Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush: "I'm a war president... with war on my mind"

Election 2004 Bush 2004

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 03:56 PM

Article on this morning's interview with the President on NBC's "Meet The Press", from the BBC:

Quote

Mr Bush defended the invasion of Iraq, saying it was a "war of necessity".

He said he had not called Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat" but said it would have been too late if the US had waited until the danger was that close.

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said.

"I see dangers that exist and it's important for us to deal with them."

He defended the intelligence that indicated Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction.

"The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon," he said.

Challenged by interviewer, Tim Russert, that no weapon had been found, Mr Bush replied: "What wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon."

The president said the arms could have been destroyed, moved or hidden.

Quote

While the Iraq war was necessary in part because Saddam Hussein was a "madman", the use of force was not always necessary to deal with rogue states, he said.

In North Korea, for example, he said "the diplomacy is just beginning".

He stressed the US public would have plenty of time to judge his role, though the intelligence commission will not report until March 2005, months after the presidential election.

A British inquiry into the pre-war intelligence is expected to report this summer but Mr Bush defended the 14 months he is allowing for findings, saying it should not be "hurried".

When it does come time to vote in November, he said he thought the biggest issue would be "who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place".

He acknowledged that the economy was also important, and said it was strong despite a record deficit.

"It's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation to understand we are at war," he said.

Quote

On his own military service, Mr Bush criticised the senior Democrats who have suggested that he did not show up for duty in the Alabama National Guard in 1972 where he served during the Vietnam era.

"They're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise I wouldn't have been honourably discharged," he said.


#2 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 05:36 PM

We take down Iraq and North Korea suddenly wants to talk. We find Saddam,and suddenly Libya wants to surrender up their weapons of mass distruction. Why? Because of 20+ yrs diplomacy or the worry that he would be next?  :dontgetit:

  Me. I suspect he was checking and discovered he was president for life only. :cool:

#3 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 08 February 2004 - 06:47 PM

^ Uh, thanks, G.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#4 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:08 AM

Well, I would have thought that the "best possible evidence" of a weapon would be the weapon itself.  Since they didn't find any, they could hardly have had the best possible evidence.

Here's my question.  During the last administration, we went throught the scandal of an impeachment process because the President lied.  That President lied about having sex; but as I understood it, the Republican court of public opinion claimed that the lie, not the sex, was the real problem.  A President who lies about sex might lie about important government business, right?

Now we have a President who lied to the whole country about WMDs in Iraq.  Just compare his last two State of the Union addresses if you think I'm wrong about that.  In the great, grand scheme of things, I'd call using a lie about weapons of mass destruction to draw the country into a war where our citizens are killed far more dangerous to the welfare of our country than a lie about sex.  So why aren't the same folks who were so upset about Clinton's lie calling for Bush's impeachment?  Bush's lie has cost American lives.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#5 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:32 AM

Consubstantial, on Feb 9 2004, 10:06 AM, said:

Here's my question.  During the last administration, we went throught the scandal of an impeachment process because the President lied.  That President lied about having sex; but as I understood it, the Republican court of public opinion claimed that the lie, not the sex, was the real problem.
It wasn't just a lie. It was perjury. Slightly different.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#6 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:47 AM

Drew, on Feb 9 2004, 04:30 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Feb 9 2004, 10:06 AM, said:

Here's my question.  During the last administration, we went throught the scandal of an impeachment process because the President lied.  That President lied about having sex; but as I understood it, the Republican court of public opinion claimed that the lie, not the sex, was the real problem.
It wasn't just a lie. It was perjury. Slightly different.  :cool:
So is telling a lie regarding your fidelity during a deposition regarding a completely different matter (a matter which in fact he was found innocent of...how much did we spend on Whitewater by the way??) is equal too or worse then telling a series of lies on television that leads a nation into invading another..

Although I don't know if I woujld call what the president did lying, more like taking a group of half facts and allowing them to lead where he wanted to already go..which was to hit back at an arab nation after 9-11..

gc   :devil:
“I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.”
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#7 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:48 AM

Well for one thing, the speculation that Bush lied is just that.  Speculation.  The only thing we know (for the most part) is that the intelligence was wrong, and therefore Bush is wrong.  What is not known is if this was simply a case of being misled or misinformed.  Wrong != lying, as they'd say in my line of work.  

On the other hand, we know Clinton lied.  Thus, there was a real lie that we could point to.  Did I personally think the impeachment was a near-fiasco?  Yes.  Mostly because I knew that it wouldn't pass.  It was basically a waste of time and effort.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he'd need to be dealt with.  I generally have to be pretty partisan because of some top level issues, but if your candidate lies, then you can't even trust them to move the platform forward that you elected them for.  Of course, even canning Bush is no reason to vote for a Democrat on the national level, but I'd be very, very inclined to yell for some serious character overhaul of my own party if this turns out to have been failure of said character.  

All that said, I think we need to be in Iraq, and it was something that was done that should have been optimally done much earlier.  The war was a sub-optimal solution, but not going for it would have been even worse.  

To put it bluntly, if you think that a policy of not dealing with the Middle East with full force is going to prevent American servicemen and women from getting killed, you're living in a dream world.  The problem is that many other people in the US are too busy with their own lives to see what is staring at them just an inch from their nose.  We are locked into a policy of reacting to dangers, instead of dealing with them.  We killed our human intelligence programs in order to save money and avoid offending, and what did we get?  Faulty intelligence when it mattered.   We dropped some cruise missiles into a situation that took humans to deal with properly, and we got a World Trade Center bombing out of it.  If it turns out that Bush and company did fib and fabricate, to get this job done, then we need to not only look at them, about ourselves to see why it was necessary for us to have to be lied to to do the right thing.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#8 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:19 PM

Even if President Bush lied, we'd never learn about it. We'd merely learn whom he sacrificed instead.

#9 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:28 PM

Uncle Sid, on Feb 9 2004, 04:46 PM, said:

To put it bluntly, if you think that a policy of not dealing with the Middle East with full force is going to prevent American servicemen and women from getting killed, you're living in a dream world. 
. . . 
If it turns out that Bush and company did fib and fabricate, to get this job done, then we need to not only look at them, about ourselves to see why it was necessary for us to have to be lied to to do the right thing.
I'm not sure with the "you" whether this statement was meant to be direct address to me or whether it was meant for the populace in general.  I'm going to respond to it though.  If X, then Y logic works better rhetorically if the second part of the equation isn't insulting.  Last I checked insults were not quality evidence.  So, do I think that American service people would have died during the period of time we have been in Iraq if we hadn't been there; yes, of course I do.  I also think that far fewer of them would have died if we hadn't engaged in this conflict.  Let me repeat, I believe that more service people have died as a result of our action in Iraq than would have died during that time if we hadn't invaded Iraq.  If you would like to claim that every individual soldier who has died in that conflict would have died if we hadn't invaded, you may; but don't expect to find much agreement with that position.

The second of your points that I have quoted makes unfounded assumptions.  First it assumes that "we" won't "do the right thing" unless we are lied to.  Nevermind exactly what "the right thing" is for the moment.  My experience suggests that people who are told the truth are more likely to engage in right action than people who are lied to.  One reason why is that the "truth" allows one to better ascertain right action than "lies."  The idea that "lies" were necessary may be one of the most disturbing things I've ever read you type here.  Any time rulers talk about the necessity of lying to the people, I get suspiscious.  When the people actually begin to believe that government lies are necessary, I despair for the future of the human race.  If they lied, they chose to lie.  Don't try to shift the responsibility from them to us.  Let's put your words to an example.  The five year old asks its parents for a cookie.  The parents ask if it has already eaten a cookie today.  The child knows that if it tells the truth its parents won't give it another cookie.  Ergo, the child decides to lie to its parents and the parents give it a cookie.  The next day the parents learn that the child lied to them.  According to your logic, the parents should look at themselves to see why it was necessary for the child to lie to them.   :suspect:
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#10 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:29 PM

Uncle Sid, on Feb 9 2004, 11:46 AM, said:

We are locked into a policy of reacting to dangers, instead of dealing with them.
Well said on that point.  Every single time the US allows that trend to happen we end up getting kicked in the nose hard for it.  We need to knock off potential threats before they can turn into a real threat.

Quote

Uncle Sid: We killed our human intelligence programs in order to save money and avoid offending, and what did we get?

HUMINT was also killed in a large part due to the belief that technology could replace eyes and ears on the ground.  Who needs operatives when you have satellites to be your eyes and electronic eavesdropping to be your ears?  Problem is the world doesn't work like that.

