Well that pre-supposes there is a job to be done. Clinton was happy with the containment policy as was George pre-9/11, one assumes (Foreign Policy goals not being overly evident during 2001). When did Iraq first emerge as a ‘threat’ - during the ‘Axis of Evil’, SotUA ?
What has changed, IMHO, is that this Administration realised Saudi might not always be run by the Saud family (penny dropped post 9/11, plus time taken to articulate a position and policy)…panic stations. Scenario: Tap gets turned off by new fundamentalist Saudi administration, economic blackmail, early 70’s energy crisis writ larger, no Plan B…wait, Saddam’s sitting on 17% of known oil reserves…dovetail that with any domestic advantage that can be gleaned (as is the inclination of politicians everywhere): sink Enron, midterms, promote the Energy Policy as patriotic…yada, yada…everyone on board ? Energy Lobby, Jewish Lobby, is Blair game etc, etc ? yep…we’ve got a plan and Saddam’s our man.
These coincidences of timing allow you to somehow justify a claim that President Clinton used foreign policy for crass political purposes ? The evidence against Bush is objectively far more damning. Maybe the pubbies need to consider spending another 50 million, and five years of the nations time, to prove otherwise. Maybe they’d be able to put the big boffer away for unpaid parking tickets in Dubai. Finally, some just desserts for the other man who dared stand against the majesty that was Bush the first ! Shodan, I find your need for depends gratifying, all pubies should be so honest. But that does not dimish the essential kernal of truth in my liberal evaluation of the character of the two presidents. Clinton was found lacking in areas where it didn’t count, but Bush is lacking in areas where it does count.
It’s the relevant question per points offered above. To wit:
1998 was when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed which was intended to fund dissident elements in Iraq. See the Trent Lot quote above.
What’s different is that in 1998 the Senate was pushing the then-current administration to perform airstrikes in retaliation for the end of inspections, and also to help Iraqi dissidents overthrow Saddam.
In 2002 the administration is asking for authorization to invade Iraq with U.S. troops.
Not the same thing, and it strikes me as misleading at best to characterize them as equivalent.
Oh, come on… Clinton’s actions as regards to scheduling military actions the night before the impeachment vote are just “coincidences of timing”, yet Bush’s actions as regards Iraq are done with nothing but political motives in mind…
Just who is kidding who???
I happen to be a fence-sitter (read: independent) (I actually voted for Clinton the first time, much to my disgust), and I am getting plenty sick and tired of the attitude (on both sides, btw) of: we good, they bad. Therefore everything we do good, everything they do bad.
Even if it’s the same fucking thing. WE do it, it’s good; THEY do it, it’s bad.
Jesus H motherfucking Christ on a crutch…
Toaster52 If you have some evidence that it was the official policy of the democratic party to promote war with Iraq for political ends back in 1988, please present it. If not, your six of one, half a dozen of the other argument is nothing but a bad attempt at GOP apologetics.
Then why did he sign the Iraq Liberation Act, which changed the OFFICIAL policy of the United States from ‘containment’ to ‘Regime Change’? Because he was happy with containment?
The fact is, the stated, on the record opinions of both Clinton and Gore was that the U.S. should try to force a regime change. They had almost-unanimous support from the Democrats in Congress for that position, and in House Debate over the issue the Democrats were VERY hawkish. I posted some quotes above, which you have so far avoided, from prominent Democrats who were advocating exactly what Bush wants to do now.
I’ll repeat a couple of them for the attention-challenged:
“Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?” Tom Daschle, 1998
“The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later,” - Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 1998
That’s not talk about funding dissidents, or making inspections stronger.
What part of, “strike, strike hard, and strike decisively” confuses you?
And now let’s talk about the waffler-in-waiting, Al Gore. The other day, he came out and made a blistering speech in which he kind of, sort of claimed that Bush was wrong, but not how. He too is ‘troubled’.
But for fun, let’s see what he said about Iraq in 2000, when he was running for President:
On May 23, Vice President Al Gore addressed AIPAC’s annual policy conference. His speech included a short section on Iraq:
Yeah, those Democrats would NEVER stoop to politicising this war.
By the way, the Republicans are just as guilty. Four years ago, the roles were reversed: The Democrats were the hawks, and the Republicans kept balking, with their arguments about wagging the dog, their opposition to ‘nation building’, etc.
