Although my caveat was sincere and clear, your point is taken, tomndebb.
In the future I will use “troll related program activities.” 
Okay, okay, just kidding.
So how is that any different from what I’ve posted?
Your anger, towards any POTUS, is your call. I was angry about the strikes in 1998. YMMV. This has nothing to do with all the things Clinton was wrongly attacked for, which I defended him against (and I’ve really got to stop ending sentences in suppositions)…
Pragmatically speaking (which I thought I was doing), the Dem rhetoric re Iraq and Saddam hamstrung the Dems, and deterred them from questioning the bullshit intel they were presented with by the Bush admin. Yes or no???
Aside from all that, the biggest (and most overlooked) danger is the fact that the neocon influence in both the Clinton and Bush admins is what led the US to the tragedy that is the Iraq invasion/occupation.
Clinton is a big boy. He doesn’t need you to defend him against his real mistakes. IMO, as long as most Dem pols feel they must do that, they will be ineffective. And as long as most Dem citizens are caught up in defending the “Big Dog” against any criticism, they fall into the same trap as the Bush apologists.
You’re using tu quoque logic, just like Shodan. And you don’t need to. The facts are on your side. Use them wisely, lest you squander your advantage. I feel confident the Big Dog would agree with me…
Special forces operate well in small groups, sure, but they need to be protected and supported just like everyone else, don’t they? Ideally they would be used to scout while holding a stronger force nearby for power – again we are talking in the thousands, not armies. Enough to catch fugitives and quash trouble, but few enough to resupply easily and keep logistics manageable.
I am not aware of any numbers but from the beginning the US authorities said that special forces in Afghanistan were “only a handful”. Their mission:
No mention of what was concretely done to catch Bin Laden. Not a whole lot apparently, and bin laden’s presence in Afghanistan was the very reason the war started!
Closer to Kandahar and other centres, special forces were used as scouts for bombing missions, initially in smaller numbers. On the very first day Delta Force was deployed, they lost a dozen men in a single attack. The military doctrine I have always been aware of is that you go in with a strong force, so you can do more and suffer fewer casualties.
Let’s look, again, at what you’re saying. The primary objectives (capture bin Laden and top staff, eliminate the Taleban) were not achieved (although the Taleban were ousted, they were by no means gone). Hardly a VERY good plan, unless, as I said earlier, you are willing to praise the worth of a plan even after it has failed to satisfy the objectives it was designed to achieve.
Shodan, do you recognize the difference in the statements uttered by the various democrats you cherry-pick and quote selectively and dishonestly, and the relentless campaign for war driven by Bush and his fellows?
One set consisted of assertions based on tentative and comparatively early intelligence, yes? No one claimed that they were the ultimate truth, no one based a war on that available intelligence. No one even said that we were certain beyond doubt that the intelligence was accurate. No one thought enough of the intelligence to take it to the UN and demand a war even though more credible, conflicting evidence invalidated much of US intelligence on iraq.
The other, your beloved and infallible Bush’s, was a massive campaign against the truth that consisted of manipulated, mispresented, and fraudulent evidence all the way up to a comparatively late date. Do you not remember the UN weapon inspections, and why they were on-going? They were looking for those weapons that the US insisted were there and/or being built. Do you remember how, when the inspectors failed to find anything, the US withdrew all support because Bush “knew” the WMDs were there? Do you remember how a series of falsehoods were pressed into service to sell this war to the people and (much less successfully) to the world in spite of no credible findings on the subject of WMDs?
How can you possibly suggest that the two items of intelligence are equivalent in scope and honesty?
I certainly do. Bush is a Republican; Gore et al are Democrats.
Thus it is that when it is pointed out that Bush said “Iraq has links to terrorism”, the standard response is “Bush lied”. When it is pointed out that Hilary Clinton said that “Iraq had links to al-Queda”, the standard response is “Bush lied”.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, this is exactly what the Clinton admin wanted to do in 1998. They backed down not because of lack of confidence in the intel, but because of a lack of political support. IIRC, one of Clinton’s lines at the time was (paraphrasing slightly) If we leave SH in power he’ll pursue WMD, and “I promise you” he’ll use them.
Furt and Shodan, same point. Shodan, you managed to avoid the actual question I posed, unless you are completely serious in your statement of difference between the two stories of the Clintons then, and of the Bushites in the last few years (party affiliation – you keep trying to force the genetic fallacy on a couple posters, but in fact you refuse to admit that the two situtations bear other important differences besides party affiliation).
To say something is one thing. We’ve had statements that were erroneous. Whoever told the Clintons that Iraq was arming, would have WMDs imminently, would use them, etc., was dead wrong, and the Clintons were obviously wrong in their assertions. You are free to attempt to argue that the information was an outright lie, but it might take some digging.
