the mass graves were exposed and the torture rooms were uncovered and the rape rooms were described and the day to day Olympic training techniques in the Republioc Of Fear were exposed, a compalcent world that once could not be moved to act to save 800,000 Rwandans from simply being hacked to death, one by one, with machetes would have been nudged to do the Right ****ing Thing for a change.

Bewcause, there was absolutely no need to go to Iraq. I mean, Rwanda. I mean, stay in Somalia.

Because, *****ing up in the face of evil has nothing to do with the War on Terror, or why OBL has contempt for the West.

Imagine how the remaining Rwandans must love the U.S.A.

Imagine how the Senagalese UN troops who witnessed our state cowardice in Rwanda must feel.


Imagine how the Candian commandant, Dellaire, who was left hanging in Rwanda must feel about the U.S.A. AFter all, all of that wa back during the Golden Age, when the world loved AMerica.


You see, it wasn't until Jan 2001 that the World started hating our guts for being hollow, spineless cut and run cowards, unwilling to stand up to sheer evil and lift a finger for anybody else.

Hey, as long as it was a "peacekeeping" mission and we didn't actually have to make any noise or widows or orphans, no problem, we're parading, right there with Kofi leading the blue helmeted UN.

But, as soon as a thug with a machete shows up, we're aoutta there, seeyalater bye, you're on your own.

I mean, the cost to a country in which 115 Americans murder each other every single day over nothing more significant than the holy right to drive across town for the really, really godd Italian Ice is just way too high.

So, you little brown people that these same cut and runners claim they care so much about, you are on your own.

We can't clean up every mess in the world--even if, in the case of Rwanda, all it took was unarmed good men standing up to out of control evil and saying, "No, you cannot do this."

 

[Skyhunter]

We can't clean up every mess in the world

Exactly, so pick and choose which ones to rant on about.

Bush and his administration, like you, were so focused on Iraq, that they ignored Al Qaeda until the WTC and Pentagon were attacked, and then they used the incident as an excuse to invade Iraq.

I don't wholly disagree with your assessment of Clinton's policies, I just find your disdain and contempt, contemptible.

You seem to be really hung up on this John Wayne image of America and maintaining it by kicking butt. In the real world, John Wayne is a dead actor. And the image of the US is suffering more now than in any other time since WWII, and probably at anytime in our history. Unilateral bullying to depose dictators of oil rich nations is not helping our international image.

And to emphasize my point why are we doing nothing about Sudan?

Get real, just because it makes you feel good when America is kicking ass doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to respect us for it.

 

[kat]

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Democrats who voted yea:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

[Zlex]

Exactly, so pick and choose which ones to rant on about.
Bush and his administration, like you, were so focused on Iraq, that they ignored Al Qaeda until the WTC and Pentagon were attacked, and then they used the incident as an excuse to invade Iraq.
I don't wholly disagree with your assessment of Clinton's policies, I just find your disdain and contempt, contemptible.
You seem to be really hung up on this John Wayne image of America and maintaining it by kicking butt. In the real world, John Wayne is a dead actor. And the image of the US is suffering more now than in any other time since WWII, and probably at anytime in our history. Unilateral bullying to depose dictators of oil rich nations is not helping our international image.
And to emphasize my point why are we doing nothing about Sudan?
Get real, just because it makes you feel good when America is kicking ass doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to respect us for it.

SkyHunter,

On the subject of 1990's confusion about the Paradox of Violence and the abuse of still heroic humanitarian efforts, I'm greatly influenced by the tortured writings of folks like David Rieff, a vocal and competent critic of the Iraq war. But...read what he says.

I've recommended his book to dozens of folks: "A Bed For The Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis." I've read it twice, it is not a long read, but it is a difficult, painful, and even shameful read. But, you can get a good feel for his anguished journey from these set of interviews. Read all three pages, starting here.

To me, even as I disagree with him on Iraq, he paints the most reasoned and well thought out picture I've ever come across on the timely topic of our pained, struggling grasp of both humanitarian efforts and the Paradox of Violence.

Rather than read all of that, and then try to figure out my position, let me uncharastically attempt state it simply.

I believe that the less we show an actual willingess to bust our nuts when required, the more it will be ultimately necessary to factually bust our nuts, and vice versa. So, the long running Western/UN/3rd Way experiment to absolutely and unilaterally repeal the Paradox of Violence has been, IMO, a leading cause of ever increasing mayhem in the world. The abuse of humanitarian efforts to hide the ineffectual failings of that flawed policy charachterizes the 90's, and the long overdue invoice has arrived to be paid.

That's as simple as I can make it, and yet it is too simple by more than half. OK, I failed. I can live with that, and do every day.

Rieff's anguished book does a great job of illustrating that it's not only not 'either/or' -- humanitarian effort or military effort -- but, sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes they are one masking the need for the other, and sometimes they are one abusing the other. He illustrates the examples of the 90's on the ground in detail, and demonstrates how humanitarianism was being abused by the West an an endless excuse to do nothing in the face of things badly needing 'done.' At the same time, he recogizes the risk, and raises the fear of the opposite(which he beleives is the case in Iraq), that marching behind the fascia of "humanitarian efforts", imperialist nations so inclined could launch endless and unbounded campaigns of conquest. I disagree with him on this assessment of Iraq, because of our shameful history there; we owe the Iraqis their freedom for our past national shameful 'have it both ways' behaviour there. We renig on that obligation, and we have no right to be other than shamed forever. If this nation ever urinates on the lives already sacrificed in Iraq--including the thousands thrown to the wolves in 1996 by our gutless and uncommented upon policies-- by cutting and running yet again, thus, passing an even larger invoice marked "overdue" to some future generation, then I'll join in and urinate on a flag that has ultimately, after all these generations, become a symbol of disgrace. We can't finally say, "Well, we lied to you in the past and left you to swing in the wind, and this is getting difficult, so we're going to continue to lie to you again and let you swing in the wind again, turn you back over to the tender mercies of the throat-slitters, and go back to our self-congradulatory parades, Renaiisaance Weekend affairs complete with crab spread, and weepy Hollywood image of ourselves."

In the face of all the whining and angsting and crying and moaning, the hated cowboy nazi idyit fratboy is standing firm and saying 'No Way, Not On My Watch.' Screw his legacy, screw the polls, screw his finger in the wind.

Good for him, that's called leadership. The only thing wrong with it is that rest of the world, throat slitters and Cappucino sippers alike, believes it's just a temporary stiffening of our collective spine, he'll eventually leave the White House, we'll revert to Jell-O Puddin' soon enough, and we can all get back to our Renaiissance Weekend, scream ignoring ways.

