I’m a raving Democrat, but I’ve never understood this hoo-hah about getting the records of the Energy Task Force.
I mean, if the White House could unilaterally impose its energy policy on the country, then certainly, how the policy was created is an important consideration.
But the White House cannot do that. Congress must approve the requested spending, pass any required laws, etc. In that case, all that matters is whether the policy is good or * bad,* not how it came to be (barring allegations of bribery). If the policy is good for the country, it’s good even if the CEO of Big Evil Oil Corp. hand-drafted it, and if it’s bad for the country, it’s bad even if the executive board of the Natural Resources Defense Council lit up and joint with Cheney and brainstormed the policy.
Me, I think the policy is generally bad - without regard to who thought it up.
Money used how? Food imports have been slashed by the sanctions, as has Iraq’s ability to import the necessary technology. Saddam is nobody worth defending - the decade or so he ruled Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait will attest to that. But the existence of the sanctions - hypocritical both in their timing and their effects - cannot simply be attributed to him alone.
The agreements he made with the UN at the end of the war in 1991.
Money used to build a chemical and biological weapons, mobile laboratories for military use, command and control arangements, technology and material to produce nuclear weapons, uranium from Africa, liquid-fuel missiles and solid fuel missiles. All this money should have been used to pay for food and health care for his country’s children.
Except, of course, no one has to “live under” these “planned policies” until Congress acts on them. At which point the policies will be debated, on their own merits, in full public view. Amendments may be proposed and debated. Indeed, the whole policy could be radically changed before it ends up becoming law. Democracy prevails.
I mean, how far do you go with this? If a Senator is kicking around ideas for a new bill in his office, does that need to be public? Even if there are industry figures and other Senators there? Why? What possible good would that do? Why do you care about before the Senator actually proposes the bill?
I suppose by “implied it”, you mean my reference to November of 2000. To clarify, I meant that Bush’s particular attitude towards being held accountable to the US populace was manifest from the get go with the election debacle.
How far do we go with making legislative proposals and executive policies public? As far as we can. If it’s a policy that affects only the White House staff, then it doesn’t need to be the subject of a national debate. But an energy policy certainly should be, and that from the earliest point possible. Doesn’t matter if it’s just a Senator’s idea at that point, he’s a public official and his ideas for national policy are a matter of public record and thus subject to public scrutiny and debate.
As for “Money used how?” my question was more aimed at “how could he use money to buy food and supplies when those same goods were restricted from import by the sanctions?”
Olenzero, I just don’t have time to research the 1991 truce agreements. It’s less important what they specifically were than the fact that Saddam chose not to follow them. In particular, he promised not to discontinue seeking WMDs, but he has done the exact opposite.
I understood that Saddam was restricted in the sale of oil. I didn’t know that he was restricted in buying food. Do you have a cite?
Which wasn’t part of the original sanctions, as I understand it. Secondly, it’s an exchange - oil for food - which denies Iraq the ability to sell its oil for other, much-needed supplies to rebuild its infrastructure, destroyed in the Gulf War and the subsequent bombings carried out by Clinton. Not to mention that the amount of food and supplies that get into Iraq is connected to the amount of oil that comes out - essentially guaranteeing that not enough food and supplies get in.
practically states flat out that in Stoid’s opinion the U.S. military specifically targets civilians as a standard operating procedure. If you’re exaggerating here for effect Stoid, please let us know. Otherwise retract or amend this statement.
You’re absolutely right, Olentzero. We should’ve left Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban. The Afghan people would have been much better off left under their rule than having to face the sheer horror of liberation at the hands of the evil United States.
But the executive policy was made public. It was as made as public as possible, short of mailing everyone their own personal copy. You want to make a public record of every idea that a senator has? Should he keep a tape recorder in the bathroom, in case he happens to have an idea while he relieves himself? Shall he keep a transcript of every time he asks his wife, “So, whaddaya think of this idea…?” C’mon, we have to draw a line somewhere. We can’t subscribe to the utopian ideal of making everything “as open as possible”. I think that making the policies public, without making every meeting, discussion, brainstorming session, and offhand comment that went into that policy public, is a perfectly reasonable place to put the line.
So Stoid when clinton bombed an aspirin factory killing a few innoncents and denying a very poor populace basic medicine in an attempt to divert attention from that blowjob, thats O.K.?
“Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Jimmy Carter, 1980 State of the Union address.
Even good ol’ Jimmy recognized the importance of protecting our interests.
So lets see, clinton goes to war to divert attention from his lack of character, and Bush (so claim the Demo’s) at worse for national economic interests. C’mon Stoid your hatred is blinding you.
Sure, after it was formulated and presented as a fait accompli. The formulation of the policy ought to be a matter of public record and debate as well.