Now, to take those data, and insist that they are accurate in spite of any meaningful corroboration, in spite of an extensive international weapons inspection program turning up nothing substantial, in spite of evidence to the contrary, would seem to characterize a rather intimate relationship with falsehood.
Had Bush accepted a meaningful dialogue on WMDs in Iraq, and had he eventually admitted that most of the intelligence he presented was flawed in no uncertain fashion (there were some especially sloppy jobs, as others have mentioned), then no one would be calling him a liar now – at least not with good reason on this particular subject. But Bush rejected all discussion to the contrary, insiting on his version of reality, to all appearances in order to execute a predetermined course of action and finding any justification for it (including rubbing the nation’s exposed nerve by systematically juxtaposing Saddam and 9/11 in several addresses and commentary).
These would seem quite important differences in the two situations. The Clinton’s didn’t end up doing anything. When there was opposition to their apparent intent, they didn’t strong-arm their way around and rely on falsehoods and alarmism until they’d gathered enough “support”.
Clinton didn’t ‘strong-arm’ because he didn’t have the political capital TOO do that…not because he didn’t want too. 9/11 gave GW sufficient sway both with congress AND with the American people to go after Iraq using an existing situation (i.e. Iraq under UN sanction, etc).
However, if memory serves, Clinton DID toss some tomahawks at Iraq (and act of war) and these DID kill people…albiet on a smaller scale than the invasion. So I don’t think its accurate to say he ‘didn’t end up doing anything’. Its more accurate to say he did all he COULD do. Had Clinton had the political capital to invade Iraq I have no doubts he would have based on his own rhetoric about Iraq. If nothing else he would have launched a massive bombing campaign if he could have…IMHO. We’ll never know because Clinton NEVER had the means to do any of that, given the situation he was in even in his 2nd term.
I’m going to drop the Afghanistan part of our mutual hijack at this time though as I think its distracting from the main thrust of this thread. If you want to discuss this another time I’d be more than happy to talk about why Special Forces don’t need anywhere near the same logistical support, why they are safer dispursed and on their own in the field than a fixed army is, and why a smaller force of several thousand troops, or even several tens of thousands of troops would have been nearly impossible to deploy rapidly (let alone to continue to support) to Afghanistan…and deploying them would there initially would have been a VERY bad idea.
-XT
I am quite serious. For many Dopers, the only determiner of how the various statements are treated is the political affiliation of the speaker. Your post is an example of this.
c
See how it works?
Bush mentions Saddam and 9/11 in the same speech. This is taken as a deliberate lie. Hilary directly and explicitly says that Iraq gave aid and refuge to al-Queda. This is merely a mistake. And reminding you, as ever, that the statement was made long after the end of the Clinton terms of office.
Other than the one I have already mentioned? No, there is not.
Oddly enough, I remember the situation differently. Someone named Clinton seems to have lobbed some missiles at Iraq based on a claim that they had WMD programs. And someone else of the same last name voted in favor of the Iraqi invasion.
Although you are probably correct that Clinton cared much less about Iraqi WMD than he did the pending impeachment. Why killing your political opponents (as his missiles did in Iraq) in a cynical attempt to avoid the consequences of your own sleazy behavior is more praiseworthy than killing them while actually trying to accomplish something against a generally acknowledged threat is a question to be left to another thread.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, first President since Reagan, huh? That is impressive. Let’s see, there’s the first Bush, but he wasn’t re-elected at all. Then there’s Clinton, who was re-elected with only 49.6%. Well, that’s it. So your analysis “any president of the last twenty years” really means Clinton. Just Clinton. And the comparison yields a “mandate” of 51.0% versus 49.6%. Yes, very impressive indeed.
Well, its a point Rufus Xavier (though of course the REAL point WAS about Clinton, who also claimed a mandate yet got a smaller percentage of the popular vote…and in a time of peace and great prosperity to boot). You COULD always show us how the presidents of the last, say, 100 years have done as a contrast…or the last 50 I suppose to show that Bush is at the bottom of the barrel (discounting the various presidents that DIDN’T get re-elected of course).
I think you’d find that Bush is probably in the middle of the pack (I can think of a few presidents that probably squeeked by with less of a percentage than GW off the top of my head)…or maybe higher depending on if you take into account the Carters, Fords, Bush I’s, etc who DIDN’T win re-election. Taking them into account moves Bush II up closer to the top I’d say percentage wise…depending on when you arbitrarily cut off time of course. 
I’ll leave it to you to decide if its worth the trouble to do the research.
