I don’t regard the result as a costly failure of diplomacy. I think this was a situation that called for quick military action, not diplomacy. Diplomacy was overrated when doves called for diplomatic solutions in response to Saddam’s repeated violations of the no-fly zone. Diplomacy was not the answer in this case.
We simply place different premiums on the value of support from France, Germany, and Russia. I regard the value of their support as slight. I don’t see it as any kind of a meaningful loss to have proceeded without that support.
No, I don’t agree.
On the contrary: even when we had the support of our allies, we shouldered the lion’s share of the cost and the effort. It is unclear to me under what rationale Russia, France or Germany seek to be treated as equal partners in making a decision like this. They are not. It’s true that in the UN Security Council, of course, they are members – Russia and France permanantly so, and Germany until the end of this year. But I don’t regard as wise the thought that we grant the UN a veto over our military action in this instance.
No, and no. The action was necessary. The refusal of our putative allies to agree does not change that.
Thank you. I agree that what this comes down to is exactly what you say: assumptions about what priority to place on military action, and what interpretation you give to these events.
Okay, then, Osama is still out there, and the troops who were looking for him got sent to Iraq. Is what Bush is doing in Afghanistan/Pakistan *today * “the best approach”? Why not?
It wasn’t? Can you offer a reason why we shouldn’t want to spread the cost and bloodshed among more of those who are allegedly benefiting? Or why it’s a good thing to let those whose hearts and minds we’re allegedly trying to win over think we’re imperialist bullies only after their oil instead?
Please expound. In what way that we know now is factual, and that Bush had reason to know then was factual, was Iraq a threat to the US? None of this “Well, he wanted to, and Rumsfeld’d sent him some stuff to use against Iran, and he gassed his own people” stuff, now - in what way was Iraq a threat to the US?
That’s nice. Wanna try to convince anybody else?
Obviously not, only that the odds would be much better. He would most certainly have *kept * looking, and *kept * up the pressure on Pakistan to do something serious with their own forces. That isn’t a special virtue of Kerry’s, btw, it’s just something any non-arrogant non-fuckup non-ideologue would do.
Not even Bush is talking about a “complete end” to Al Qaeda consistently now (and the stream of strawmen is not helping you, either). Is the threat from them lower now because of Bush’s manliness, or long-term is it even increased as a result of our actions both in Iraq and in unqualified support of Sharon? I’d like to dismiss that possibility, but you know as well as I that it’s pretty plausible.
'Scuse me - the failures of the CIA and FBI, or of Bush’s use of them? I refer you to the OSP saga, for instance.
And maybe someday you’ll provide an example instead of a whine.
Then I wish he’d start to explain how he reached the often-stated, never-expounded positions right above that:
There *was * no need for “quick” (a.k.a. hasty, unprepared) military action, and we know now that Bush knew it then.
As I pointed out already, that’s assuming the conclusion, which is certainly interpretable as “blind support” if the evidence is virtually all to the contrary - as it is.
Because we would still end up paying the lion’s share of the cost, and surrendering our autonomy for insufficient recompense. And regardless of the presence of other troops, I think those disposed to view our presence unfavorably would do so anyway. I don’t agree that we’ve got a good shot at winning the hearts and minds of all Iraqis.
As a nation headed by a brutal dictator rentlessly unsympathetic to the US, Iraq was a potential friendly staging area for terrorists. In addition, Iraq was headed by a brutal dictator, and the people of Iraq are better off without him than with him. The threat offered by Iraq was not immediate. But it was a potential that was better off neutralized, and the Iraqi people were better off that we neutralized Saddam.
I’m offering my own reasons for why Zell Miller’s speech resonated with me. If those reasons convince others, fine. If not, then I stand alone in my reaction.
I think the threat from al Qaeda is lessened now due to Bush’s actions.
Both. The intel services failed, and the administration heard what it wanted to hear.
I did. An established poster just suggested above that conservatives are less welcome here because the board’s mission is fighting ignorance, and he did so in a forum where such attacks are supposedly verboten.
So you don’t consider invading another Arab country as a demonstration that Saddam “was going to expand his sphere of influence in the Arab world”? I assume you would also deny that the invasion of Poland showed any desire by Hitler to expand his sphere of influence in Europe.
At some statements from the further extremes of the Left, the mind simply boggles.
Well, I am glad we got rid of that “potential”. Maybe next time though, we might pursue a policy that gets rid of potential staging areas for terrorists in a way other than turning them into actual staging areas for terrorists.