 

[Smurf]

And people say the "Liberal Media" uses sensationalism.

 

[SOS2008]

107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. J. RES. 114, October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION

Thank you for doing the research and posting this. Very informative. Though the list of Dems is a short one, I for one will not excuse them--even those like Kerry who supported it with a "disclaimer." In the meantime, I did not see anything in the resolution specifying a preemptive first strike for purposes for regime change.

The dismantling of Saddam's regime has been on the US books continuously, unbroken, since 1991. Covertly until Oct 31, 1998, overtly since. It is a total fabrication to claim that the 'neocons' in Bush Administration showed up in Jan 2001 with the brand, new fresh idea, "Hey, let's go overthrow Saddam."

...Bush had the balls to publicly lead and do precisely what previous administrations privately and covertly concluded had to be done; depose Saddam Hussein and his sick twist Ba'ath Socialist Party Regime of Fear.
The Road Formerly Taken (ie, do it on the cheap in the dark while we all sip our Cappucinos, lie, mislead the Kurds to do it themselves with false promises of backing, then leave them to swing in the wind while we tsk-tsk-tsk their demise on p8 of the local paper over our Danish and Lattes) had consequences for this nation precisely because it was gutless and cowardly and destroyed our national credibility.

Correct that before making an argument in regard to a specific country or leader (or dictator), a broader review of policy needs to be considered first. This is an academic forum, yet members continue to focus on one simple case rather than do the research that would take this discussion to a higher, more meaningful level.

First one should understand the neocon philosophy, which originated long ago and has continued to evolve to the current “Bush Doctrine:”

Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and the abandonment of "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

…Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

What needs to be discussed is foreign policy, beginning at the macro level -- what the role of the U.S. is/should be:

A great read - America's Role in The World - www.cwru.edu/groups/cpe/issues/winter2003.pdf

Then one can become more specific, for example, is America’s role one of intervention, and when, how and why? For example:

The United States and Third World Dictatorships: A Case for Benign Detachment

Executive Summary
It is a central dilemma of contemporary American foreign policy that the world's leading capitalist democracy must confront an environment in which a majority of nations are neither capitalist nor democratic. U.S. leaders have rarely exhibited ingenuity or grace in handling this delicate and often frustrating situation.

The current turmoil in Central America is illustrative of a larger problem. American officials assert that this vital region is under assault from doctrinaire communist revolutionaries trained, funded, and controlled by the Soviet Union. Danger to the well-being of the United States is immediate and serious, administration spokesmen argue, and it is imperative that the Marxist-Leninist tide be prevented from engulfing Central America. Accomplishing this objective requires a confrontational posture toward the communist beachhead (Nicaragua) combined with massive support for all "friendly" regimes, ranging from democratic Costa Rica to autocratic Guatemala. Washington's Central American policy displays in microcosm most of the faulty assumptions underlying America's approach to the entire Third World.

The current strategy of the United States betrays a virtual siege mentality. It was not always thus. Throughout the nineteenth century U.S. policymakers exuded confidence that the rest of the world would emulate America's political and economic system, seeing the United States as a "beacon on the hill" guiding humanity to a better future.[1] As late as the 1940s, most Americans and their political representatives still believed that democracy would triumph as a universal system. The prospective breakup of the European colonial empires throughout Asia and Africa was generally viewed as an opportunity, not a calamity. Scores of new nations would emerge from that process, and Americans were confident that most would choose the path of democracy and free enterprise, thus isolating the Soviet Union and its coterie of Marxist-Leninist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

The actual results were acutely disappointing. No wave of new democracies occurred in this "Third World"; instead, decolonization produced a plethora of dictatorships, some of which appeared distressingly friendly to Moscow. This development was especially disturbing to Washington since it took place at a time when America's cold war confrontation with the USSR was at its most virulent. The nature and magnitude of that struggle caused American leaders to view the Third World primarily as another arena in the conflict. Consequently, the proliferation of left-wing revolutionary movements and governments seemed to undermine America's own security and well-being.

http://find.cato.org/search?q=cache:zXmV-iR2rgM:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D924+Current+Dictatorships&restrict=Cato&site=cato_all&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cato_all&access=p&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt

In addition, we should analyze current dictatorships in the world, and consider a policy toward all these countries. Are there good dictatorships, or are all these governments bad? And if these are all bad, should elimination of dictatorships be a central or even crucial part of our foreign policy? We know regime change is illegal—should it be? Is it moral or immoral? And what do we hope to achieve?

Universal Democracy?

A SHORT WHILE AGO, one of the world’s most brutal and entrenched dictatorships was swiftly toppled by the military force of the United States and the United Kingdom. The 2003 Iraq war was launched to disarm Saddam Hussein, but for many of its advocates and supporters, the more compelling aim was to bring about regime change. In fact, the goal is not simply “regime change” but a sweeping political transformation in that country — and, it is hoped, in states throughout its neighborhood — towards what has never existed there before: democracy.

This is the most ambitious effort to foster deliberate political change since European colonial rule drew to a close in the early post-World War II era. Can it succeed? Since Iraq lacks virtually all of the classic favorable conditions, to ask whether it can soon become a democracy is to ask, really, whether any country can become a democracy. Which is to ask as well, can every country become a democracy?

http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html

I know I have posted a list of dictatorships more than once, and someone provided a link to a website that thoroughly debunked the premise that democracy = world peace. After all, as with dictatorships, there are good versus bad democracies too, no?

 

[Zlex]

Thank you for doing the research and posting this. Very informative. Though the list of Dems is a short one, I for one will not excuse them--even those like Kerry who supported it with a "disclaimer." In the meantime, I did not see anything in the resolution specifying a preemptive first strike for purposes for regime change.
Correct that before making an argument in regard to a specific country or leader (or dictator), a broader review of policy needs to be considered first. This is an academic forum, yet members continue to focus on one simple case rather than do the research that would take this discussion to a higher, more meaningful level.
First one should understand the neocon philosophy, which originated long ago and has continued to evolve to the current “Bush Doctrine:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
What needs to be discussed is foreign policy, beginning at the macro level -- what the role of the U.S. is/should be:
A great read - America's Role in The World - www.cwru.edu/groups/cpe/issues/winter2003.pdf
Then one can become more specific, for example, is America’s role one of intervention, and when, how and why? For example:
http://find.cato.org/search?q=cache:zXmV-iR2rgM:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D924+Current+Dictatorships&restrict=Cato&site=cato_all&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cato_all&access=p&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt
In addition, we should analyze current dictatorships in the world, and consider a policy toward all these countries. Are there good dictatorships, or are all these governments bad? And if these are all bad, should elimination of dictatorships be a central or even crucial part of our foreign policy? We know regime change is illegal—should it be? Is it moral or immoral? And what do we hope to achieve?
http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html
I know I have posted a list of dictatorships more than once, and someone provided a link to a website that thoroughly debunked the premise that democracy = world peace. After all, as with dictatorships, there are good versus bad democracies too, no?