-XT
I doubt that Clinton “claimed a mandate” upon re-election.
My point was that the comparison was being made to all Presidents “in the last 20 years” who were re-elected. There is only one to compare in that narrow window. If you widened the scope and compared all re-elected Presidents, you would still have a very small sample size, but at least you would see that the difference between W’s re-election vote percentage and Clinton’s is not very large at all.
No trouble at all.
This is clearly possible, but I do not recall him actually making that claim.
If I may foolhardedly jump in for a moment: there’s a subtle difference there that I would suspect you’re willfully ignoring. Bush had the power to initiate a war; Hillary Clinton did not. The signifigance of this increases greatly when the information either or both of them used to build a rationale for that war is shown to be baby poo.
Bush exploited peoples’ fears surrounding terrorism and the bogus Saddam-9/11 connection so that the majority of those people would roll over when he started mobilizing ground units. This was the President of the United States making a deliberate and direct attempt to get the electorate in his corner so that he could execute an unprovoked, unilateral attack on a foreign nation. Whether or not H. Clinton believed the Iraq-aided-al Queda angle, her substantially lesser role as a mover and shaker of battalions and regiments allows her somewhat more leeway if we choose to look at motives.
Well, Carter and Ford before Reagan.
But I am afraid that if you arbitrarily exclude those Presidents who were not re-elected, you are missing part of the point. It is hard to claim a mandate if you don’t get re-elected. It is somewhat easier, although still difficult, to claim a mandate if the majority of the electorate wants somebody else. Bush (and Reagan) seem to be bucking a trend here, and therefore have the best claim of any Presidents since 1972 to hold a genuine mandate.
Although I also don’t remember Clinton claiming any mandate, and (as I mentioned) it would have been questionable if he had done so. My feeling is that Clinton didn’t really want to get elected to achieve anything much beyond the self-validation he seemed to derive from winning political office. My estimate of his mentality was that he wanted to prove to himself that he was worthwhile by winning campaigns, rather than to achieve anything specific or particular. Most of his positions and initiatives seemed to have been chosen based on the notion that it would get him into office. Waxman (or someone) won a Senate seat shortly before his first run for the White House based mostly on health care issues, so he chose that as the centerpiece of his first term. There was some other stuff, but much of it (welfare reform, NAFTA, balancing the budget) was appropriated from the Republicans.
Other politicians do this as well, but Clinton seemed to do it almost to the exclusion of any other consideration.
Which may be partly why he achieved so little. He thought of his job as a politician almost entirely as running for re-election. And therefore, during his second term, he had essentially no real idea of what he should be trying to do. Especially since his attention was taken up with, shall we say, other matters.
And of course, once he was about to leave office forever, he could act on the only real motives he ever had, and sell pardons for money and let his staff trash the White House and so forth. He had nothing to lose.
I sometimes wonder how long Clinton will last now that the mainspring of his life is gone. His marriage to Hilary has already lasted longer than I thought it would.
Regards,
Shodan
Your story is not particularly convincing, Shodan.
In a nutshell:
I suppose the fact that he appropriated his best ideas from the Republicans explains their shocking lack of opposition to the above.
You are right…Clinton himself (afaik) never claimed a mandate. Others did (there are several references to Clinton’s mandate for health care reform for instance if one does a google search…some other references to Clintons mandate. None BY Clinton though, true enough).
Did GW actually say he had a mandate directly I (I vaguely recall something from one of his speeches where he did, but don’t remember) or was it others claiming a mandate for him?
At any rate, I obviously withdraw my Clinton also claimed a mandate arguement in the face of those pesky fact things. Sorry.
Oh, I understood your point. I was trying to make a rather obscure joke but it really wasn’t all that funny anyway. I agree, if you widen it too ALL presidents who ran for a second term it would tell you more than just taking the arbitrary last 20 years and looking only there.
However, if you did this, I still think GW would come out better than the middle, taking into account those presidents who failed to be re-elected at all (and so definitely didn’t have a ‘mandate’ ). I don’t think this really tells us anything meaningful though about how good or bad GW is…just what percentage of folks chose to vote for him with respect to the percentage of folks who voted for other re-elected presidents. In addition, it doesn’t really tell us how good or bad OTHER past presidents were just based on the percentage they were re-elected. Truman for instance was pretty unpopular and barely squeeked his re-election, but his star has been rising lately from a historical perspective as to how good a president he was. Other presidents (Lincoln for instance) also can’t be judged solely on how popular they were during their administration.
-XT
I think I’ve been whooshed.
