View Full Version : Condi Testy Moany
mburbank
Apr 8th, 2004, 10:16 AM
Starts later this morning. Coments as it unfolds?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that she'll say the administration was all over terrorism, plans to attack Iraq were only the sort of contingency stuff you have the military draw up for any Nation regarded as potentially threatening, and Richard Clarke is just sour graping, lord only knows why.
Do you supose anyone will ask her which other potentially threatening countires we have now and had at that time drawn up actual plans to invade?
Bennett
Apr 8th, 2004, 10:47 AM
how do these two statements work together?
"I don't remember the al Qaeda cells being something that we were told we needed to do something about," she said.
Rice said the August memo focused on history and "was not a warning."
and:
Rice said that Tenet briefed Bush almost daily on security issues and that the president's "very first major national security policy directive" was the elimination of al Qaeda.
Cosmo Electrolux
Apr 8th, 2004, 10:57 AM
....via Iraq....and their Weapons of mass destruction
mburbank
Apr 8th, 2004, 01:10 PM
"In testimony before the 9/11 commission today, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the title of an August 6, 2001, intelligence memo to President Bush suggested Osama bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States. Still, Rice said she believed the memo, called "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States," focused on history and "was not a warning."
-CNN
So... what the hell does that mean, exactly? That the adminsitration had come to the conclusion Bin Laden no longer intended to attack inside the united states, or that at some point in time they knew he did, but now they weren't sure if that was still the plan?
FartinMowler
Apr 8th, 2004, 01:48 PM
So... what the hell does that mean, exactly? That the adminsitration had come to the conclusion Bin Laden no longer intended to attack inside the united states, or that at some point in time they knew he did, but now they weren't sure if that was still the plan?
:lol
Buffalo Tom
Apr 8th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Dr. Rice said that the president's "very first major national security policy directive" called for the elimination of al Qaeda. Yet in explaining why the Bush Administration did not act on the alleged Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States", she called the analysis in the PDB 'a warning'. Huh? If Al Qaeda was at the top of the American national security agenda, then wouldn't a PDB with such provocative language and written by Bush's own security advisors have put him on a cautious footing leading up to 9/11? Perhaps even leading to a public warning advisory similiar to the ones Americans receive now when even the slightest whisper of terrorism is heard?
davinxtk
Apr 9th, 2004, 11:14 AM
Because, bt, this is America. Terrorists don't attack America.
Right?
Right?
Is this bitch contradicting herself enough to warrant purgery charges, or am I just supposed to cover my ears and go "lalalalaalalalala" like it seems the rest of the world is doing?
You know, if any other country tried to pull this shit they'd get the crap beat out of them. At least Saddam was killing his own people.
(god, I hope at least one of you gets that)
AChimp
Apr 9th, 2004, 01:10 PM
You know, I saw some clips of her testimony on the evening news. She was smirking the whole time.
"Uhh... I don't really recall what I told him for sure, but I think... uh... *grin*"
WTF?
Cosmo Electrolux
Apr 9th, 2004, 01:27 PM
lying cunt is wft....
punkgrrrlie10
Apr 9th, 2004, 01:55 PM
my favorite was when she was asked a yes - no question and then would proceed to try to talk for the entire allotted time so that the committee members would only get 1 or 2 questions in during their time.
Brandon
Apr 9th, 2004, 04:47 PM
I'm actually surprised major networks wasted time running that drivel. We didn't learn anything new, she left us with more questions than answers, and (once again) the blame has been shifted further down the line.
"Blah blah blah 'shaking the trees.' Blah blah blah 'silver bullet.' Blah blah blah 'hair on fire.'"
Stabby
Apr 10th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Remember when before he was elected, Bush wasn't able to so much as name the president of Pakistan. Yet, according Condosleezza, before 9/11, W supported some detailed plan to help Musharraf cut off support to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. :/
Two-Faced
Apr 10th, 2004, 09:10 PM
I like how she brings up more questions than answers any of those given to her. Oh wait, she's black...
KevinTheOmnivore
Apr 10th, 2004, 09:20 PM
LOL, anyway.....
The 8/6/01 memo was declasified today. Here it is: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
mburbank
Apr 11th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Okay, again, for the record, I don't think assiging blame for not preventing 9/11 is meaningful.
I do however, think the way he Administration is reacting to all of this is highly meaningul. None of them can bring themselves to say "we could have done a lot better. Terrorism wasn't te priority it should have been for us or any previous administration. Now it is."
Instead, they back themselves further and further toward saying "If we had known the terrorist were going to fly planes into the world trade center, we would havetried to stop them. If we had known which flights they would be on, we would have done everything in our pwer to cancel those flights."
The main crime is not what they did before 9/11, it's what they did after. They should be greatful for all this focus on pre 9/11, becuase as bad as it may be for them, it's drawing attention away from how thye responded.