From your great read:

Nevertheless, we have responsibilities
to others that make it sometimes cowardly
to say or do nothing in response to evil.
Nothing allows corruption to flourish like the
silence of ordinary good people.

I wish I had an answer for you. But, I think that's a good way of putting it, and it points out the hard choices. The answer to should we get rid of all the 'bad' men is certainly not in the back of any textbook.


A] Get over our bad selves and don't go in; coldy watch more of the world burn while we gear up for another season of "Who want's to Marry a Millionaire."

B] Get over our bad selves and go in with sufficient force to ... stay there for as long as it takes; Pax Americana, though without Rhode's 5%, so only until we ruin our economies with yet the latest attempt to support a world war level of government spending forever.

C] Some other bad choice; like, the 'fig leaf' of toothless humanitarian aid indiscriminantly thrown at the region with the hope that the thugs in charge will give some to their victims, the mess that Rieff decries re' the 90's. This is just inneffective conscience money from afar, so we can produce and consume "For Love or Money" prosperity to our heart's content and convince ourselves that we are actually really doing something in the meantime to end genocide, murder on a mass scale, misery, tyranny, and inhumanity in the world. As if throwing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid into a festering, corrupt ****hole is ever going to actually get to the victims. Well, we can say, "Look, we did our part, we paid our humanitarian dues, it's not our problem."

If B is not a choice, that leaves A or C, and given that both are equally inneffective in actually helping anybody, then maybe we just get over our bad selves and turn up the volume on the TV.

Oh, yeah; there is a version of C that is a 4th choice: endless meetings and resolutions and wishes on paper on East 44th street, followed by $400 dinners at the Four Seasons.

A community without a sheriff has no need of unenforceable law, and is soon a lawless brutal place, unless the locals provide their own enforcement of the peace. The same applies to the world community. This basic fact has not been repealed, though attempts are being made to ignore it.

It's just that, we don't want to be it, and nobody want's us to be it, either. Yet, see anybody else stepping up to the plate?

So comes the irrational big headed puppet parades. Say it isn't so; universal enlightenment is just around the corner, say, the next election. aka, real soon now. Sure, answering unanswerable questions is a job for geniuses, well ... anybody but Bush.

Say, why can't the world just run in peace? The answer to that is usually, because Americans drive SUVs. If only we all rode bicylces, the world would be one huge harmonious utopia of children singing kumbaya all day long.

Christ, no wonder Rieff is such a cynic; nothing but dirty naked apes as far as the eye can see.


You have a point, how can we shape the world into what's 'right'. It is absolutely true that we can't clean up every ****fight in the world, but, and this is just my opinion, the more often we try, the less often we'll have to angst over whether to try or not. In a world where those who can are seen as never doing, the worst among us act with impunity. It is a much different world with even a hated self-righteous bully who might try then one with a merely despised/scorned and still hated with contempt coward who won't. Unless, of course, you believe that the US was universally loved 3 years ago, pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan, pre Iraq, pre whatever Bush decides is next, and the world was at peace. IMO, we weren't, we aren't and in part, it was our inactivity and cowardliness in the face of direct and obvious confrontation which fed the contempt of those that today hate us, and the complicity of those that also hate us.

Bush is either expensively changing history, or ignoring it, or both; the jury is out. It's his decision for as long as we use our freedoms to give him that office. He is the only one with full access to the necessary resources, and it is his decision to make, based on those resources.

We can, the question is, should we travel to Africa et al., and defend the weak from the strong who would eat them?

The more we show our resolve to try, the less we will have to prove our resolve to do. Conversely, the more we demonstrate our willingess to finesse with words like 'only genocide-like' as an excuse to turn our backs after having recently cut and run, the more opportunity we will provide ourselves for facing and failing that decision.

And indeed, the parallels between British Empire and Pax Americana Lite are significant. Freshly stripped of the American colonies and the trade triangle, Britain suddenly and jarringly went on a holy military campaign to rid the world of slavery in the 1800s, against those mostly Muslim nations that were the wholesalers, and in so doing, expanded the British Empire. And there is no doubt, examining the very words of Cecil Rhodes when he cynically though honestly observed "Colonialism is philanthropy, plus 5%" that imperfect, naked sweaty apes will always have their rea$ons.

Yet, with all of that, is anyone arguing that slavery is a good thing, or that ridding the world of it was not a good thing? Ditto torture and brutality under totalitarian Stalinist regimes. Is anyone arguing that the world should have a higher % of its people governed and/or threatened by these people eaters?

 

[edward]

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION BLAH BLAH BLAH
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers ResolutionPublic Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Democrats who voted yea:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.

 

[mathwonk]

i think the wise motto: "never try to teach a pig to sing", should suffice to advise everyone to stay out of this discussion.

 

[SOS2008]

You have a point, how can we shape the world into what's 'right'. It is absolutely true that we can't clean up every ****fight in the world, but, and this is just my opinion, the more often we try, the less often we'll have to angst over whether to try or not. In a world where those who can are seen as never doing, the worst among us act with impunity.

Neocons believe they can clean up every “hot spot” in the world—some argue one at a time. That is not so much my issue as when, why and how. Is U.S. intervention that of shaping the world? I don’t see this as one in the same, or necessarily the goal to pursue (rather presumptuous, actually). And assuming we can come to some consensus on a definition of what is ‘right’ – according to our own values, such as abiding by laws, treaties, human rights guidelines, respect for sovereignty, etc., we should then be consistent. First, arguments of “how bad is bad” can only be determined by evaluating all of the world and history—not just one instance. Second, the invasion of Iraq was done in a way that is not in accordance with our values. Yes, we have responsibilities, but it matters when, why and how we “step up to the plate” and we should have a clear, sensible policy to follow when we do it.

It is a much different world with even a hated self-righteous bully who might try then one with a merely despised/scorned and still hated with contempt coward who won't. Unless, of course, you believe that the US was universally loved 3 years ago, pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan, pre Iraq, pre whatever Bush decides is next, and the world was at peace. IMO, we weren't, we aren't and in part, it was our inactivity and cowardliness in the face of direct and obvious confrontation which fed the contempt of those that today hate us, and the complicity of those that also hate us.

True, the U.S. had already meddled and mucked enough to cause disdain in the world, but the world was with us after 9-11, and the world would still be with us if we had remained focused on terrorism. Americans can bad mouth our allies all they want, but a unilateral approach to the “hot spots” of the world is a path to failure. I advise them to use diplomacy in gaining financial and military assistance in addressing world problems.

It's his [Bush’s] decision for as long as we use our freedoms to give him that office. He is the only one with full access to the necessary resources, and it is his decision to make, based on those resources

FYI, we believe in balance of power in the U.S., and the Executive Branch is not empowered to do as it pleases. The Legislative Branch is pulling in the reigns at this moment to prevent further abuses.

This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.

And of course it would probably be appropriate to post a list of Republicans who supported the resolution too.

i think the wise motto: "never try to teach a pig to sing", should suffice to advise everyone to stay out of this discussion.

No harm in testing to see if it is a pig first.

 

[kat]

This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.

ignoring that your statement would be impossible for you to prove and is factually incorrect...let's just question who's disinformation propaganda it was during the two terms prior to Bush's when the Dem's under the Clinton Admin were making similar declarations.

 

[kat]

And of course it would probably be appropriate to post a list of Republicans who supported the resolution too.

All but one republican senator supported..and over half of the Dems.

 

[edward]

ignoring that your statement would be impossible for you to prove and is factually incorrect

No my statement is right on the money, if the Dems voted for the war it was only because they believed the disinformation as did millions of others. If there had been no erroneous WMD proganda there would have been no vote. Please prove otherwise.

let's just question who's disinformation propaganda it was during the two terms prior to Bush's when the Dem's under the Clinton Admin were making similar declarations.

You are exactly wrong. In regards to Iraq whatever happened under Clinton is not being investigated and never was investigted because there was nothing to investigate. The only thing an eight year witch hunt came up with was a BJ.

Clinton didn't start a war, but he did blow the hell out of things in Iraq when Saddam ordered the inspectors to leave. The result was that the inspectors returned. Or did you convenientlly forget that? And blaiming Clinton for Bushes mistakes is getting old. You are just going to have to try to outgrow that.

 

[kat]

No my statement is right on the money

No..your statement was factually incorrect.

THERE WERE NO WMD

from the often used source Wikipedia...I quote:
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[29]

On May 15, 2004 a 155 mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dialated pupils).[30] [31] On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them). [32].
Factually you are incorrect.

You are exactly wrong. In regards to Iraq whatever happened under Clinton is not being investigated and never was investigted because there was nothing to investigate. The only thing an eight year witch hunt came up with was a BJ.
Clinton didn't start a war, but he did blow the hell out of things in Iraq when Saddam ordered the inspectors to leave. The result was that the inspectors returned. Or did you convenientlly forget that? And blaiming Clinton for Bushes mistakes is getting old. You are just going to have to try to outgrow that.

Blah Blah Blah..again I'll ask... Who's WMD propoganda was it prior to the Bush administrations? WMD did not suddenly appear upon the horizon post Bush. Do I really need to dig out Clinton Admin and Democratic members of Congress' quotes on WMD prior to Bush?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Whether or not Saddam had WMDs years and years ago and whether or not anyone thought he had them is irrelevant. People did not vote to go war on the grounds that he used to have them or on old 'evidence' that he might have had them, but on the grounds that he had them now and posed a 'clear and present danger' to the United States. That case was compiled by Bush and Blair by 'information' old and new and wrong.

Also a shell of mustard gas and a shell of sarin will not cause mass destruction, so are not WMDs.

 

[Informal Logic]

After Bush's Veterans Day speech you would think he would realize he is only digging a deeper hole by going on the offensive blaming Kerry or Clinton or the democrats. He would do much better in the polls if he would admit to his own mistakes, suggest solutions, and stop the negative sale. But he and Rummy are still at it. It makes me laugh to watch the self destruction.

In reference to the democrats and support for the resolution, go back and look at the news when this was passed. There was tremendous debate, and most of the democrats who did vote for it made statements that show they were very concerned about WMD, in particular WMD being sold to terrorists, and many still expected war to be a last resort. They did not vote for the resolution in support of war mongering.

 

[edward]

No..your statement was factually incorrect.
from the often used source Wikipedia...I quote:
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation.

Judith Miller was a part of MET alpha, the (survey group?) you are referring to. All of her reports were later debunked. All that was ever found were a few old empty shells from the previous war. All had been emptied tagged and sealed in Bunkers by the UN. During the 2003 invasion the U.S. forces found the bunkers but did not have the manpower to secure them, and the munitions were stolen. The explosives inside the shells were then used to make IED's. Of course you know that don't you?

There was never anything found that was significant and certainly nothing was ever found that met the "Grave and gathering danger" bull crap that was fed to the American people.

Blah Blah Blah..again I'll ask... Who's WMD propoganda was it prior to the Bush administrations? WMD did not suddenly appear upon the horizon post Bush. Do I really need to dig out Clinton Admin and Democratic members of Congress' quotes on WMD prior to Bush?

There were of course WMD from the previous era and they were destroyed or emptied. Of course there is always that occasional stray shell.

The shell mentioned below was from WWll and found in the good old USA. I suppose that was Clinton's fault too?

A check in 2002 unearthed an old artillery shell containing the chemical phosgene, a choking agent, in a field near a family's home in Etowah County.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050809/site.shtml

 

[Informal Logic]

Sorry, I just saw this.

We might as well ask why Bush 41 didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad; some of the answers are the same. Not all, but some.

Because there was no leader in exile, or revolution thereof in Iraq, there was no clear replacement for Saddam nor a good plan for stability after removing him. The ‘shock and awe’ bombing that resulted in death of family members worked well on Qaddafi of Libya. For the most part Saddam had been stripped of his military strength during the Gulf War, and as long as he could be contained with inspections it was considered best to stay the course. Then if Saddam had committed another act of aggression, regime change probably would have been reconsidered, though stability would still be a problem. But at least it would have been an international effort.

 

[Zlex]

Sorry, I just saw this.
Because there was no leader in exile, or revolution thereof in Iraq, there was no clear replacement for Saddam nor a good plan for stability after removing him. The ‘shock and awe’ bombing that resulted in death of family members worked well on Qaddafi of Libya. For the most part Saddam had been stripped of his military strength during the Gulf War, and as long as he could be contained with inspections it was considered best to stay the course. Then if Saddam had committed another act of aggression, regime change probably would have been reconsidered, though stability would still be a problem. But at least it would have been an international effort.