Why is it shocking that the Republicans did not oppose, for instance, welfare reform? As I recall, Clinton vetoed it twice before realizing it was going to pass with him or without him. NAFTA was largely the result of Republicans and Clinton/Gore. Balancing the budget involved shutting down the government for a while in a disagreement over how it should be accomplished.
If you are saying the Republicans should have resisted it just because Clinton supported it, that would be silly. The interesting question is why, when the Democrats controlled all three branches of government, they were unable to balance the budget, reform welfare, or pass Hilary Care. Although, to give Clinton credit, NAFTA did go thru shortly after Clinton took office. But not because it was particularly popular with the Democrats in Congress.
Regards,
Shodan
I am not arbitrarily excluding Presidents not re-elected. You are comparing GW to Clinton. They are both Presidents who were re-elected. Since you have already admitted that being re-elected gives you more of a mandate than not being re-elected, it is you who are exluding the un-re-elected.
Since the time popular vote totals have been recorded (1828), there have been 17 incumbent Presidents re-elected. All but three of them (Clinton, Truman and Wilson) received more than 50% of the popular vote. Of the remaining 14, GW received the lowest percentage of the popular vote. The difference in percentage between Bush and number 13 on that list is greater than the difference in percentage between Bush and Clinton.
It is one thing to claim that Bush’s re-election numbers show he has a greater “mandate” than Clinton did after Clinton’s re-election. That is an inarguable point.
It is quite something else to narrow your field of historical vision enough to make it seem as though Bush’s “mandate” is something particularly impressive.
No, the actual word “mandate” was spoken by Dick Cheney.
No problem.
In fact, from 1828-2004, the incumbent stood for re-election 25 times. Eight failed. Three received less than 50% of the popular vote. GW, as I already stated, was 14th. So, 14 out of 25 could not be considered better than the middle.
I agree. I was responding to what I saw as aggrandizement of GW’s re-election by Shodan.
No, to see how that works requires, I suspect, an approach wide open to bias. You are deliberately avoiding the real arguments here, attempting instead to focus attention on the Clintons.
That’s ridiculous. If we are talking about intelligence dating back to when the Clintons were in power, we’re referring to fairly old information that was superseded a number of times. Please do feel free to argue (you haven’t done anything of the sort yet) that it was a lie and/or that it was insisted upon by the Clintons to the exclusion of better, newer information. However, since the Clintons haven’t been ruling the country for five years now, what Hilary believes is or isn’t the case is of far lesser importance than what the president believes. It’s the president – not the Clintons – who have access to all the latest intelligence and the most powerful resources. It’s the president who sets the policy based on the intelligence presented to him, and we must all rely on the president being honest and forthcoming with that evidence, which (as you know, in spite of your stalwart partisan position) didn’t happen.
I can give Hilary the benefit of the doubt on this matter not because of party affiliation, but because she might simply have been stuck with the picture of Iraq she developed when Bill was in office. And plenty of otherwise reasonable people voted for the Iraq war. Kerry himself did. That’s not extremely surprising, given how we have already discussed in several threads the methods employed by the Bushites to win support (falsehoods, coercion, etc).
Either way, Clinton or Bush, I expect information 1) to be of rather better quality and subject to revision, and 2) to actually be used in its totality (i.e. not partially by cherry-picking) as the basis for foreign policy decisions. I certainly wouldn’t accept the bases presented from the Iraq war from the Clintons anymore than I would from Bush, so drop your customary attempts to paint party bias everywhere just for once.
Focus on the actual problem Shodan, and stop it with these pathetic distraction tactics and blatant misrepresentations. Once again I ask you: How can you argue that the two items of intelligence and the positions presented by Bush/Clintons were equivalent in scope and honesty?
You haven’t even made the attempt to show that the Clintons were deliberately using falsehoods in a manner similar to the way Bush was repeatedly shown to employ. Your position relies entirely on a tit for tat approach whereby you reverse any accusation against Bush on to the Clintons.
Can aplogies and excuses become any more convoluted? It’s very simple: Clinton didn’t invade a country on the basis of obviously poor intelligence that was repeatedly questioned and invalidated, and never corroborated. He may have ordered a missile attack, but that is hardly unprecedented. Objectionable? Sure. Equivalent to what Bush pulled off? Nowhere near it and you know it. Whirling off a few missiles was simply not quite the rape of democracy that the Iraq affair was.
If you want to get lost in “what if” scenarios go right ahead but spare us the usual reams of apologies.
This is cute. You say you are dropping this part of a discussion, but then proceed to make a series of directly related statements that you don’t provide any support for. I am now obliged to reply with the following equivalent: Yes, perhaps we will discuss further in another thread, at which time I’ll point out why you are wrong on those statements.