Brandon
Apr 11th, 2004, 12:12 PM
If you ask me, how they responded after 9/11 was their saving grace. The Iraq situation was, of course, less than graceful, but I think they at least have the right idea in terms of foreign policy.
mburbank
Apr 12th, 2004, 09:11 AM
What aspect of their foreign policy are you speaking of?
Preemption?
Unilateralism?
Treaty Abandonment?
Bribery (Uzbekistan)
Failed bribery (Turkey)
Finger pointing (UK and Uranium claims)
Strategic abandonment (Aghanistan)
Quagmirism (Iraq)
Ignorification (All of Africa)
Nuclear redherringism (Iraq vs. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan)
Blind eyeism (Pakistan's Nuclear blackmarket leadership)
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:01 AM
Here is an insightful editorial about Dr. Rice's testimony last week and her performance as NSA. It is written Roger Morris, a former member of the NSCs under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
The Lady Doth Protest too Much (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040412.wmorris0412/BNStory/International/)
That the now-famous Aug. 6 presidential brief and other alarms forewarned the White House, which neglected to forearm the nation, has been well reported. Ms. Rice insisted the data were not precise enough to be "actionable," yet the warnings were chillingly prescient: The CIA and FBI knew, and told the White House, that Osama bin Laden was planning major attacks in the U.S., and al-Qaeda "sleeper cells" were awake. Intercepts in the summer of 2001 caught boasting of "a very, very, very, very big uproar..... in the near future."
History can only guess how many lives might have been saved had there been serious precautions, comparable to measures taken at the millennium on less justification. Ms. Rice's defence — to blame "structural" problems melding FBI and CIA reporting or lack of responsiveness to "tasking" added FBI surveillance — only begged the point commissioners seemed loath to make: It's well understood that U.S. national security policy is beset by bureaucratic inertia, relentless parochial bias and bitter departmental rivalries. Overcoming those problems and ensuring responsiveness was the very essence of the National Security Adviser's job.
He makes a good point about the terrorist warnings that were issued in the days before the Milennium celebrations. At that time, the domestic security forces in the U.S. thought the tips they got and chatter they were hearing were compelling enough to issue a warning for the public to forearm themselves and be vigilant. Why wasn't a similiar warning issued in the summer of 2001 when all intelligence was pointing to an attack against American interests? Whether or not such a warning would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone in the Bush Administration had a serious lapse in judgement when presented with the intelligence analysis from that period. Given that one of Bush's main pillars, some might say the only pillar, of his re-election platform is his leadership in the 'war on terrorism', the PDB of August 6th, 2001, is a potentially damaging revelation.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:22 AM
What aspect of their foreign policy are you speaking of?
Preemption?
Unilateralism?
Treaty Abandonment?
Bribery (Uzbekistan)
Failed bribery (Turkey)
Finger pointing (UK and Uranium claims)
Strategic abandonment (Aghanistan)
Quagmirism (Iraq)
Ignorification (All of Africa)
Nuclear redherringism (Iraq vs. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan)
Blind eyeism (Pakistan's Nuclear blackmarket leadership
I respect the hard-line stance now. We can't afford to continue pussyfooting in foreign policy if we want to ensure that the world is safe for our way of life. If mere multilateral negotiations and weak diplomacy (the prevailing "wisdom" of most Democrats) actually worked, then 9/11 would never have happened. The solution to terrorism obviously isn't going to be doing the same things that failed in the past.
As for the list.. Well, preemption is not a bad idea in and of itself, actually. If regimes refuse to comply with mandates to disarm and/or stop harboring terrorists, then they must be forcibly removed. As for the decision to act "unilaterally," well.. we haven't really lost allies, have we? There are some tensions with France, Germany, and Russia, but ties aren't completely broken. If America senses a threat, it can't wait forever for a few malcontent "allies" (France is most definitely a grudging ally) and the ineffectual United Nations to give their blessing.
And Iraq is not a "quagmire," despite how desperately the hard left wants it to be. It is not a "Vietnam" or even a "Lebanon." We are having difficulties in Fallujah, which is what was expected to happen, since it has always been a center of the most reactionary elements of Iraqi society. The vast majority of the country is firmly behind the idea of democracy.
All this being said, Bush has made many mistakes (your list) with this new approach, and I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that the general idea is the right one.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:34 AM
He makes a good point about the terrorist warnings that were issued in the days before the Milennium celebrations. At that time, the domestic security forces in the U.S. thought the tips they got and chatter they were hearing were compelling enough to issue a warning for the public to forearm themselves and be vigilant. Why wasn't a similiar warning issued in the summer of 2001 when all intelligence was pointing to an attack against American interests? Whether or not such a warning would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone in the Bush Administration had a serious lapse in judgement when presented with the intelligence analysis from that period. Given that one of Bush's main pillars, some might say the only pillar, of his re-election platform is his leadership in the 'war on terrorism', the PDB of August 6th, 2001, is a potentially damaging revelation.