Quote

Connie:  If X, then Y logic works better rhetorically if the second part of the equation isn't insulting.  Last I checked insults were not quality evidence.

I don't see anything at all insulting about Sid's post.  Of course I suppose having bad logic pointed out to some people could be insulting. ;)

Quote

Connie: I also think that far fewer of them would have died if we hadn't engaged in this conflict.  Let me repeat, I believe that more service people have died as a result of our action in Iraq than would have died during that time if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

How many Iraqis would have died at Saddam's hands during that time and still would be dying for years to come? On top of that you can't predict how many American soldiers or worse civilians would have died if Iraq hadn't been invaded.  If administration pulls off this gambit the invasion of Iraq could easily set off waves throughout the Middle East changing the region.  

Quote

Connie: My experience suggests that people who are told the truth are more likely to engage in right action than people who are lied to.

History stands against you on this one.  Shall we really get into all the cases where people knew of a great injustice and watched it unfold right before them.  The 20 Century is ripe with them and World War II is a treasure trove.  

Quote

Connie: The idea that "lies" were necessary may be one of the most disturbing things I've ever read you type here.

Tell me where Sid said that.  What I am reading is you are inserting words into his statement that he never said.

Quote

Connie: According to your logic, the parents should look at themselves to see why it was necessary for the child to lie to them.   :suspect:

Good parents would keep the cookie jar out of the reach of a 5 year old. ;)  Care to try another example.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 09 February 2004 - 12:42 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:49 PM

Yeah, let's keep in mind-- for the umpteenth time-- that members of congress looked at all the same information Bush had, plus several other agencies across the world believed Saddam had WMD.

That being said, basing the war on WMD was-- in retrospect-- a mistake. It was designed to be a legalistic reason that the UN could back, which was a mistake, since it didn't anyway. Further, given the self-interests of several members of the security council, it couldn't have passed no matter what Bush did. It's a foreign policy mistake that I sincerely hope won't be repeated. On top of everything else, Iraq is a learning experience, both for diplomacy and occupation tactics.


Consub:

Quote

Let me repeat, I believe that more service people have died as a result of our action in Iraq than would have died during that time if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

Probably, yeah. But if we do nothing to turn things around in the middle east, we'll lose far more service people and civilians alike. With his winning personality and the perception of having WMDs, he was a massive destabilizing influence.

The Middle East may well be ready to turn a page; Saudi Arabia is holding local elections, and it often seems that we're ten minutes away from a revolution in Iran.

There are two less dictatorships in the middle east, who were rulling a combined 50 million people.... or, put another way, the equivalant of one and a half Canadas. Are the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq idyllic? Hardly. Were they worth it? Your call. All I'd ask for is a bit of perspective....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:02 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 9 2004, 05:27 PM, said:

Quote

Connie: My experience suggests that people who are told the truth are more likely to engage in right action than people who are lied to.

History stands against you on this one.  Shall we really get into all the cases where people knew of a great injustice and watched it unfold right before them.  The 20 Century is ripe with them and World War II is a treasure trove.  

Quote

Connie: The idea that "lies" were necessary may be one of the most disturbing things I've ever read you type here.

Good parents would keep the cookie jar out of the reach of a 5 year old. ;)  Care to try another example.
I didn't say that truth guaranteed right action, nor did I mention history, just my experience.  However, if you need more solid evidence, we could set up a controlled experiment.  Scientist A places a human in an air/water tight container and fills it to four inches from the top with water.  Using electronic flow controls, the Scientist A sets up two buttons, a red one and a blue one.  Pressing the blue button fills the chamber the rest of the way with water and kills the human inside.  Pressing the red button drains the chamber so the human inside can breathe without difficulty.  Scientist A brings in Participant 1.  Scientist A lies and tells Participant 1 that pushing the red button will fill the chamber with water and kill the human inside.  Scientest A also tells Participant 1 that pressing the blue button will drain the water from the chamber so the participant can breathe.  Scientest A then tells Participant 1 to push the right button.  Participant 1 presses the blue button.  the chamber fills with water and the human inside dies.  Strangely enough, all the participants that Scientist A lies to push the blue button and kill the human in the chamber.  Yet the intent of the participants was to save the human in the chamber.  They couldn't act rightly because they were lied to.  The lie prevented them from acting ethically because they were told that the unethical action was the ethical one and they believed what they were told.  

I stand by my original statement CJ.