And as for leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, if they were so evil and needed to be eliminated, why did the US wait five years or more to do so? As a matter of fact, why did the US first open negotiations with the Taliban over the construction of a pipeline through the country?
Finally, I certainly don’t think Stoid is saying that the US military specifically targets civilians as a matter of procedure, although incidents like My Lai and No Gun Ri certainly make a strong argument for the case. But to deny that US intervention doesn’t result in so-called “collateral damage” (i.e. death of civilians either through direct military action or the aftereffects thereof) is plain stupid. Whether we like it or not, whether the US intends it or not, intervention kills civilians, and there is no way to avoid it.
But why? The real debate doesn’t start until bills are presented in Congress. Whatever proposals the White House spits out can, and probably will, be modified during the course of those debates. Hell, the White House proposals can even be rejected out of hand. This fishbowl view wouldn’t matter for final policy (which is all that really matters – it’s all just ink and paper until a bill passes), and it would make it extraordinarily difficult for any leader (be it a Presidential Task Force, a Senator, whatever) to formulate a coherent set of ideas before presenting them to the public.
**Well, for starters, 3,000 OF OUR COUNTRYMEN HAD NOT BEEN KILLED AT THAT TIME. :rolleyes:
The “US” did no such thing, AFAIK. A couple of oil companies were involved in a consortium that was considering such a pipeline, but that’s not quite the same thing. I know you and Stoid believe otherwise, but oil companies != the US government, even under Bush. And those companies pulled out several years ago, before Bush took office anyway.
Jesus, Olent, are you seriously suggesting that one incident in the Korean War and one incident in the Vietnam war adds up to a US military policy to target civilians? Why don’t you just throw in Sherman’s March to the Sea while you’re at it? :rolleyes:
And it is this remarkable failure that drives this bizarre inquest.
The inability to comprehend views other than ones own is (IMO) perhaps one of the greatest threats to this country. I suspect Stoid and others would claim that it was the cause of the endless investigation of Clinton, and it is definitely the source of this irrational attack on the issues of Iraq and energy policy.
Furthermore, the accusation of the miliary planning to kill innocents is outrageous, inflammatory, and in no way fighting ignorance. It is despicable, over-the-top rhetoric. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should apologize, if you wish anyone to have any respect for your opinions.
Have you noticed how your constant accusations of “Bush does everything because of oil interests” resemble the attacks on Clinton? Is not the irony nearly palpable?
(Clarification: the Bush Administration isn’t talking about strategies and plans–that seems to be the treasonous specialty of the NY Times).
As for discussing the reasons, that’s easy. Here we go–pay attention now: because people asked them to, and it is militarily expedient to do so. The effort is more likely to be successful if some allies join in. It is easier to get the allies to go along if they can be convinced that it’s the right thing to do. The UN will be more convinced if there’s a clear mandate from the congress–then it won’t be just Bush and his cabinet moving forward, but the elected representatives of the US. The UN doesn’t seem to care much that Saddam Hussein is openly defying several UN resolutions. (And that if we don’t enforce them, what is the point of the UN?)
However, if the international community does not agree with us, then we should be prepared to go it alone, because it is the right and necessary thing to do. Not because it’s fun, or cute, or politically expedient. But because it may be the only way to keep total disaster from happening in the US.
And how offesively arrogant this is. I’m fairly confident that most of us know what war means. But just in case, let’s review. It means one group of people trying to kill another group, often in gruesome, horrible ways. It means sons and daughters not coming home to parents. Parents not coming home to children. It is horrible, it is to be avoided wherever possible.
Now, let’s review what Weapons of Mass Destruction mean. How about nerve gas? Toxins which shut down the Central Nervous System and make the heart stop beating and the lungs stop breathing, etc. How about mustard gas? Are you familiar with it? It causes blistering of the skin and is pretty harsh on the eyes as well. If inhaled, it causes blistering of the lungs, which can be fatal.
And one thing we know about Saddam Hussein is that he’s used nerve and mustard gast on people in his own country.
How about a nuclear weapon detonated in a major US harbor? After the blast wave vaporizes near the device (the radius being dependant on the strength of the weapon), then next ring will be flattened by the blast wave. A low-yield, low quality bomb will likely also irradiate a sizeable amount of material which will hang around until it falls out of the sky, dropping contaminants over a large area.
How many innocents have died at Saddam’s hand? How many more would die if more gas, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons arrived on American soil?
Have we reviewed this? Is it clear that we both understand the ramifications of war, and of WMD’s?
Here’s an idea: there is no comparison at all between the two scenarios.
I have a question for you: why is it that you hate Bush so much? Is it perhaps because he (and many conservatives) find your line of work distasteful and obscene? How do we know that you simply aren’t trying to prevent your sale of pornography to be protected and legitimized as much as possible? How do we know that you’re motives are so pure, as opposed to simply being necessary for you to make a buck?