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
-----------
Read this: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545
AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.
Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.
On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.
Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."
When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.
When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."
Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."
The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."
Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."
Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:34 AM
The vast majority of the country is firmly behind the idea of democracy.
They are not behind a foreign power dictating to them the terms of that democracy. This is a country and a culture for which the events of the past are as alive as the events of the present. I have associates from Iraq who still talk with pride about how the British were ousted from the country in the early 20th century. These are folks who were born in the 1960s and 1970s.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:35 AM
They are not behind a foreign power dictating to them the terms of that democracy. This is a country and a culture for which the events of the past are as alive as the events of the present. I have associates from Iraq who still talk with pride about how the British were ousted from the country in the early 20th century. These are folks who were born in the 1960s and 1970s.
We aren't "dictating" the terms.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:43 AM
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
Yes, I would be crying foul because the United States - indeed no country - has the legal right to launch a pre-emptive military attack against any nation. If the United States considers itself part of the international community, then it must abide by the very rules of that community. Heck, Gulf War I was fought ostensibly to oust Iraq from Kuwait because it had launched a pre-emptive strike against a country it perceived to be a threat to its economic well-being. Let's not forget the American outrage over Pearl Harbour. The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens with all means that conform to all international legal standards, but pre-emptive war is not one of these means.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 11:48 AM
We aren't "dictating" the terms.
What do you call the provision that the United States must approve any Iraqi constitution before it can be put to a vote before its citizenry? What do you call hand-picking the majority of members of the provisional government who are drafting said constitution and doling out the development contracts for control of everything from garbage collection to water utilities?
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Suppose that Bush had taken stricter measures after receiving the intelligence. Let's suppose that he even made a preemptive strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I GUARANTEE you would be crying foul and calling Bush a war criminal.
Your argument is irrelavant. The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda. By all accounts, it cut staff to the counter-terrorism department for which Richard Clarke was responsible. It ignored a PDB by its hand-picked intelligence advisors that warned an attack against an American interest by al Qaeda was in the near future, viewing the report, as Dr. Rice described, as a historical analysis. It was feting Taliban officials, the very patrons of al Qaeda, in the summer of 2001.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 01:19 PM
Yes, I would be crying foul because the United States - indeed no country - has the legal right to launch a pre-emptive military attack against any nation. If the United States considers itself part of the international community, then it must abide by the very rules of that community. Heck, Gulf War I was fought ostensibly to oust Iraq from Kuwait because it had launched a pre-emptive strike against a country it perceived to be a threat to its economic well-being. Let's not forget the American outrage over Pearl Harbour. The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens with all means that conform to all international legal standards, but pre-emptive war is not one of these means.
If international law prohibits peaceful democracies from taking measures against rogue states that threaten them and harbor terrorists, then international law is in grievous error. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ESPECIALLY Saudi Arabia were/are not peaceful, law-abiding nations by any means. They themselves have broken "international law" by harboring and even FINANCING terrorist activity, acquiring nuclear arsenals, and oppressing their citizenry with draconian Sharia laws. To denounce free, democratic nations for taking military action would be the most profound idiocy.
We need to abandon this ridiculous notion (that the U.N. fosters, I might add) that all nations are created equal. All people are created equal, but to call the goverments of Iran and North Korea morally equal to the United States is a tremendous mistake.
What do you call the provision that the United States must approve any Iraqi constitution before it can be put to a vote before its citizenry? What do you call hand-picking the majority of members of the provisional government who are drafting said constitution and doling out the development contracts for control of everything from garbage collection to water utilities?
It's still not "dictating the terms," it's merely making sure that the government Iraq intends to set up is the government we went to war to see created. We don't want them to slip by a faux Constitution that paves the way for theocracy, do we?
Your argument is irrelavant. The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda. By all accounts, it cut staff to the counter-terrorism department for which Richard Clarke was responsible. It ignored a PDB by its hand-picked intelligence advisors that warned an attack against an American interest by al Qaeda was in the near future, viewing the report, as Dr. Rice described, as a historical analysis. It was feting Taliban officials, the very patrons of al Qaeda, in the summer of 2001.
I'm not making excuses for their inactivity; not by a long shot. My point was merely that Democrats are so intent on being anti-Bush that they've unwittingly created an argument that hard-line policies (which they've been decrying post-9/11) should have been implemented. They've gone into bed with the hawks over nothing more than pure partisanship.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 12th, 2004, 01:52 PM
It's still not "dictating the terms," it's merely making sure that the government Iraq intends to set up is the government we went to war to see created.
How is that not dictating the terms of the democracy? Bush apologists are oh-so-ready to fall back on the argument that the 2003 military invasion was an act to liberate the Iraqi people. Well, here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of liberate:
To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control
The Bush Administration seems to be imposing its vision of the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq, without consulting the international community, let alone the country's populace. Whether this structure is the correct one or not is irrelevant. They are perceived by large portions of Iraq's citizens as a foreign power which has taken away the right to self-determination. They can't avoid emnity that is being directed at them if they continue in this manner. One of the fundamental narratives of the American character, the War of Revolution, holds lessons about the galvanizing effect on the disparate elements of a society, when a foreign power unilaterally imposes its will on a people yearning for freedom and independence.
AChimp
Apr 12th, 2004, 01:57 PM
:lol
We need an Irony Man character. :)
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 02:08 PM
The Bush Administration seems to be imposing its vision of the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq, without consulting the international community, let alone the country's populace.
The international community? The only countries besides Iraq itself we need input from are the ones who actually played a role in the war. And your idea that the Bush administration is not consulting the Iraqi people is simply uninformed. Input from the Iraqis is the key part of drafting this new constitution.
Whether this structure is the correct one or not is irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Pfft. It's completely relevant. The war was waged to make sure that Iraq would be free from both dictatorship and Islamic theocracy. Without our intervention they wouldn't even have the opportunity to create a new government, so I think they owe it to us to follow through with the democracy plan at the very least.
They are perceived by large portions of Iraq's citizens as a foreign power which has taken away the right to self-determination.
What citizens? The radicals in Fallujah? The ambassador herself assured the United States just yesterday that the vast majority of Iraqis are firmly in support of the United States' efforts to establish a democracy.
mburbank
Apr 12th, 2004, 05:17 PM
I'll leave speciffic arguments to BT, who's doing a fine job and just say everybody already knows what I think of that codswallop.
"pussyfooting" and 'Tough Line" are great for action movies and afterschool specials. World diplomacy is a little harder than that, and the afterafects are a little more far reaching. We live in a world now created by foreign policy that walked away from the Mujahadeen after arming and funding them for half a generation, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia giving a rallying cry to the same religous extremists we'd used so effectively against the soviets. If The shape of our current mess was influnced so profoudly by the blowback from those misssteps, imagine what you'll be dealing with fixing by the time you're my age.
If you answered "A bold new Middle East inspired and reshaped by Iraqs fedgling Democracy" I'm going to go way out on a limb and say I doubt it.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 05:51 PM
I'll leave speciffic arguments to BT, who's doing a fine job and just say everybody already knows what I think of that codswallop.
"pussyfooting" and 'Tough Line" are great for action movies and afterschool specials. World diplomacy is a little harder than that, and the afterafects are a little more far reaching. We live in a world now created by foreign policy that walked away from the Mujahadeen after arming and funding them for half a generation, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia giving a rallying cry to the same religous extremists we'd used so effectively against the soviets. If The shape of our current mess was influnced so profoudly by the blowback from those misssteps, imagine what you'll be dealing with fixing by the time you're my age.
If you answered "A bold new Middle East inspired and reshaped by Iraqs fedgling Democracy" I'm going to go way out on a limb and say I doubt it.
You can doubt all you want. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that the ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure you prefer) has done absolutely nothing to make us any safer from terrorism.
It's easy for liberals to call a hard-line approach to the War on Terror "codswallop," but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
EDIT: Liberal diplomacy has its merits; don't get me wrong. They only apply when dealing with benign nations, however.
davinxtk
Apr 12th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Okay, again, for the record, I don't think assiging blame for not preventing 9/11 is meaningful.
I do however, think the way he Administration is reacting to all of this is highly meaningul. None of them can bring themselves to say "we could have done a lot better. Terrorism wasn't te priority it should have been for us or any previous administration. Now it is."
Instead, they back themselves further and further toward saying "If we had known the terrorist were going to fly planes into the world trade center, we would havetried to stop them. If we had known which flights they would be on, we would have done everything in our pwer to cancel those flights."
The main crime is not what they did before 9/11, it's what they did after. They should be greatful for all this focus on pre 9/11, becuase as bad as it may be for them, it's drawing attention away from how thye responded.
WOULD YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP?
You're one hundred percent right, burbank, there's nothing criminal in the slightest about their pre-9/11 behavior, but if this can get the administration, and more importantly Bush and the absurd right wing out of power, leave it alone and let it run its course.
I know that makes me a hypocrite. I prefer 'pragmatist.'
The_Rorschach
Apr 12th, 2004, 06:52 PM
"The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda"
Yeah. . .They asked Condoleeza why they didn't draw up a plan to invade Afghanistan to take out the Taliban pre-Sept 11, and yet still moan about Bush's pre-emptive war with Iraq.