As to keeping the cookie jar out of reach.  I never put the cookie jar in reach.  You did.  I said the child had eaten a cookie earlier and lied about it.  I never said the child stole it from the cookie jar.  That was your false assumption.  In fact, no cookie jar appeared in my example.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#13 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:07 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 9 2004, 12:47 PM, said:

It's a foreign policy mistake that I sincerely hope won't be repeated.
Next time telling the UN "bite us" from the start would be an option. :angel:

Quote

Rov: Probably, yeah. But if we do nothing to turn things around in the middle east, we'll lose far more service people and civilians alike. With his winning personality and the perception of having WMDs, he was a massive destabilizing influence.

Well said.  Along with the losses the Iraqi people would suffer to Saddam.  In addition one can't help but recall Saddam was funding sucide bombers who were attacking Israel.

Quote

Rov: or, put another way, the equivalant of one and a half Canadas.

The new international measure of a country's size is Canada? ;)  That might go straight to their heads Rov. :angel:
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#14 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:11 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 9 2004, 05:47 PM, said:

Yeah, let's keep in mind-- for the umpteenth time-- that members of congress looked at all the same information Bush had, plus several other agencies across the world believed Saddam had WMD.

That being said, basing the war on WMD was-- in retrospect-- a mistake. It was designed to be a legalistic reason that the UN could back, which was a mistake, since it didn't anyway. Further, given the self-interests of several members of the security council, it couldn't have passed no matter what Bush did. It's a foreign policy mistake that I sincerely hope won't be repeated. On top of everything else, Iraq is a learning experience, both for diplomacy and occupation tactics.
Do you really think the American people were willing to support a 200 billion dollar and 534 and counting American life war on humanitarian grounds and the theory that toppling Saddam was the linchpin in a long term strategy to reduce terrorism by remaking the Middle East?  

Those are arguments that play well among eggheads and idealists like the people on this board, but I have serious doubts they'd get much mileage in America at large.

I think it's much more likely that the people who wanted this war (and if we're to believe O'Neill, then there are people in the Administration who were spoiling to take out Saddam since 2001) quite rightly deduced that the way to sell this war to America was to scare the crap out of us with stories about Saddam's fearsome WMD arsenal and the possibility that he'd give them to Al Qaeda.  It's also likely that they really did think he had some vestigal WMD capacity.  So did I.  But like the CIA said before the war, I thought that Saddam's WMDs were basically a poison pill, to be used as a deterrent against attack.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#15 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:23 PM

^What Zack said.

He most certainly IS a war president. He was hellbent on it, and he got it - by means of deception. I agree with Zack that if he had stated the *real* reasons he had for going to war, I don't think he would have been able to muster any support at all.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#16 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:23 PM

CJ-- Not so much on the "bite us". ;). However, the old adage, "It may be better to seek forgiveness than permission" may well be true with the UN. Frankly, there's not that much post-Cold War UN politics to look at, so we're still learning the rules of the game..

Quote

CJ: Well said. Along with the losses the Iraqi people would suffer to Saddam. In addition one can't help but recall Saddam was funding sucide bombers who were attacking Israel.

Good point, although it's terrorism that apparently doesn't 'count'

Quote

CJ: The new international measure of a country's size is Canada?

Well, it sounded more impressive than "One sixth of a US" ;)

Zack:

Quote

Do you really think the American people were willing to support a 200 billion dollar and 534 and counting American life war on humanitarian grounds and the theory that toppling Saddam was the linchpin in a long term strategy to reduce terrorism by remaking the Middle East?

I honestly don't know. There's a media assumption that they wouldn't, but a situation like this has never come up before. I think with enough determination, and using the atrocities of Saddam's regime, he could have done it.

Quote

Those are arguments that play well among eggheads and idealists like the people on this board, but I have serious doubts they'd get much mileage in America at large.

I'm not so sure we're any more eggheadish or idealistic than your average voter. We just can't shutup about it. ;).

Quote

I think it's much more likely that the people who wanted this war (and if we're to believe O'Neill, then there are people in the Administration who were spoiling to take out Saddam since 2001)

Actually, Bush said in the presidential debates that he wanted regime change in Iraq, as did Al Gore. So there's no speculation: Bush wanted to take Saddam out, and we knew that before the 2000 election. Further, regime change was the law of the land as of 1998 or so.

Quote

rightly deduced that the way to sell this war to America was to scare the crap out of us with stories about Saddam's fearsome WMD arsenal and the possibility that he'd give them to Al Qaeda.

See, that falls apart here: The lack of WMD is a massive issue. If they knew going in that it was ficticious, then they timed this all wrong; wouldn't it have been more logical to time it  a year later, so the lack of WMDs wasn't  discovered until after the election?

Quote

It's also likely that they really did think he had some vestigal WMD capacity. So did I. But like the CIA said before the war, I thought that Saddam's WMDs were basically a poison pill, to be used as a deterrent against attack.

I don't think they believed it was 'vestigal'; Saddam went an awfully long way to hide SOMETHING, or so it seemed. And here's a puzzler: If the CIA can't know whether Saddam has WMD or not-- and it looks like they can't-- how can they possibly know what Saddam will or will not do in the future, given that they have no idea what circumstances we'll eventually have?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#17 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:35 PM

Here's the documentation that Bush brought up regime change in 2000:
http://www.c-span.or...bate_101700.asp

Quote

     DAVID NORWOOD:  What would you make -- what would make you the
best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis?

     GOV. BUSH:  I've been a leader.  I've been a person who has to
set a clear vision and convince people to follow.  I've got a strategy
for the Middle East.  And first, let me say that our nation now needs
to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president
for working hard to defuse tensions. 

     Our nation needs to be credible and strong.  When we say we're
somebody's friend, everybody's got to believe it.

Israel's our friend, and we'll stand by Israel.

     We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well, to build
coalitions to keep the peace.

     I also need to -- the next leader needs to be patient.  We can't
put the Middle East peace process on our timetable.  It's got to be on
the timetable of the people that we're trying bring to the peace
table.

     We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that we have to
be steady.  Can't worry about polls or focus groups.  Got to have a
clear vision.  That's what a leader does.

     A leader also understands that the United States must be strong
to keep the peace.  Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle
East.  Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling.  Sanctions are
loosened.  I -- the man who may be developing weapons of mass
destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in.

     So to answer you question, it requires a clear vision, a
willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people
both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean
it.

And:

http://www.c-span.or...bate_101100.asp

Quote

MR. LEHRER:  -- how you would handle Middle East policy.  Is
there any difference?

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  I haven't heard a big difference right --
in the last few exchanges.

     GOV. BUSH:  Well, I think -- it's hard to tell.  I think that --
you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle
the Iraqi situation better.  I mean, we don't --

     MR. LEHRER:  With Saddam Hussein, you mean?

     GOV. BUSH:  Yes, and --

     MR. LEHRER:  You could get him out of there?

     GOV. BUSH:  I'd like to, of course, and I presume this
administration would as well.  But we don't know -- there's no
inspectors now in Iraq.  The coalition that was in place isn't as
strong as it used to be.  He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in
troubled waters in the Middle East.  And it's going to be hard to --
it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the
pressure on him.

Given that, the media hand-wringing over whether Bush wanted to take Saddam out 'back in 2001' is rather contrived. I think it's clear by all accounts, though, that it simply became a higher priority after 9/11, as did the entire middle east.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#18 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:53 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 9 2004, 11:21 AM, said:

Quote

CJ: Well said. Along with the losses the Iraqi people would suffer to Saddam. In addition one can't help but recall Saddam was funding sucide bombers who were attacking Israel.

Good point, although it's terrorism that apparently doesn't 'count'
Terrorism against the Israelis would most certainly have been dealt with BY the Israelis. They're not exactly shy flowers. :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#19 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:56 PM

Oh, I agree completely that regime change in Iraq has been a formal goal of US policy since at least the Iraq Liberation Act.  But there are a lot of ways to want to get rid of an unfriendly regime short of full-scale military invasion, which wasn't seriously on the table before 2002.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#20 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 01:59 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 9 2004, 11:21 AM, said:

Quote

CJ: Well said. Along with the losses the Iraqi people would suffer to Saddam. In addition one can't help but recall Saddam was funding sucide bombers who were attacking Israel.

Good point, although it's terrorism that apparently doesn't 'count'
Terrorism against the Israelis would most certainly have been dealt with BY the Israelis. They're not exactly shy flowers. :p

Oddly enough, though, the Israelis weren't the ones who declared war on Saddam - it was the U.S.  :wacko:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, Bush, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users