This is all politics. The problem with you Demcrats defending Daschle et al. is that you have bought their spin.
Squink: Well, if we can consider the President, Vice President, and the congressional leadership to be representative of the party, then yes, their official policy was to use any means, including force, to get rid of Saddam. I have provided plenty of quotes and cites to that effect.
First one president (daddy-pres) had a war. A nice war. He waved his magic wand and said: “Stop”. And the war stopped.
Then there was a president that did also want a war. He was leading the party that does not want a war.
After that comes a president (baby-president) that wants the same war as the other guy and his party. He says that the other guys are not true patriots because they do not want to have that war.
So, now You have elections and should elect some guys who will support a war? Or peace?
So the the election is about war and peace?
I just ask a question:
If someone would bomb Your country… and the son would threat to, let’s say, bomb Gotham City as well as Luisville, or ten of those… And the bombing guy would have reasons as follows (given in SD):
You are crazy (and the bombing guy is sane)
Your secret guy met the Atta-guy (and Their secret guys schooled a bin Laden-guy, but that does not count).
You have terrible weapons, (the same kind of weapons as the bombing guy.)
You tried to kill the bombing Daddy. (They did never to do something like that. Never!)
And finally: You are training terrorist that tries to overthrow Your government, (which they are almost ready to prove, any day now…), even before that they made the promise to train Your contrymen to overthrow Your government!
You are spitting in the face of UN (that they and their allies never do), by ignoring resolutions.
How would You feel?
If the reporter just would have asked: “Why on earth do You think they are hating us so much?”, the picture would have been perfect.
My humble advise is: After two years or so You have an election. Elect a guy that promise to begin all the pre-emtive wars needed against lunatic leaders all over the world, in the name of continuos peace, sell Your constitution to the highest bidder in order to get effective ammo.
And You never need to vote again.
If the game goes wrong. Reload game and click “Start”.
Before You begin, I just want to ask a few questions, I’ve asked in many threads (if elucidator does not mind for sidestepping), but never got an answer.
I just ask You most politely to think about these questions before You vote next time, if You vote for war or peace:
Does this war be so clean, even cleaner than Daddys war, that it does not breed new terrorist nor terrorist attacks?
If it does breed, what is the reason of this war in the fight against terrorism? As a link in the War against Terrorism?
Can Your president keep the war so controlled that the (by me assumed) new terrorists will only attack the attacking countries?
If not, should we not also have a vote about peace and war? A small one?
Do You think like Baby-Bush expresses himself:
Or do You think there can be some millions more in that country hating “us”/You?
Just a worried (Finnish) citizen from another side of the world.
I don’t see a connection between being a ‘clean’ war and the creation of terrorists. We nuked Japan, and it didn’t create lots of terrorists.
There are two reasons for going after Saddam. First, the terrorist reason:
The reason is that Saddam in power potentially gives terrorists access to the resources of a state. There is plenty of evidence of connections between Iraq and terrorist organizations. There is no disputing that. There is little direct evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC attacks, however. But that’s irrelevant, since the U.S. isn’t interested in revenge - it’s interested in security. Saddam is a huge threat to security, in exactly the same way that the Taliban’s support of terrorist organizations was a threat to security. Except that Saddam has sophisticated weapons, a strong nuclear program, and huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
The second reason has nothing to do with terror, but with Iraq itself. If Saddam detonates a nuclear weapon in the desert and claims to have more, he will use that fact to attempt to deter the United States from attacking him if he re-invades Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia. In short, the U.S. will be forced into a position of continual nuclear brinksmanship against an unstable nutbar. That is not good for the world.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you suggesting that hordes of terrorists will flood out of Iraq? How does an ‘uncontrolled’ war (whatever that is) cause terrorists to spring up?
I think that if the U.S. invades Iraq, then once the people realize that Saddam is truly, finally gone they will rise up and shout the praises of the United States.
Iraq is one of the most brutal dictatorships the world has seen. Secret police are everywhere. People live in constant fear of being caught even showing a modicum of criticism of Saddam. People in key positions have their families held hostage to keep them in line. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.
If the U.S. shows up as a liberating force, they’ll be welcome. Perhaps not immediately, but once the populace realizes that the regime is permanently gone. That’s my prediction.