Seemed pretty obvious that petty partisan politics were at play again, and rather than analyzing what could be done to safeguard American interests, lives and property in the future, assigning blame--not securing our nation against terrorists--is the true goal of this little Spanish Inquisition.
I'm losing faith in the Democratic Party -which is not to say I have any in the Republican Party either- but, well. . .Here, a small highlight of the hypocritical stances they've taken (from Maloney, so no credit goes to me):
Let's look at the foreign policy arguments the Democrats have been making:
The Bush Administration did not do enough to prevent September 11th. Some of the criticisms lobbed during the 9/11 Commission hearings question why the Bush Administration did not--prior to September 11th--start acting on a plan to invade Afghanistan preemptively, topple the Taliban, and rout al Qaeda. But if such a plan existed, and President Bush tried to carry it out before September 11th, does anyone seriously think the Democrats would have supported it? If you think they would have, then you haven't been paying attention for the last two years.
Saddam Hussein is a menace and must be removed. This was an argument made by many Democrats when one of their own--Bill Clinton--was in the White House. In fact, President Clinton, along with the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq. Several times, Clinton even acted unilaterally against Saddam Hussein. There was no Democratic hand-wringing about consulting the U.N. first, nor was there any discussion about how the French, Russians or Germans would feel about it. Apparently, our foreign policy only requires outside approval when Republicans are in office.
Saddam Hussein never attacked us. We shouldn't have gone in and taken out his regime. The Democrats criticized President Bush for not acting unilaterally in Afghanistan before September 11th. And the Democrats supported taking out Saddam Hussein when President Clinton was in office. But once President Bush came into the White House, the Democrats changed their tune. They want unilateral action whenever President Bush doesn't take unilateral action, but when the president does take unilateral action, that's not good either.
We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush lied!!! During the Clinton Administration, Democrats said Saddam Hussein had such weapons. They were reading the same intelligence reports that President Bush relied upon. But that didn't stop people like Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy from accusing President Bush of lying and saying he "concocted the war in Iraq from Texas". (Kennedy, it should be noted, once said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.") To date, I have never gotten an answer to this question: if President Bush concocted all the "lies" about Saddams's weapons, then how did he manage to--years before he came into office--convince so many Clinton Administration officials that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
-Evan Coyne Maloney
davinxtk
Apr 12th, 2004, 07:06 PM
Evan sir, I'll agree with you on the business about pre-emptive action in Afghaniwho?, it's absurd to think that anyone would have supported such a blaring movement of global political suicide. It was, however, more of a humanitarian concern with the Democrats and Saddam than an armament concern. Bush and the gang came within inches of literally perjuring themselves where the WMD issues are concerned, and they've only managed to stave this off by attempting the "I DIDN'T MEAN IT! AN OLDER KID TOLD ME TO DO IT!" approach to their simply lax intelligence gathering.
mburbank
Apr 12th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if Brandon is enaged in some sort of parodic excercise.
"You can doubt all you want. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that the ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure you prefer) has done absolutely nothing to make us any safer from terrorism. "
The 'plain fact'? That's just Vinth minus the communication disorder. Who made you privy to plain facts versus personal opinions? I think there are a few people out there who may have enjoyed not blowing up at LAX on the Millenium. And if you mean since 9/11, you're aware that ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure I do prefer, thanks) hasn't been tried, so we have no idea what sort of a job it would do, unless we're psychic or in some other way privy to plain facts.
"It's easy for liberals to call a hard-line approach to the War on Terror "codswallop," but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. "
Which 'glass house' are you thinking of? The Bay of Pigs? 'Cause I thought that was kind of less than liberal. Bay of Tonkin resolution? Democrats lies stink the same as Republicans. Which bit of empire building, red herring, america endangering distraction are you thinking is my glass house, exactly? Sure, there's a time for war. The annexation of Poland, the invasion of Kuwait, genocide in Rawanda (oops!). The gulf of Tonkin and this entire war don't pass my 'liberal' muster.
Brandon
Apr 12th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if Brandon is enaged in some sort of parodic excercise.
After listening to both sides of the argument, I'm unconvinced that the liberal approach (if there's any at all) to the "War on Terror" is going to be adequate. That's not to say that I'm a conservative, a Bush-supporter, or a Republican, but that I've merely changed my position on an issue.
I'm sure I'm going to get ridiculed anyway. :(
The 'plain fact'? That's just Vinth minus the communication disorder. Who made you privy to plain facts versus personal opinions? I think there are a few people out there who may have enjoyed not blowing up at LAX on the Millenium. And if you mean since 9/11, you're aware that ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure I do prefer, thanks) hasn't been tried, so we have no idea what sort of a job it would do, unless we're psychic or in some other way privy to plain facts.
Ouch, Max. Very ouch.