Well, as outlined in a FrontLine biography a few months ago(?), Saddaam rope-a-doped Gulf War I. The West, as usual, could not believe that any sane person would fail to see the handwriting on that wall. An International Community crying its eyes out over the turkey shoot on the Road north to Basra out of Kuwait cried "enough is enough, Bush 41," and caving to both world opinion, wishful thinking, and the grasp of half a loaf already won without massive casualties, we left Iraq in thrall to these thugs. We hoped beyond hope that surely, somehow, Saddam would lose power now that he'd been slapped down so forcefully and so so completely. We hoped that for many reasons, including, because there was no plan of action in place to do anything other than what was factually accomplished, and no vaunted world consensus to do more than that; eject Saddam from Kuwait. Many back then sadly predicted, "We'll have to come back in ten years to finish this," and they were absolutely right.

And then, shamefully, victims of our own wishful thinking and optimism about the nature of thugs and what they are willing to ignore, we stood by while Saddaam quelled the very rebellion we merely wished for and secured his grip around the throat of Iraq, and continued to add to his growing pile of mass graves in the Iraqi desert, unimpeded.

Then follows a decade of total nonsense. UN inspectors being run around like fools, being told curious things like, "No, you can't come in here" while UN inspection leaders found themselves uttering other strange words like, "Get your hands off of my inspector," or else. Or else what? Or else precious little. Or else another UN Resolution, one day to approach a dozen and a half and endlessly counting.

And meanwhile, Saddam & Sons hold the nation and country of Iraq by the throat, to use as they saw fit, which now, we have recently come to learn, included such things as hosting the training of Mohammed Atta by Abu Nidal, to which the San Francisco spin machine responds with the curiously rehashed, "No conclusive proof they met in Prague."

And Abu Nidal...isn't he the guy who

2002 August: Dies in Baghdad, Iraq under circumstances that quickly become questioned. Iraqi authorities claim that he had entered Iraq illegally, and when discovered by officials, he shot himself...

Source

four times in the head, in a curious case of suicide slash C.Y.I.A. after 9/11.

All while we merely pretended that we were not at war, back during the 90's pizza party. As chillingly detailed in that FrontLine special, Saddam had taken the measure of Clinton, 'because that is what thugs do,' and had found him eminently doable. Defy him, and he pitches a 30 minute fit of cruise missiles, followed by a resounding 'never mind' until the next opportunity for a total pose for the CNN cameras presents itself, thanks, Saddam, for helping with the pictures.

Presidents change. Elections come along, elections in which GWB cannot miraculously count on getting 99.99% of the vote while the world stands by, stunned. GWB got the magic stick for 4 years, and he wielded it to effect change in the M.E. We may not all like the way he actually did that, but we can't point to what was the status quo with any huge sense of longing, and neither can we point to any convincing Third Way. The path to that Third Way is convince the tribe, sieze the stick, and wield the power, and demonstrate the efficacy of renewing Clinton's legacy Third Way, the one that appeared for all intents and purposes for eight years to be chronically frozen with indecision and fear and ineffectiveness, but plenty of posturing and speeches to the international community, the one that did absolutely nothing to keep those mass graves from endlessly being dug in the Iraqi desert.

 

[SOS2008]

...we left Iraq in thrall to these thugs. We hoped beyond hope that surely, somehow, Saddam would lose power now that he'd been slapped down so forcefully and so so completely.

Would of, could of, should of -- IMO we should have dealt with Saddam when he was rising to power per advise of CIA operatives at that time. I, like many feel we could have removed Saddam during the Gulf War with more support from the world. Certainly far more than with Dubya's misleading and mishandling. But more importantly was as you state, the hope that Saddam would lose power--enough that new leadership might rise from within. If we had removed him ourselves, what would result? Probably a lot of what we are dealing with now.

Many back then sadly predicted, "We'll have to come back in ten years to finish this," and they were absolutely right.

Your opinion -- We had yet to know if/when.

And then, shamefully, victims of our own wishful thinking and optimism about the nature of thugs and what they are willing to ignore, we stood by while Saddaam quelled the very rebellion we merely wished for and secured his grip around the throat of Iraq, and continued to add to his growing pile of mass graves in the Iraqi desert, unimpeded.

If indeed there had been a significant chance for rebellion, and we did not assist, then yes, shame on the U.S.

Then follows a decade of total nonsense. UN inspectors being run around like fools, being told curious things like, "No, you can't come in here" while UN inspection leaders found themselves uttering other strange words like, "Get your hands off of my inspector," or else. Or else what? Or else precious little. Or else another UN Resolution, one day to approach a dozen and a half and endlessly counting. And meanwhile, Saddam & Sons hold the nation and country of Iraq by the throat, to use as they saw fit, which now, we have recently come to learn, included such things as hosting the training of Mohammed Atta by Abu Nidal, to which the San Francisco spin machine responds with the curiously rehashed, "No conclusive proof they met in Prague."

Once again, your opinion. But none of this qualifies for "how bad is bad" in comparison to activities around the world. So many brutal leaders, and many other countries far more involved in training of terrorists. Most importantly, none of this could be deemed as "clear and present danger" to U.S. national security.

GWB got the magic stick for 4 years, and he wielded it to effect change in the M.E. We may not all like the way he actually did that, but we can't point to what was the status quo with any huge sense of longing, and neither can we point to any convincing Third Way.

Let me rephrase that to reality. We may not have liked various situations in the M.E., but Dubya's way was a huge mistake that made everything worse, not only in that region but throughout the world. That anyone believes there was anything positive about Bush and the invasion is mind-boggling.

The path to that Third Way is convince the tribe, sieze the stick, and wield the power, and demonstrate the efficacy of renewing Clinton's legacy Third Way, the one that appeared for all intents and purposes for eight years to be chronically frozen with indecision and fear and ineffectiveness, but plenty of posturing and speeches to the international community, the one that did absolutely nothing to keep those mass graves from endlessly being dug in the Iraqi desert.

Where's my shovel…?

 

[Zlex]

If indeed there had been a significant chance for rebellion, and we did not assist, then yes, shame on the U.S.