In addition, the overthrow of Iraq after Afghanistan will scare the crap out of the other depotic nations in the area that foster hatred against Israel and America in order to deflect criticism away from their own failed policies. This may in turn cause them to straighten up and fly right.
And in a direct link to terrorism, I should point out that Osama Bin Laden’s biggest complaint against the U.S was its presence in the ‘holy land’ of Saudi Arabia. And the only reason the U.S. is there is because of the threat from Iraq. With Iraq gone, the U.S. can leave Saudi Arabia.
I also think the removal of the Iraqi regime would have positive effects in Iran. The existence of a democratic company on Iran’s border, instead of an insane dictator who has attacked Iran in the past, would be a very good thing for the Iranian people. In the short run there might be a lot of anger against the U.S., but in the longer run there will be a heavy pull on the Iranian people towards Democracy, especially if the transition in Iraq to a stable new regime is successful.
The last part is the critical factor: If the U.S. throws Saddam out, it had damned well be ready to stay in the region for years or decades (likely decades). If Iraq is allowed to fracture into a bunch of competing factions, the result will be disastrous.
Do you have an historical precedent for that outcome?
The most likely result is similar to what happened to Caucescu. A sense of liberation following the lynchings of the thugs who controlled the country. Certainly there’s room for lots of anger and disagreement after Saddam is gone as people jockey for power, but the overall response is likely to be positive.
The question was, what exactly was the Senate authorizing in 1998 and to what purpose? Per the proferred cites, the intent wasn’t invasion, it was retaliation for the end of inspections to force Iraq to comply, and to fund dissident elements inside Iraq. Not invasion. Two different things. Do you disagree?
Hey, I’ve got some random quotes, utterly devoid of context, just like Sam’s!
“Saddam Hussein is out of the nuclear business.” - Richard Cheney, 1991
“Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon.” Richard Cheney, 2002
And:
“We shouldn’t be overly fixated on Saddam” - Richard Cheney, 1991
“We must not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter [Iraq] for some future administration to resolve. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action”, Richard Cheney, 2002
[shrill] These quotes prove, beyond all doubt, that Vice-President Richard Cheney is a weak-kneed waffling hypocrite! [/shrill]
Wow, this is fun!!
… or perhaps some context for quotes is somewhat important, no?
There is some difference between how the japanese people reacted when Hirohito said that there should be peace and when You speak of some Arabic hot-heads. (I do not mean to say that they are more “hot-heads” than we the westenern are, just look around Your neighbourhood and decide if You know any that goes very hot at certain topics).
Sam wrote further:
I also, like Sam, belive that Saddam has given “access to the resources of a state.”
Many countries have, when it suits their policy. Many countries have and will have weapons on mass-destruction.
But, I do not think war will be a solution, it will always be new wars and if the western world will accept “pre-emptive wars”, we will have a lot of them. A lot that are not controlled by us.
I do not believe either in somekind of “if no war - there will be peace”, because it is true as I understand many of us think: “Let’s prevent the world from a new Hitler/Stalin/Mao.
I think that we need to work for a permanent solution of mass-destruction-weapons.
But if any one begins to work for peace, he will be stamped as “a commie”. I have expierenced that for the last three decades.
A permanent solution needs to be pressed by the people, because the mass-destruction-weapons have very little to do with defence, but much with power and influence.
Our leaders in different parts of the world really love The Bomb. Or why do they not have serious discussions about it now when the commies are gone and buried?
As I see, there has been a historical chance for a decade…
Rant stopped here by force.
Your country will, and we all will with it, sooner or later “an unstable nutbar” with nukes.
I wrote in the earlier post:”Can Your president keep the war so controlled that the (by me assumed) new terrorists will only attack the attacking countries?
If not, should we not also have a vote about peace and war? A small one?” Sam answered:
I just mean thet the terrorists has always wanted a global war. They have not a chance without total anarchy, and they know it.
And did not the earlier war against Iraq, the successful one, be the last straw for many like bin Laden.
Sam wrote further:
That is quite a lot assumed.
You could write insted of “Saddam” the name “Josef” (Stalin). It is a very exact description of both. And these guys keeps popping up every now and then, but some 50 years ago there was only 2 countries with these weapons. How many are there now?