Ok, fine. I'll rephrase it. "I have yet to see convincing evidence that liberal diplomacy has done anything to make us safer from terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is that a softer approach to terrorism and terrorist states has been tried. It was used many times during the Clinton administration, and it prevented nothing.
Clinton's administration put absolutely zero pressure on Iran or Syria, fingerfucked with Saudi Arabia (but then, most recent administrations have), and even bribed North Korea. Prudent as ever, he put just enough pressure (unilaterally, I might add) on Hussein to look tough but balked at actually removing him from power. (I'm only going over policy in the Arab world, BTW, and I'm aware he's used force elsewhere) Clinton consistently refused to take decisive action after every major terrorist attack, including the first WTC bombing. He turned down capture of Osama bin Laden at least three times.
Yes, clearly cutting back on our "imperialist" tendencies has done wonders for national security.
Did this diplomacy stop 9/11? No. The rogue states we avoided offending relished the fact that we were such pushovers while they went ahead and did what they planned to do anyway. They play Eddie Haskell, claiming to be our allies while making contributions to Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, etc. and providing asylum to terror suspects. North Korea and Iran happily go about acquiring nuclear arsenals.
We can't negotiate with countries like that anymore. We never could. You'd think more people would have learned that by now. Military strikes are still a last resort, but it's time that we strapped our spine back on and backed these assholes up against the wall. War isn't the solution to everything, but it is a solution to some things.
mburbank
Apr 13th, 2004, 11:01 AM
See, these 'assholes' all look alike. They don't wear uniforms or announce themselves. This means when you 'back them up against a wall' you back up a lot of noncombatants. This is one of terrorists great sttrategic strengths.
They expect us to 'strap on our spines' and throw our muscle around, they count on it. Sure a few of them die, but it's not like they aren't ready and willing. In the meantime, the collateral damage convinces lots of other poeple that the US is just what they always said we were.
Do you suppose that our current actions will at some point make terrorist organizations say "Gosh, these guys is tough after all! We give up!"
Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?
Do you think that we will peer pressure people into not supporting terror by being terrifying ourselves? "Support terror and we'll overthrow your government, occupy you and kill lot of people!"
ask folks in Madrid how well this has worked preventing terror. Not a whole hell of a lot better than 'diplomacy'.
Terror is a terrible, terrible crime. Calling it a war misses the point, puts us in the position of perpetrating violence, puts ever more power into the hands of terrorists (since one bomber can derail an entire peace plan). This is why after a drive by shooting we don't attack from the air and then send in a tank division.
The aim of terror is to make people afraid, angry and irrational. It's what you do when you know the people you're fighting are way, way more powerful. They aren't trying to get us to surrender, they know we won't. They're trying to get us to screw up. They want us to do things like invade a state we can never hope to run, unleashing chaos, ethnic hatred and death, which they can then blme on us. The way I see it, the terrorists are winning.
The_Rorschach
Apr 13th, 2004, 11:06 AM
". . .the invasion of Kuwait. . . "
The Kuwaiti's were engaging in lateral drilling into Iraqi oil deposits, which was the mainstay of the Iraqi economy at the time. Personally, I see Saddam's actions as being totally resonable - That is to say in theory, because he was hardly fighting to safeguard his people's financial security, nonetheless hostilities were justifiable. If Saddamn Hussein had been, say, more like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I rather greatly doubt the United States would have felt any need to interfere.
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 02:28 PM
In the meantime, the collateral damage convinces lots of other poeple that the US is just what they always said we were.
Most of whom hated us to begin with.
Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?
Most of them, at least.
Do you think that we will peer pressure people into not supporting terror by being terrifying ourselves? "Support terror and we'll overthrow your government, occupy you and kill lot of people!"
The problem with your line of thinking is that our actions are different and more moral than those of the terrorists.
Invading a "sovereign" nation. Doing some collateral damage. Ok, those are bad, but understandable.
But you know what else we did there, Max? We built hospitals and schools. We removed an oppressive dictator. The Iraqi economy is growing by leaps and bounds.
You can't reasonably compare U.S. military action to terrorism. Terrorists intentionally murder innocents. Terrorists threaten to burn hostages alive. Terrorists desire the proliferation of oppressive, theocratic governments. Terrorists also long for the overthrow of the Israeli state, failing the wholesale slaughter of every Jew living there.
We're not doing the wrong thing. We are not "unleashing chaos" or "ethnic hatred." Reasonable people can see that we're not "doing what the terrorists want us to do," and, those that do see it that way, as I said, probably hated us anyway.
Your argument basically goes something like this, Max:
"Terrorists want us to retaliate so that we look bad. We don't want to look bad, so I guess we should just take our lumps and prosecute the people who happen to fall into our nets."