We let the Iraqi people swing in the wind for 3 decades under Saddam. We backed him for a large part of that time. Then, when we got up the nerve to covertly inspire rebellion after kicking him out of Kuwait, after we bluster about establishing 'No Fly Zones" -- for what reason, nobody yet has an answer-- we proceed to fly around the skies in 30 million dollar fighter planes taking picutures of Saddam 'rolling up' the very rebels who thought we had their back, by the thousands and thousands. A cowardly, shameful, dispicable, and well buried 'act' by our government in our name, to be forgotten, except for a few honorable men, like Bob Kerrey, who have said screw the threat of jail, people have to know. And then, when he let's them know, publicly, in front of a huge audience, and his words are actually published...silence. Media coverage? Zilch; does not fit the agenda.

The phrase "cognitive dissonance" gets thrown around alot. That discomfort upon trying to process such events must be what causes us to be able to ignore what we've been doing to the Iraqis. Maybe ... they've forgotten it was the US who did that? Surely, we couldn't have established 'No Fly Zones' for all those many years ... for no reason at all.

Blank stare off into space, while we try to imagine what they were established to accomplish.

Here is the best I can come up with:

"Well, if Saddam is going to roll up the Kurds and Sh'ia, we don't want him doing so in either fixed or rotary wing aircracft, so as to not besmirch the coming 100 year anniversary of Orville and Wilber's flight."

Thousands murdered, covertly encouraged by us, and left to die while we watched safely from overhead in our $30M gesture politics jet fighters, doing nothing. What excuses that?

 

[Zlex]

Would of, could of, should of -- IMO we should have dealt with Saddam when he was rising to power per advise of CIA operatives at that time. I, like many feel we could have removed Saddam during the Gulf War with more support from the world. Certainly far more than with Dubya's misleading and mishandling. But more importantly was as you state, the hope that Saddam would lose power--enough that new leadership might rise from within. If we had removed him ourselves, what would result? Probably a lot of what we are dealing with now.

Probably. And ineed, now is unpleasant, and costly, and hard, and difficult, and gut wrenching. Unavoidable.

Now is, for the first time in a long time, finally, staying and passing judgement on what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong, and choosing. And, in so choosing, backing up our choice if and when that is necessary. We either fight for our view of justice, or we succumb to the vision of those who will fight for theirs.

There used to be an endless argument whose primary purpose was to endlessly deny the need to ever choose; that path is vacuous, and wrong, and in the long run, much more costly than simply choosing.

It's not that hard to know what to choose; it's just that in the short term, it is harder to act than to not act. In the long term, our decades of putting off these hard choices have left a huge bill to pay.

It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs. It's right to back a peaceful, orderly process of assuming power in Iraq. The fact that there are a minority of ****fighters throwing gut wrenching ****, including, sending a hardly can be expected to be 'informed' six of seven year old girl out into the street to hurl explosives at a convoy, does not negate any of that. It merely makes it difficult and hard and costly and unpleasant and gut wrenching to stay and face the thugs that would do such things, in the name of anything on earth.

And, how telling that they chose a girl-child to dispose of in this fashion. That was not a 50-50 happenstance, not in that radical fundamentalist subset of that culture. I have no qualms at all about pointing at that aspect of that culture, as one example of many, and claiming, that is wrong, it is not an innocent matter of Vanilla/Chocolate/cultural diversity in the great rainbow of people making random choices, and it should not stand, even if force is required to squash it..

Oh, but we can't fix every wrong in the world, therefore... that is our license to endelssly fix none. That used to be the argument. That still is the argument. It is the argument that says, we should never fix any wrong in the world, ever, because ... we can't fix every one.

Or, there are "worse problems," and we are not fixing those, therefore, we should not fix these, or any.

Seriously, where is the holy consensus to fix those worse wrongs? Where was the holy consensus, prior to 9/11, that would have allowed us to eject the Taliban from control of Afghanistan? It is not funny, but it would be laughable to claim that, prior to 9/11, the world would have supported an effective war to remove the Taliban from running Club Terrorist in Afghanistan. It barely held its tongue when we did just that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The entire premise of the western world has been to project merely the appearance of doing something, as opposed to actually doing something, because projecting appearances is much less costly in terms of lives, in terms of resources, and in terms of votes...in the short term. In the long term, "gesture politics" is a disaster.

The generation before us did not send The Blue Man Group to perform street theatre to confront Hitler. Today's Jew haters cannot be confronted with painless gestures of condemnation.

How could one generation act with such clarity, and their children be infected with such total puddingheadedness?

There is not one answer. But, here is part of it; a lie that has been spoon fed to us since birth. "Violence is never the answer."

The source of that lie is a movement to render us unable to defend ourselves, and as well, to destroy ourselves. Our schools have been surrendered to that lie, our streets are bieng surrendered to that lie, and now the entire world is being surrendered to that lie. For a people that believe that 'violence is never the answer,' we have not made any inroads at all in reducing the amount of it raging around the world.

If there is one Iraqi left, pressing for a peaceful non-violent Iraq, ruled by law and not murdering thugs sending 7 year old girls out to hurl explosives at convoys, then even if 25 million Iraqis minus one are dancing in the street, cheering on the bloodshed, kidnapping Japenses woman and threatening to burn them alive, dragging corpses throught the sreets, lining up behind whatever Shiite cleric drew the knife across the throat first, then shame on us for leaving that one human being to be overrun by thug/animals.

I would make that argument all the way until that last one. But in fact, I don't think we're close to that situation in Iraq. In fact, I think we're much closer to the following:

A tiny minority of ****fighters moved to extreme violence in a country of 25 million who have been ruled by fear and violence and murder and mass graves and Saddam's Goon Guard for three decades, nervously whatching the CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS led cheerleaders for 'cut and run again' on their heretofore illegal satellite dishes, wondering if America is once again going to leave the Kurds and Shia swinging in the wind like we did as recently as 1996, complete with No FLy Zones to watch but don't touch.

We have no credibility with those 25 million; why on Earth should we? They've seen us cut and run and leave Iraq to thugs before. They've seen us covertly egging them on, just to have us watch safely from 15,000 feet while knives were dragged across throats.

It is as if the combined media resources of the balance of the civilized world were focused on only one goal; a campaign to boost the morale of the ****fighters in Iraq, to cheer them on as they murder and kidnap and torture and send out 7 year old girls to hurl bombs at convoys. Hold on, we've almost convinced our leaders to cut and run again, if you just ramp up the ****fight just a little bit, you could yet turn this around and ... we'll cut and run again.

In the interest of 'peace,' where are the peace marchers condeming the ****fighters in Iraq? Where are the heartfelt calls to 'end the violence?' It is glaringly missing; the so called 'peace movement' is not about peace at all; it is about defeat of the US by those who believe they have to destroy the USA in order to save it. Cute line, indeed, our own religious fanatics live by this, fervently.