It is obvious that they get popping up within shorter interwalls every year, as long as The Bomb (and its sisters) will be spread out to new countries.
Sam:
I also think that sooner or later, within a decade or so, the situation will calm down. But in how many countries can Your Tex Willer put his army “calming down” people.
Sam:
And does it “scare the crap out of the other despotic” terrorists as well?
No. I do not think so.
And when a politician in any country needs votes, he just offends USA and get them. Or do You not think they (the spectrum from populistic politicians to lunatic generals) will not use this card, in any country, at the very moment they can do it?
Sam:
I do not know how much of holy land there is in Iraq?
Sam:
I agree on this one, “if the transition in Iraq to a stable new regime is successful” for some decade or so. Sam:
I share Your opinion to 100%.
Sam wrote in his next post:
Nobody bombed them first.
Sam, even if it does seem that I do not agree with You, I do understand many things You say. You are a very well educated person, no doubt. I just wish You and Your country would actively work for a permanent solution against that we will have some 50 countries within some decades with nukes
and that any guy with money can buy ballistics “on the international market square”.
By all means, use all Your military power to get the weapons in a global control.
Not only against “enemies of the moment”. They will be Your friends in the future and Your today friends will turn against You.
There is more merry-go-round in politics than Iran, bin Laden and e.g. Russia. (I mean from enemy to turning to a friend and vice versa).
Btw. The country that would most benefit from no-nukes-in-the-world would be Russia. No-one can conquere this country and keep it because it is so huge. But that is another story.
I hope the sober politicians of the world beguns to act toward an agreement about the nukes etc. and make together rules how to prevent this desease from spreading further (and disarment little by little).
If someone is still building nukes after an global agreement, the world should use all it’s armies to strangle the guys’ thoughts in their very craddle.
I hope You all find this kind of politicians when You vote next time.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
“There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency,” Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, said yesterday…
Well, golly!
How could the Washington Times have gotten it so wrong? I mean, this sort of kind of implies that Our Churchill lied to us. But that’s ridiculous, isn’t it? That’s the kind of thing Bill Clinton might do, but not Mr. Bush, who has brought honor and dignity back to the White House.
On the one hand, lying about a knob job in the Oval Office. On the other, disseminating false informatin in support of a policy in favor of immediate war. Lying about war.
elucidator: I’ll have to read up on it. I don’t know all the details.
But as a counter to that, how do you like the news that two men in Turkey were arrested today transporting a 15 kg uranium slug, apparently to Iraq? If that uranium turns out to be enriched (we should know soon), then it was enough to make a bomb.
If we found one shipment of Uranium, how many more are there that we haven’t found?
And how long do you think it would take Saddam to build a nuke if he had access to that 15kg slug if it is in fact weapons-grade?
Still feel confident that inspections can stop Saddam?
Squink: I forgot to respond to your other message. Yes, it’s certainly true that the focus of the practical efforts to topple Saddam were centered around building up the opposition. But my point was that the rhetoric surrounding t hat was far more bellicose. Byrd’s comment that the U.S. should “strike, strike hard, and strike decisively” certainly has nothing to do with simply arming or funding some opposition forces.
And there’s another point to consider: Whatever the Clinton administration’s strategy was to achieve their goal of regime change, it clearly failed. Today Saddam is stronger and has more weapons of mass destruction than he did four yeaars ago when the Democrat’s version of ‘regime change’ was attempted. So if they still advocate it (and it is still official US policy), then it seems that a direct military intervention is the only option left, doesn’t it?
“Apparently headed for Iraq” To whom is this apparent?
Is Saddam suicidal? Looking for an opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory? Well, that alleged nuke affords a perfect opportunity, doesn’t it? Because if he uses it the US will render Baghdad into fused green glass and toot sweet. I suspect he knows this.
How can he threaten us with this nuke? He’s gonna Fed Ex it to us? Now, of course, if we stick a couple of hundred thousand troops right within range, well…
He’s had all manner of WMD’s for years and years. Been mighty quiet for this homicidal maniac which you insist is a deadly threat to damn near everybody.
But get back to me when you’ve had time to “read up”. That’s just bound to be interesting.
But that does not dimish the essential kernal of truth in my liberal evaluation of the character of the two presidents. Clinton was found lacking in areas where it didn’t count, but Bush is lacking in areas where it does count.