Something tells me the American people won't really go for that strategy.
davinxtk
Apr 13th, 2004, 02:53 PM
Brandon, Baghdad was a flourishing metropolis before we bombed the living hell out of it. There already were hospitals and schools. Saddam was oppressive and the Baathist regime wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops, but they were peanuts compared to shit we've let slide in other countries in the past.
Besides, we didn't attack Iraq because of terrorists, remember?
We attacked them because of WMD. WMD!
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Brandon, Baghdad was a flourishing metropolis before we bombed the living hell out of it.
And it's mostly back to normal, now.
Saddam was oppressive and the Baathist regime wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops, but they were peanuts compared to shit we've let slide in other countries in the past.
Saddam is just the first of such shit that the "War on Terror" plans to clean up.
Besides, we didn't attack Iraq because of terrorists, remember?
We attacked them because of WMD. WMD!
We attacked Iraq for several reasons other than WMD, even if that's all we publicized.
davinxtk
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:08 PM
And it's mostly back to normal, now.
My point is that it seems like we're trying to take the credit for it being that way in the first place.
Saddam is just the first of such shit that the "War on Terror" plans to clean up.
Yes, let's just level the entire content and call it America II.
We attacked Iraq for several reasons other than WMD, even if that's all we publicized.
I don't want to sound like I'm in the eighth grade or anything, but the phrase "No shit, Sherlock." comes to mind. I was being sarcastic, not naive.
We made a mess that we shouldn't have made. Any attempt to justify our actions is fucking ludicrous.
I'd like to think we could pull our troops out on June 30th regardless of what condition the country is in, but we can't. We can't leave Iraq the way we left Vietnam.
Unfortunately, we don't have much choice.
I wish the fucking UN would get their asses in gear. I don't care if they don't want to take responsibility for our mess, they're the UN and they're only further undermining themselves by not acting on this situation.
mburbank
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:11 PM
"Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?"
-Me
Most of them, at least.
-Brandon
That's your perogative, but I think it's naive. Ho many innocents are you willing to kill along the way? Not that the death of innocents isn't unavoidable, but it's always good to look at ratios your willing to accept. 2-1? 50 - 1? Thousands - 1? If you don't think about the line, you can cross it unaware.
"You can't reasonably compare U.S. military action to terrorism."
I believe quite strongly that the purpose of war is to terorize your enemy. 'The terrorists' lack the military options we have, which is why this isn't a nice civilized war. It's hard to say what 'the terrorists' might do if they had an army, an air force, a navy. Perhaps they'd drop massive bombs on cities full of non combatants, or start firestorms or deforest jungles. States justify all sorts of barbarity within the confines of war.
Do you want me to say we are better than the Jihadists? We are. Quite a bit right now. But see, we ought to be, us being the good guys and all. I think we could do better. As to schools and hospitals, many of those we build we blew up first. We intend currently to hand back all responsability for Hospitals in June. We chose this war. It had nothing to do with 9/11, and ot prevents us to this day from devoting manpower, money and attention to the criminals perpetrators of 9/11. Let's go build schools and hospitals in central Africa. At least we didn't already pay for their demolition.
"Reasonable people can see that we're not "doing what the terrorists want us to do," and, those that do see it that way, as I said, probably hated us anyway. "
I see it that way. I'm reasonable, and I don't hate us. I think Osama Bin Laden wanted us to attack Iraq. I think it benefits him every day. I think it's the main reason Al Quaeda has been able to regroup to the degree it has. I think it's why Afghanistan is still unstable and an ideal staging ground for Al Quaeda. I don't think any of these things becuase I hate us. I think Bin Laden hoped one of the first thing a Buh administration would do once we were struck was invade Iraq. Imagine for a moment we'd put all the resources we've put into the raq war into tracking Bin Laden down and dissmanteling his organization. Maybe we'd still have failed. But it's a LOT of resources.
"Terrorists want us to retaliate so that we look bad. We don't want to look bad, so I guess we should just take our lumps and prosecute the people who happen to fall into our nets."
See, had we actually sent OUR army to the other side of the Tora Bora caves I wouldn't said whoever we captured fell into our nets. When we prevented the Millenium bombing it wasn't because the terrorists fell into our nets, Britains recent anti terrorist success wasn't a case of folks falling into nets. These are cases of active, cooperative international police work. Since much of it's secret, I don't know for sure, but my guess is the war in Iraq didn't do squat for any of those cases. It demeans you to characterize my argument the way you just did. Is your argument "We need to kill everyone where the terrorists are and that way we'll know we got 'em!"?
Much as I hated it, I supported the overthrow of the Taliban. ecause it was justified and because they wouldn't separate themselves from Al Quaeda. I also thought they were scum, but that's not a reason for war. Iraq is a whole different thing. It's a stupid ass vendetta against a country that while awful was far less dangerous to us than some of our current allies.
