Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a big fan of GWB. However, considering the events of the world since he took office, I believe he has had thrust upon him some of the most important issues any American President has ever faced (arguably).
If you asked any American right after September 11 what the top priority was for America, he/she would have said the dismantling of Al-Qaida, the capture of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, and the crippling of terrorist institutions who aim to harm America.
GWB said as much when he said that we would capture bin Laden “Dead or Alive.” This was a bold and internationally broadcast statement.
Now, over a year later, President Bush swears that the top threat to the US is Saddam Hussein. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ve studied Saddam Hussein before and know that he is an evil man. I can’t imagine anyone who would try to defend him. But, I don’t feel that he is anywhere close to being an American threat like bin Laden is. Iraq has never harmed us. The only non-war attack against US interests that I know of was the attempted assassination of Prez Bush Sr.
Now, because of his force of will, GWB is leading us into a war against Iraq. Had Bush been able to capture bin Laden (and he certainly had chances–Tora Bora anyone?), we would not be discussing Iraq. We would be pouring adulation on to GWB. However, because he was unable to find Osama and because he couldn’t determine whether the terrorist leader was dead or alive, he began the drumbeats of another war to distract us and keep us from asking questions about his FAILURE to perform his universally recognized top priority.
Sounds like your just beating the same drum as many on the left who claim this is a wag the dog conspiracy, which I think is just ridiculous. Bin Laden is rendered impotent by being forced to move daily. He cannot operate like he once did by phone, computer, etc etc because we can track him. Who is more dangerous? A man who has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability that has PROVED by past occurences he will use them? Or a man that is running around in the mountains somewhere trying to live another day. Also, Bin Laden doesn’t have an entire army ready to be mobilized on a command like Hussein does. By the way, the U.N. decided to go to give Iraq the resolution, that means 15 countries, most of which that have proved they are very anti-american actually agree with Bush on this one, doesn’t that clue you in? If 4 or 5 countries that are usually against us on everything agree something needs to be done, than maybe it does. I would bet if you lived in Israel or somewhere directly in the sites of a known killer Saddam you would be singing a different tune. The thought of him heaving a nuke at them to seal his destiny as a martyr for Muslims is a scary thought, and I would hate to live in Israel if and when he actually develops a nuke. I think the wag the dog theory is something the anti-Bush crowd loves to repeat, but I don’t think its true. Where were these wag-the-dog wannabes when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories during the Lewinsky scandal…
The term “Wagging the Dog” could use some definition. As I recall the movie, the “war” was entirely fiction, with Hollywodd-produced videos shown on the news. Nobody expects that level of deception.
If a President beats the drums of war merely in order to distract to populace, that could be called “Wagging the Dog.” E.g., Republicans made that accusation when Clinton bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory.
Suppose a President actually goes to war merely to distract people. To me, that would be much worse than “Wagging the Dog.” It would be mass murder or treason or something. It would be horrendous.
OTOH, if a President goes to war because he believes it’s in the country’s best interest, and you think otherwise, that’s merely a political disagreement.
For me, the acid test of whether Bush was “Wagging the Dog” on Iraq is whether he follows through on his stated intention. If he gets Saddam toppled, then he was not “Wagging the Dog.”
There is not a shred of evidence that Saddam has nukes or that he has anything like the capability to launch WMD at the US. Iraq has never attacked the US, and there is no evidence that they ever intend to. Chicken George has simply failed miserably, time after time, to make a credible case for a preemptive invasion. His motivations are so transparant, and his case so unconvincing that he has actually resorted to flat-out lying and fabrication to support his cause. The only thing he has going for him is that conservatives are so wedded to their “Republicans, good/ Democrats, bad” mentality that they still believe Bush even when he ADMITS he was lying.
Saddam is more than close enough to attack our allies, and if we wait around he may develop technology to hit us. He used chemical warfare on his own people, and launched scud missles at Israel, to deny this is just ignorant. As for a shred of evidence I guess you dismiss every Iraqi dissident who has testified of Saddams desire to develop these weapons, if he hasn’t already developed them. For you to take this high stance that “He just doesn’t have them” because you haven’t seen enough to convince you is just ridiculous, the evidence is there, been there, and has been testified to by Tony Blair. If he doesn’t have anything or no one thinks he has anything, then why did 15 countries vote to go and see? You seem like a person who subscribes to the theory of “Don’t show me any facts, my mind is already made up”
Nobody claimed that he has the capability to attack the US on our own soil, yet. So what? He has violated numerous security councel resolutions, he does have chemical and biological weapons, he does pay the families of terrorists, he does try to shoot down our planes, he does murder people who get in his way, he has used nerve gas on both his own people and on Iran, he has flipped the bird at the entire civilized world, and there is evidence he has an active program to develop nuclear weapons. He is a threat to our allies, the entire region, and the entire world.
He has made an excellent case, and a large majority of the American public support him. Even (gasp) Democrats.
Hmmm I would say that he has some other things going for him: OVERWHELMING APPROVAL FROM BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND A UNANIMOUS SECURITY COUNSEL RESOLUTION.
These two events happened before Bush’s Da pulled back. Did you agree with that decision at the time?
The world didn’t give a fuck about the Kurds when this was happening. This is trotted out now to be used as a argument for pushing policy that has NOTHING to do with protecting these people. If that was the case this would have happened a long time ago.
The members are:
Russia
China
Britain
France
Mauritius
Mexico
Norway
Singapore
Syria
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Colombia
Guinea
Ireland
Most of these are very anti-American according to you. You wouldn’t mind pointing them out would you. Do you class disagreeing with US policy over this as being anti-American.
Nobody is saying Saddam isn’t a fucknut who should be removed from power but the OP’s point is that BL was #1 a year ago and his threat is still there. If 9/11 hadn’t happened would this policy about Iraq be so important to the US? I don’t think so.
I’ve very little problem with the situation in Iraq at present. The inspectors will try to do their jobs if they are delayed which is very likely then the US + Allies will go in. Hopefully the job will be finished this time but there is more to this than the easy answer of SH is a mean bad bastard we need to get him out.
Bush wouldn’t of had a mandate from the US people to go into Iraq without 9/11 IMO. He may have wanted to but he couldn’t have got it passed. Now he can and he has.
OBL is still out there and even if he’s dead his organization is still working on attacks and they will attack again. Don’t fool yourself about this.
I think it’s also touchingly naive to imagine that capitulation in the UN means that other countries honestly support Bush, free of any threats or coercion. Really, someone get me a hankie.
Last spring a Power Point presentation of the White House 02 election plan was “found” on a bench in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House. It emphasized the importance of pushing war for the election plan. It was the real McCoy. The press did not give it much play.
Everything (but the elections) is going badly for the Bush Administration, all of it beyond their control. The economy sucks, a bunch of rag tag terrorists are frightening the whole country, crime is up, unemployment is up.
What we have is a failure of leadership. A great leader would energize the country to take action. When somebody like Cheney a month before the 2000 election predicts a bad economy, that says the leadership has no economic confidence, and it has an effect on morale.
Well, war is one way to get the people behind their government. Hussein is unquestionably evil, so immediate war must be waged on him? I think that getting the allies behind it first (rather than last) is important, but it just isolates us more politically.
But we learned everything we know about it from the Pubbies, the party where the lunatic fringe, from Pat Robertson to Ann Coulter and the late Barbara Olson, is mainstream.
We don’t even need to bother with ancient history like Watergate and Iran-Contra.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by I am Sparticus *
**Last spring a Power Point presentation of the White House 02 election plan was “found” on a bench in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House. It emphasized the importance of pushing war for the election plan. It was the real McCoy. The press did not give it much play.**I definitely want a cite on this.
I doubt that 500 people in the country remember what Cheney said about the economy during the 2000 campaign.
As far as leadership goes, I hardly think that’s the problem - Bush’s leadership skills are very good, and he’s using them to his advantage. Just because you (and I) disagree with the direction he’s leading the country in, doesn’t mean he isn’t much of a leader.
I doubt that 500 people in the country remember what Cheney said about the economy during the 2000 campaign.
As far as leadership goes, I hardly think that’s the problem - Bush’s leadership skills are very good, and he’s using them to his advantage. Just because you (and I) disagree with the direction he’s leading the country in, doesn’t mean he isn’t much of a leader.
Doesn’t bother me in the least, compared to those who lie about real issues on the table.
Like how GWB keeps attributing the eventual expiration of his tax cuts to an obscure Senate procedural technicality that the average citizen wouldn’t understand. When actually it was because he and Congress had agreed to a tax cut of $1.35 trillion over 10 years, and they got greedier than that, so they traded in Year 10 in order to get $1.35T of cuts in 9 years.
And that’s just one of the little twerp’s whoppers. But if political success is more important to you than honesty, I can understand how stuff like that wouldn’t bother you in the least.
And id you look over here, it’s the dog-wagging .PDF. It’s actually basically content-free stuff, but if you look at page 20, the first point of “Republican Strategery” is identified as “Focus on War and Economy.” I think they must have fogotten about that second part, but there you have it.
Ooooooh. Yeah that has to be real. Nobody could fake that.
Gimme a break. I can make a better powerpoint than that.
RTF:
::waves hand:: Clearly a simple miscommunication. It’s not like he was under oath.
If Bill Clinton, can’t understand what the word “is” means how do you expect the meaning of something as complex as the budget surplus to not have the occasional misunderstanding.
(This is kind of meaningless, you know? You’re trying to run with a response I made at the Sparticus level, for Sparticus.)