Leaving the GOP

[Spartana]

....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 firmly believe that there were other options at that time then a full scale war/invasion to bring Iraq into complience with the UN inspections order. I don't believe there was an imminent threat to the USA nor it's allies. And given the info that had been gathered at the various inspections since the late 1990's, I don't think there was compelling evidence of WMD. So what would I do? Well probably the same thing we did in the CG when we got intelligence from a known a reliable source that a foriegn ship (lets say Russian) was smuggling some sort of contraband (lets say weapons). We didn't just hunt them down and lob rockets at them from a mile away until they sank based on that intelligence alone. We attempted to board them and inspected them. If they didn't comply, ran away or fired upon us we used reasonable force for the situation to make them comply so that we could inspect them. If that didn't work, then yes, we'd probably sink the ship. Much like Clinton did in his air bombings you mentioned - "Dudes, if you don't let us inspect your baby milk factory we're gonna assume you're hiding something and will blow it to Kingdom come". What we didn't do was attack and take over the entire Russian shipping fleet based on the "possibility" that a few ships WERE smuggling weapons. I have no problem with the enforcement of UN sanctions by the military force, but I don't believe that the situation warranted a full scale military assault of an entire country based on the limited intel they had, as well as the fact that not one inspector that DID get to inspect the sites ever found anything of note. Just my .2 cents - probably worth less :-)!

[Alan]

Just my .2 cents - probably worth less :-)!

Mine too! But when we put our two cents together, we've got more than what we started with.

It always just strikes me as lazy thinking when we overlook all the complicating factors involved with something and boil it down to something as simplistic as "Bush lied, people died", or blame the opposition party for something that crossed political lines given the best information at the time . If we're gonna discuss those issues, somebody's gotta play the devils advocate role just to keep the record straight.

[Spartana]

Mine too! But when we put our two cents together, we've got more than what we started with.

It always just strikes me as lazy thinking when we overlook all the complicating factors involved with something and boil it down to something as simplistic as "Bush lied, people died", or blame the opposition party for something that crossed political lines given the best information at the time . If we're gonna discuss those issues, somebody's gotta play the devils advocate role just to keep the record straight.

Gee we're rich!! Oh, I forgot we gotta pay taxes on that 4 cents ;-)! I agree. To me it isn't a Dems vs. GOP thing though - I would feel the same (and did) when Clinton et al (who ever they were) made the decision to bomb Iraq - even though it was partially in defense. I'm one of those "innocent until proven guilty" people and ,even when proven guilty, still would choose to rule out all other options unless I was being directly attacked.

[Spartana]

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.

This:

"The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16–19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors."

"On October 31, 1998 US President Bill Clinton had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.[2] The new Act appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy."


"The Act also said that:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

Section 4(a)(2) states:

The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations.

[Maxamillion]

I used to be Independent and even voted for Bush Jr. the first time around, but after 8 years of him and the Iraq business and the economy tanking...I'm very reluctant to vote Republican. I also find the current lineup of Republican presidential-hopefuls really repulsive and Perry most of all.

[Dragline]

Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then

The amazing thing is how many ways the sides are really similar when they get into office. Now I'm not saying one might not be marginally better (i'm generally more sympathetic with Dem ideals but not at all convinced the Dems are always even better representatives of them! really). And I'm not saying that even those who get elected even in our system don't have a few good ideas here and there. But on a lot of really important fundamentals .... lots of really similar policies.

I'm not sure what the rising tide is supposed to be. Generational change? I don't believe a generational shift will just magically bring about change. Remember the 60s were supposed to bring generational change (well I'm in my 30s, I don't literally remember either, but I've read a lot ok). And there were a lot of really brilliant great ideas in the 60s. I'm not saying every single idea was brilliant, but there was an intellectual fire (it was a far more intellectual country - read any book from back then and weep ....), and lots of ideas that could have led to a very different and I think much better society. What did we get, we got THIS. We got the world we now live in. This, really, this was the end result? *Face palm*. Quite frankly I think the world we live in gets in many ways worse and worse every year. And this is not about my life but rather looking at what is going on out there.

[peggy]

Actually, after careful reading of everyone's views, there are a surprising number of republicans-turned-democrat. I know I'm one. (yes, believe it or not) The republican party used to be fiscal responsibility with a social conscience, but now it isn't even recognizable. Nutters, religious and otherwise, have taken over the party, and I think real republicans have come to regret courting these folks. They saw a low information (not my term, I didn't invent it) voter group, easily manipulated by heightened rhetoric, and systematically groomed and courted them. But the beast has outgrown it's cage and now they are/will pay the price.
I know some of you don't believe it, but I am truly saddened by this change. I wholeheartedly embraced the republican ideals, but that ship has sailed and we are all poorer for it. I desperately wish the republican party would get serious for even a moment and try to govern this society like they actually belong to it.

When I see how republicans who I disagreed with even just a few years ago are desperately fighting for their political lives because they aren't 'right' enough, I am reminded of the Palestinians and Hamas. Their 'low information voters' voted them in just to prove a point, and pretty much everyone regrets it now.

[redfox]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/05...ngs-not-to-do/

102 things not to do if you hate taxes

[redfox]

Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then.

Wow... you're making some pretty big assumptions about age! Believe it or not, many people become more flexible in their thinking as they age, because we get better & better at self-reflection, as well as more & more open to differences. I'm a Boomer married to a Gen X-er, and we raised two kids, so our household has plenty of cross-cultural understanding in it, to the benefit of us all.

Your assumptions seem to lock you into one perspective - the very thing you decry.