I respect your difference of opinion. I would also suggest that you are allowing your passions to make you manipulable. "Something tells me the American people won't really go for that strategy." Really? Where might that cocksureness come from? Stating my argument so incorrectly and then following it up with a certainty that "America" would agree is a shallow sophist tactic typical of penny ante pundits, and it's beneath you. I have no idea if the 'American People' agree with me or not.
AChimp
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:27 PM
Ok, fine. I'll rephrase it. "I have yet to see convincing evidence that liberal diplomacy has done anything to make us safer from terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is that a softer approach to terrorism and terrorist states has been tried. It was used many times during the Clinton administration, and it prevented nothing.
You should try Canada's tried, tested and true method; we like to call it LEAVE THEM ALONE. And they respect us. :)
The_Rorschach
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:29 PM
When Al Qaeda learns of Canadian Pumkin Harvests, you better believe they'll bomb you out of envy alone.
kellychaos
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:50 PM
Originally, a war on Saudia Arabia was considered but the lil' buggers somehow hopped on some of the last planes out of the country on 9/11 and we were unable to sequester them for vital intelligence.
On the one hand I can side with Dubya on the fact that you really have no way to defend against "intentions" but, at the same time, he seemed pretty glib in his consideration of FBI (and other agencies) intelligence gathering.
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 03:50 PM
We're not really in a position to leave anyone alone at this point, Chimp. We've chosen to abandon isolationism in the past, it's put us in the mess and we have to follow through.
Ok, Max, I respect your argument.
Imagine for a moment we'd put all the resources we've put into the raq war into tracking Bin Laden down and dissmanteling his organization. Maybe we'd still have failed. But it's a LOT of resources.
Here's my thinking. Just hear me out, ok?
Terrorists need both money and places to set up camp, right? States in the Middle East such as Iraq (yes, it's true), Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been providing both. And if the states themselves don't fund terrorists, people inside them do.
Therefore, it stands to reason that if these states stopped harboring and funding terrorists, it would effectively cripple most operations.
So why not put pressure on these countries?
davinxtk
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:03 PM
So why not put pressure on [read: bomb, invade, occupy, restructure, capitalize, assimilate] these countries?
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:07 PM
So why not put pressure on [read: bomb, invade, occupy, restructure, capitalize, assimilate] these countries?
Not all of the above.
We can't be afraid to threaten military action, either.
mburbank
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:07 PM
I'm all for putting pressure on them, especially the Saudis who use their Bush family connections to avoid scutiny.
But there's kind of a gulf between 'putting pressure' and the military overthrow and occupation of a country.
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:08 PM
I'm all for putting pressure on them, especially the Saudis who use their Bush family connections to avoid scutiny.
But there's kind of a gulf between 'putting pressure' and the military overthrow and occupation of a country.
Fair enough.
davinxtk
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Hold on, did we both just make the same point and you argued with one and agreed with the other?
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Hold on, did we both just make the same point and you argued with one and agreed with the other?
Maybe. I think I'm giving the wrong impression of what I'm adovcating and what I'm not.
My point is that we can't rule out the idea of military action against terrorist state governments if they refuse to cooperate. I'm not saying that we should just wipe out the entire Middle East.
davinxtk
Apr 13th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Okay.
Fine.
But can we please call it "cleaning up international terrosist organizations" and do it through UN resolutions and international alliances without blatantly false pretenses, an "American War on Terror", and falsified evidence of "weapons of mass destruction"?
Brandon
Apr 13th, 2004, 06:36 PM
Okay.
Fine.
But can we please call it "cleaning up international terrosist organizations" and do it through UN resolutions and international alliances without blatantly false pretenses, an "American War on Terror", and falsified evidence of "weapons of mass destruction"?
Sure. I'm starting a new thread.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 15th, 2004, 11:24 AM
The international community? The only countries besides Iraq itself we need input from are the ones who actually played a role in the war. And your idea that the Bush administration is not consulting the Iraqi people is simply uninformed. Input from the Iraqis is the key part of drafting this new constitution.
And your belief that the Bush Administration is helping Iraqis build an independent Iraq is the worst form stone-blind ignorance.
Let's Make Enemies (http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040419&s=klein)
I have gone to the mosques and street demonstrations and listened to Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters shout "Death to America, Death to the Jews," and it is indeed chilling. But it is the profound sense of betrayal expressed by a pro-US businessman running a Pepsi plant that attests to the depths of the US-created disaster here. "I'm disappointed, not because I hate the Americans," Khamis tells me, "but because I like them. And when you love someone and they hurt you, it hurts even more."
I am more inclined to believe a journalist who has been on the ground in Iraq, than someone who regurgitates the views of Robert Novak and the other armchair 'newsmen' who haven't even been to the country to survey the situation.
Buffalo Tom
Apr 15th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Double post.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.