It also seems a little hard to explain how this “potential friendly staging area for terrorists” seems to have functioned much less as a staging area for terrorists than supposedly friendly regimes in say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, …
Thank you for the retraction. One correction, though… you’ve made the mistake (which I believe is a mistake Zell Miller hopes people will make) of referring to John Kerry’s voting in his freshman year in the Senate, in reference to how he’s changed his stance over the years. The fact remains that John Kerry may have had some bold ideas before he was elected to the Senate, but he did not, in fact, vote in that fashion for at least the next 4 years. His first vote against the B-2 Stealth Bomber wasn’t until 1989, and 3 years later, Bush Sr. was also calling for its cancellation.
After the September 11th attacks on our nation, we had the broad support of pretty much the entire world. We also had the support of our allies for going into Afghanistan to capture the ringleader responsible for those attacks. I don’t believe for a moment that John Kerry would have waited one second longer than Bush did wrt Afghanistan, as he wouldn’t have had to – we already had the support that he keeps reminding us is vital in winning our worldwide battles.
What he’s saying he would’ve done differently in Afghanistan is not that he would’ve waited, but in how he would’ve executed it once there; how he would have utilized our assets differently in order to actually capture the man we went in there after in the first place. John Kerry to the American Legion Convention:“I would have relied on American troops in Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden in our sights. I never would have diverted resources so quickly from Afghanistan before finishing the job.”
I also disagree that we would’ve had to wait that much longer than we did to go into Iraq (IF a legitimate reason existed for doing so, and one could’ve been proven at the time), merely to get coalition approval that you seem to feel would not have been forthcoming. Quite the contrary. I believe that had John Kerry been President, he would have secured coalition agreement in advance of our even needing to go in. When his (controversial, I know) fitreps called him a “polished diplomat,” it wasn’t merely lip service – his history and the facts have borne that out. Read this article to get a better idea of just how good John Kerry is at negotiations. Some excerpts:
Well, we disagree on whether the United States has any right to unilaterally decide to remove the leader of a sovereign nation from power – I don’t. Nor do I believe that an all-out war against an entire nation would even be the way to go about doing so, even if I agreed it was necessary. Far too many innocent Iraqi civilian lives were lost in order to get rid of one, single man. I think it’s a crying shame.
Again, I don’t believe that gaining international acceptance and/or cooperation “subsumed” our own interests. Nor do I believe that we would have had to wait for it – I think Kerry would’ve had it secured and in the bag, long before Bush even considered and rejected the idea. Nor do I agree that it wouldn’t have materialized, simply because it didn’t materialize under Bush’s leadership. Again, I believe the exact opposite is true. I think international cooperation didn’t materialize precisely because Bush does not have the diplomatic skills necessary in order to have secured it.
Might I ask, in what way you feel we are “more secure” as a nation than we were before we took out Saddam Hussein? Exactly what threat did he pose to us that has now been thwarted?
Your denial of Saudi terrorist activity is an odd one, given that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
And the Department of Homeland Security seems to have some concerns about Pakistan:
Yes. Well, perhaps that’s a bit strong. Let me amend that to say, I’m more convinced that BinLaden would’ve been captured under a Kerry presidency than this Bush presidency, yes.
Now this is an interesting thing to say, after asserting that one of your primary concerns about a Kerry presidency is that he wouldn’t have acted as immediately as George Bush did, and that you agree with Bush’s tactic. If there was no immediate threat, then why the call for immediacy in handling it? I’m afraid that simply doesn’t make any sense.
Given that you’ve admitted that Miller’s speech was filled with “hyperbole” (which is actually a generous word for what he did) and “spurious claims,” I find that distressing. When I learn that someone has lied to me, I hold their opinion in a much lower light than I might once have. Zell Miller lied to the American public, yet what he said “still resonates with you.” That says a lot right there.
Fair enough - my comment on Kerry’s freshman year was illustrative only – good or bad, it’s unfair to either credit or criticize him for stances he may have taken in a political climate vastly different from what obtains now.
We’ll agree to disagree.
[quote]
Retired Army General Tommy Franks believes that “Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.”[/uquote]
Well, we can add SDMB poster Bricker to that list. I, too, believe John Kerry is absolutely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. A Senate veteran and Vietnam war hero who won broad Democratic party support, Kerry is a proven leader.
I’m saying that I think George W. Bush is a better choice, not that Kerry is a disaster. Far from it.