Press Kerrey on his disclosures of US covert activity in Iraq since 1991, the slaughter by Saddam in 1996 of the last of the Kurd and SHia still struggling to stand up to him at our urging, while we did nothing from 15,000 ft, the request in 1998 for additional covert action in Iraq, the price demanded by Kerrey and others, the public Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, declaring that it was official US policy to remove the Saddam regime from Iraq?

Or, does all that not somehow fit into the Center For AMerican Progress talking points, "Bush showed up in January 2001, suddenly intent on having the US oust Sadaam from Iraq come Hell or High Water, Clear Out Of The Blue Based on Lies Lies Lies?"

 

[edward]

ZLEX: another nice OP ED

Where was the holy consensus, prior to 9/11, that would have allowed us to eject the Taliban from control of Afghanistan? It is not funny, but it would be laughable to claim that, prior to 9/11, the world would have supported an effective war to remove the Taliban from running Club Terrorist in Afghanistan.

It was the USA who put the taliban into power in Afghanistan in the first place. Remember their little war with Russia?? For that matter Saddam's power was consolidated with help from the USA.

Or, does all that not somehow fit into the Center For AMerican Progress talking points, "Bush showed up in January 2001, suddenly intent on having the US oust Sadaam from Iraq come Hell or High Water, Clear Out Of The Blue Based on Lies Lies Lies?"

Actually the lies were made up a bit later.

 

[SOS2008]

We let the Iraqi people swing in the wind for 3 decades under Saddam.

Without the hyperbole, it was Bush Sr. who conducted the Gulf War, and who called on the Iraqi people to rebel. The dominant assessment of U.S. intelligence was neither the Shi’is in the south or the Kurds in the north had a chance at success. Certainly these two factions were not acting in unison. Historically the Kurds have wanted to secede, while the Shi’is were supported by Iran. So the perception was the Iraqi military was needed to assist in the overthrow of Saddam and to keep the country unified. But this wasn’t happening.

Probably. And ineed, now is unpleasant, and costly, and hard, and difficult, and gut wrenching. Unavoidable.

Costly and gut wrenching yes, unavoidable no.

Now is, for the first time in a long time, finally, staying and passing judgement on what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong, and choosing. And, in so choosing, backing up our choice if and when that is necessary. We either fight for our view of justice, or we succumb to the vision of those who will fight for theirs. There used to be an endless argument whose primary purpose was to endlessly deny the need to ever choose; that path is vacuous, and wrong, and in the long run, much more costly than simply choosing.

I’ve been trying to talk about what is right and what is wrong, but you refuse to stick to the points of preemptive first strike, regime change, torture, types of arsenals, etc. You continue with a neocon rant about fighting for justice, but forget that America’s first priority is to fight for American freedom, and intervention in other sovereign countries without invitation (perhaps even cheers and flowers?) toward a common desire is injustice.

It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs. It's right to back a peaceful, orderly process of assuming power in Iraq.

[<more dramatics>]

Oh, but we can't fix every wrong in the world, therefore... that is our license to endelssly fix none. That used to be the argument. That still is the argument. It is the argument that says, we should never fix any wrong in the world, ever, because ... we can't fix every one. Or, there are "worse problems," and we are not fixing those, therefore, we should not fix these, or any.

This is so typically hawkish—making false ‘either or,’ black and white claims that those who are anti-war want to “cut and run” or are cowards who turn away from the suffering of the world. Nonsense. Our resources of armed forces, tax dollars, etc. should be used with reason and clear purpose, and not wasted in impulsive spending sprees. And if you don’t mind, these resources belong to all Americans—not just some, or those of some other country (e.g., Israel) who presume they can decide how it should be (mis)used. It is the neocon hawks that would destroy our great country, by over extending our military, draining our coffers, placing us further and further in debt to other countries. The U.S. will not be defeated, and will stand strong against dishonesty, ineptitude, and selfish greed of the few.

 

[Art]

Here's a well researched op/ed article detailing where, when and by who the lies were formulated which took the US to war in Iraq.

Following the advice of 'follow the money' it also shows who profited.
Probably not too surprisingly there is an extraordinary correlation between the two.

Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit
Friday, 18 November 2005, 10:38 am
Opinion: Evelyn Pringle
Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit
By Evelyn Pringle

Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

 

[Zlex]

Without the hyperbole, it was Bush Sr. who conducted the Gulf War, and who called on the Iraqi people to rebel. The dominant assessment of U.S. intelligence was neither the Shi’is in the south or the Kurds in the north had a chance at success. Certainly these two factions were not acting in unison. Historically the Kurds have wanted to secede, while the Shi’is were supported by Iran. So the perception was the Iraqi military was needed to assist in the overthrow of Saddam and to keep the country unified. But this wasn’t happening.

Hyperbole?

BOB KERREY: Anyway, this is all leading to, we had covert operations in place in Iraq starting in 1991. I suppose I could go to jail for disclosing that, for all I know. I don't know. But I was the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, and I had to sign off on them. It isn't just that we had a bunch of guys over there, trained to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We were signing up people. There were Kurds in northern Iraq who believed us, who believed that we'd stick with them, that, "Oh, yeah, you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we're going to be right there with you, and we'll stick it out with you." And we didn't.

DICK GORDON: You're talking about after the war.

BOB KERREY: Nineteen ninety-six, both of the main Kurdish forces were rolled up and killed, and driven out of Iraq as a consequence of Saddam Hussein sending military forces up, even with our no-fly zones being maintained. There were a lot of Iraqis who died. A lot of them tried to come to the United States. We wouldn't let them come here. I just said at the time, 1998-- Now comes the administration again saying, "We want you to sign off on another covert operation. We're going to get him this time." And I said, "I'll sign off on it if you make your open policy the same as your closed policy. Don't sign people up to risk their lives if we're saying publicly we don't think it can happen, and we don't favor it publicly. That's when we wrote the act. On Halloween, 1998, that was the first time the United States' over policy and covert policy was identical. And that's the first time that we could honestly say, both in Washington DC and in Kirkuk or Mosul or wherever else you were trying to sign people up, that we were telling them the same thing.

JFKFoundation.

Bob Kerrey= RightWing shill.

JFK Library Foundation=RIghtWIngNut website, posting nonsense.

Er...my stream of conscious sentences don't measure up.

Not to mention...er...several spelling mistakes.


Er...Bush Apologist!


