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?Originally Posted by peggy
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.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Did I trip out, or did they trip me out?
Peace
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.
Last edited by Spartana; 9-9-11 at 3:54pm.
So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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.
Last edited by Spartana; 9-9-11 at 4:46pm.
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?
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.
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?
Last edited by Alan; 9-9-11 at 6:42pm.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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...
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?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Nothing personal at all, Alan. I just find it naive.
Peace
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote