Leaving the GOP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Did President Clinton attack Iraq? Did President Clinton try to cherry pick and fudge to make a case to attack Iraq? I'm sure President Clinton suspected a lot of things, many of which probably were true. But the big difference is, he didn't mislead the congress and nation to match the little voices in his head.

---

Actually, he did order air strikes in Iraq. Did you read the article? If not, it wasn't that long ago, were you just not paying attention?

He used the same rationale that his successor did. I don't understand why you would apply such a blatant double standard. Oh wait, yes I do. >8)

Did I trip out, or did they trip me out?

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

You're implying something that is not in evidence.
The previous administration as well as many of our European allies thought Iraq was still in possession of WMD's. Were they all misleading us?

---

As you said - faulty intelligence. However, the UN Security Councel had drafted and argued for more dipolmatic solutions rather than invasion UNTIL it could actually be proven that there were WMD. The US & GB (and segment of a couple of other countries) choose to go against the UN vote and invade. What I think was "misleading" was that the US National Security Council, along with the various sub-committees on Intelligence, CIA, DoD, etc.., mislead the Pres., Congress, etc... into believing that their were in fact WMD when they didn't actually have any more real proof then the UN did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

As you said - faulty intelligence. However, the UN Security Councel had drafted and argued for more dipolmatic solutions rather than invasion UNTIL it could actually be proven that there were WMD. The US & GB (and segment of a couple of other countries) choose to go against the UN vote and invade. What I think was "misleading" was that the US National Security Council, along with the various sub-committees on Intelligence, CIA, DoD, etc.., mislead the Pres., Congress, etc... into believing that their were in fact WMD when they didn't actually have any more real proof then the UN did.

---

So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?

---

Not the republicans in general and not even Bush, but yes, some of the Bush Cabinet - especially the military & intelligence leaders & Cheney. I do think it was intentional. IMHO they choose to "embellish" on intel that was, at that point in time, suppositional (sp?) rather than factual in order to justify an invasion that they wanted - or that they believed was needed. They probably did believe that there were WMD but there wasn't enough info at that time to justify an invasion so they embellished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Not the republicans in general and not even Bush, but yes, some of the Bush Cabinet - especially the military & intelligence leaders & Cheney. I do think it was intentional. IMHO they choose to "embellish" on intel that was, at that point in time, suppositional (sp?) rather than factual in order to justify an invasion that they wanted - or that they believed was needed. They probably did believe that there were WMD but there wasn't enough info at that time to justify an invasion so they embellished.

---

So, in 1998, when President Clinton said ....

Quote:

---

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the
well being of his people, the peace of his region,the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with anew Iraqi
government a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government
that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time
and effort.We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of
Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost free. Whenever American forces are
placed in harms way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused
on Iraqs military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harms
way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have
absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond
forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of
inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far
greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He
will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy
them, and he will use them.

---

....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?

We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?

If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gina

The 'true Dems' of the south are now registered as 'Republicans'. Winning them over was one of the acknowledged strategies (see Southern Strategy below) the vote-poor 'money' Republicans employed to start winning elections again. That plus later tossing activist Christians the abortion bone that they are still running with.

---

It's funny reading about the so-called "Southern strategy" and Presidential elections, Nixon won 32 and 49, Reagan won 44 and 49. That looks like more of a "National strategy" to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, in 1998, when President Clinton said ....



....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?

We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?

If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?

---

I think you are naive if you continue to support our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

I think you are naive if you continue to support our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

Peace

---

No need to get personal Ziggy. I've laid out a pretty good representation of the times, the actors, and their goals. What would you have done differently?

Nothing personal at all, Alan. I just find it naive.

Peace