Hey, let me join in the in-ter-net fun:

Impeach Bush!

We had covert operations in place continuously since 1991, aimed at overthrowing Saddam&Son's Republic of Fear.

In 1996, a covertly inspired Kurdish rebellion failed after the US cowardly did not follow through on its promise to back them up, even as we maintained our 'NoFlyZones' overhead and did nothing but take pictures.

In 1998, here comes the administration again, "We'll get him this time."

And the Senate demands "no more deception." Slick signs the ILA on October 31, 1998. Did he have to? No. He only had to do it as a quid pro quo. Apparently, the quid was worth the quo, because he signed.

OK, so here is where you and yours revert to Episode 6 of "Fireball XL-5" and start foaming on about "the Neocons."

 

[nevagil]

When Clinton lied, it was funny

Except for his wife.
I’m not following the flow of this thread but just visiting the Physics Forum after a long separation and want to add my view of this topic.
The real sadness is actually comparing a competent president Clinton (balanced budgets, shorter successful wars) with an incompetent Bush (record deficits every year, a war that will never end in our lifetimes with Islam).
This is the first U.S. war that I’ve been against, I’m an old war veteran myself and find the death of my fellow soldiers, innocent Iraqi’s, and future results of Bush’s incompetence with terrorists DISGUSTING. Bush is creating the U.S. and others into targets.
I voted for one Republican in my last senatorial election so please don’t consider my reply as a reply of a Democrat. I just a human that calls it the way I see it. I’m ashamed of the way Republicans put their party ahead of our troops and fellow Earth humans.

 

[SOS2008]

Hyperbole?
JFKFoundation.
Bob Kerrey= RightWing shill.
JFK Library Foundation=RIghtWIngNut website, posting nonsense.
Er...my stream of conscious sentences don't measure up.
Not to mention...er...several spelling mistakes.
Er...Bush Apologist!
Hey, let me join in the in-ter-net fun:
Impeach Bush!
We had covert operations in place continuously since 1991, aimed at overthrowing Saddam&Son's Republic of Fear.
In 1996, a covertly inspired Kurdish rebellion failed after the US cowardly did not follow through on its promise to back them up, even as we maintained our 'NoFlyZones' overhead and did nothing but take pictures.
In 1998, here comes the administration again, "We'll get him this time."
And the Senate demands "no more deception." Slick signs the ILA on October 31, 1998. Did he have to? No. He only had to do it as a quid pro quo. Apparently, the quid was worth the quo, because he signed.
OK, so here is where you and yours revert to Episode 6 of "Fireball XL-5" and start foaming on about "the Neocons."

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Kerrey, another Democrat Vietnam vet, and one of the few Dems on the 9-11 commission (which was restricted to existence of WMD and links to Al Qaeda, not whether the intel was manipulated), and the quote you provide appears to be in agreement with my post--that Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqis to rebel, and then decided not to back them (like JFK and the Bay of Pigs?). Is this supposed to be justification for making ever-larger mistakes as we go?

 

[Art]

Rumsfeld: I didn't advocate Iraq invasion!

An interesting new twist... sort of Bart like "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing"

Perhaps it was all just a big misunderstanding. What he actually said was "let's not invade Iraq" but this was misheard as "let's invade Iraq" and before you know it there's 150,000 troops on the ground.

Rumsfeld: I didn't advocate Iraq invasion!

US administration resists pressure for withdrawal as political divide over Iraq heightens.

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday led administration resistance to mounting calls for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Facing a rising onslaught of public and political doubts over Iraq policy, Rumsfeld insisted in a number of television interviews that battlefield commanders would decide when the United States could start reducing troop numbers.

And speaking in Beijing, President George W. Bush said "leaving prematurely will have terrible consequences, for our own security and for the Iraqi people. And that's not going to happen so long as I'm the president."

There are about 159,000 US troops in Iraq ahead of the December 15 elections for a permanent government. But military officials say this will be reduced to about 138,000 after the election.

However, Rumsfeld seemed to distance himself from advocating the idea of invading Iraq.

He asserted Sunday that he did not press for the US-led invasion of Iraq, as public disaffection for the US military operation there reaches new highs.

"I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=15050

 

[Skyhunter]

An interesting new twist... sort of Bart like "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing"
Perhaps it was all just a big misunderstanding. What he actually said was "let's not invade Iraq" but this was misheard as "let's invade Iraq" and before you know it there's 150,000 troops on the ground.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=15050

I think this post belongs in "Republican lies used to trick the public "

 

[Fliption]

I've never seen so many experts on such a complex subject as this. It's like watching movie critics giving thumbs up and down when they don't have a clue what it takes to make or act in a movie. Nothing wrong with discussing a topic you know little about, but the name calling and insulting remarks in this thread are a bit shameful for a forum devoted to science.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just grow weary of the constant political debates from two extreme positions who are obviously biased and wouldn't change their minds no matter how much proof you showed them. These types almost always resort to insults and a total lack of substance. I haven't read this entire thread but from what I have read, agree with him or not, Zlex has handled the insults for better than I could have.

 

[edward]

I don't mean to offend anyone, I just grow weary of the constant political debates from two extreme positions who are obviously biased and wouldn't change their minds no matter how much proof you showed them.

Political debates tend to do that to people.

 

[McGyver]

BTW - I think Clinton should have resigned after that lie, but also for the fact that he engaged in an inappropriate activity with an employee and subordinate for which he felt compelled to lie. And I won't cut him any slack for the technicality regarding 'relations'. He's a grown man, and he knew what he was being asked (even if he was an idiot in this regard).
Any business executive would have been asked to step down (at least I would hope so) for such conduct. One just doesn't do that.

Agreed on the resigning part. Had Clinton just admitted to what he did, and said OK, it that requires that I resign I'll resign. But if I do - the Democratic party will hold the Republicans to the same standard of honor and trust. Gore then could have touted his and Clinton's successes with the economy, and he most likely would have beaten Bush/Cheney in 2000. Even if 911 still occurred as it did - Gore and the country would have gone into Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We would have had brief military exchanges with Iraq, and perhaps some inspectors. I think that Saddam's neighbors were increasingly disliking him more, made the West look more favorable - and perhaps over time, one or more mid-East nations might look to guidance from the West. I think it is a stretch to ask these strict Muslim nations to form a Democracy. Asking for baby steps is much more realistic. Plus, as long as they are mad at each other - the West looks good, with the exception of the corrupted "oil for food" program. And if we hadn't gone to war - we'd have the cooperation, time, and energy to sort through that maze of who done it's!