I don’t agree with your conclusions here either. Kerry would have been just as stymied as Bush was – but I believe he would have chosen to wait and not act unilaterally.
bin Laden himself is a Saudi. What of it? The mere fact that they were Saudis is no reason to assume the Saudi government was friendly to their cause.
Saddam’s threat to us was twofold: one, as a brutal dictator that hated the US, his country was ripe for use as a terrorist haven. More to the point: he was a brutal dictator that was killing his own people, and for that reason alone deserved removal. (By “us” I mean humanity, here, not simply the US.)
What leads you to that conclusion? Recall that we’re talking about the man who, against all advice, even from within his own party, was the first whistleblower in the Iran/Contra scandal. A man who, for all intents and purposes, acted “unilaterally” in going forth with an investigation that blew that whole scandal wide open. [Cite]
And let’s not forget, either, that he also forged ahead, against fierce opposition, on exposing and shutting down the terrorist money-laundering financial institution, BCCI.
John Kerry doesn’t strike me at all as the kind of man who becomes “stymied” into non-action.
I would love to know what you think George W. Bush has done in the last 3½ years in office, that makes him better at fighting terrorism – with actual, measurable results, than what John Kerry has done, or would do.
And on another interesting but unrelated point, Graham also notes the ways in which the President’s obsession with Iraq diverted resources from the real war on terror in Afghanistan:
Here is an article from several months ago on the same subject:
Because Kerry himself has said that he’d have done “everything differently” than Bush did. Since one of the key elements was acting alone, I assume Kerry means to say that he’d not have acted alone.
From the Kerry campaign.
On involving NATO:
Needless to say, I don’t agree that we must share authority.
Admirable, but chasing corporate bad guys is not the same as unilaterally going to war against the wishes of much of your core constituency.
It’s too soon to have actual, measurable results. In fact, it’s unclear to me how you might go about measuring results, no matter who was at the helm.
All I can rely upon is a gut sense that Kerry would, as he’s constantly repeated, worked for a coaltion… when I am perfectly happy with Bush’s willingness to charge ahead and ACT.
Because Kerry himself has said that he’d have done “everything differently” than Bush did. Since one of the key elements was acting alone, I assume Kerry means to say that he’d not have acted alone.
…
All I can rely upon is a gut sense that Kerry would, as he’s constantly repeated, worked for a coaltion… when I am perfectly happy with Bush’s willingness to charge ahead and ACT.
Well “ALMOST everything” /= “Everything.” And based on what I know of both candidates, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the contention that John Kerry wouldn’t have also ACTED, yet ACTED with more sense, a better plan and more support, which is not a bad thing.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe like tangibly showing that you’ve cut off the terrorist’s finances, rendering them impotent to attack us even if they wanted to?
And if Bush is so much “better” at ACTING than you think John Kerry would be, can you explain why Abu Mussab al Zarqawi is still at large, precisely due to Bush’s INaction in going after him, while trying to “build international support for action against Iraq?” [Cite]
Seems like my perception of him is accurate – he tried and failed to gain international support. In fact, this article indicates that the White House “killed” several Pentagon plans, in part because “the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”
Don’t have time to read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the rumors about Zell suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers? His mother died of it, evidently, and on Air America they were talking about speculation within the GOP, and how shameful some felt it was to exploit him in that way if it is true.
Also, Carter wrote him a rip-snorting scold. Go, Jimmy!
I simply don’t agree. You place a premium on international cooperation; I contend in the long run that we are better off having handled this essentially alone, rather than subjecting ourselves to UN or NATO “leadership” that is anything but.
How much did the boxcutters cost?
I would want to hear the administration’s response to the one side of the story that the cite you’ve provided gives before comment.
So which is the honorable course if your party has adopted a position which you feel is untenable and dangerous to the security of the nation? Disagree strongly but remain loyal to the party? Leave the party?
I agree with the latter, by the way. Mr. Miller should resign his seat and seek re-election as a Republican.
This is, by the way, exactly what I said Jim Jeffords should do. I do not recall ANY DEMOCRATS ON THIS BOARD agreeing with me at that time.
Jimmy Carter is one of the architects of the new, emasculated Democratic Party. Everyone should remember his failed leadership in the 1970’s, and our reduced standing in the world during his tenure.
Lately, his noteworthy achievements have been to make nice with every dictator he can find, no matter how anti-American they are.
I wouldn’t consider his scorn a mark of dishonor. Much more the opposite, I’d say.