The Great Politics Thread (Split from Campaign Thread)

[Guest]

Should this all be split off into the off-topic forum. I would feel comfortable with that as I fear I've completely hijacked the thread and it doesn't deal with the election.

[_Coggins7]

President Clinton, in launching the massive Dec. 16 attack on Iraq, used a manufactured crisis to deceive the American people, and to bypass Congress' power to declare war.

Sound familiar? ;)[/quote]


Yes. This is the lie the Democratic Party and its left wing base have been telling about the War in Iraq since it began. The difference, Moniker, is that we know Clinton wasn't actually really targeting anyone, and there was no national security risk at the time. Clinton was, however, and virtually all conservatives credit him, as being correct about Saddam's WMD threat in the late 90s.

You're problem here is going to be the use of partisan party politics as a proxy for principled political policy decisions. Its widely understood that Clinton's flinging Cruise Missiles at Iraq was a Monica distraction technique. Do you remember 9/11 Moniker. We were already at war with Saddam when it took place, and we now know that he did have WMD programs in place and had broken them down and hidden them in expectation of waiting out the inspections and enriching himself through the oil for food program, anticipating reconstituting them at a future date. His country was also a major hub for terrorist training and safe haven. Mohammad Atta came into this country with an Iraqi passport.

The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

I'm not sure I understand: who died and made Colin Powell king of national security doctrine?

[_Coggins7]

I know who Powell is. Quite well. Read scores of books on him as well as articles relating to his policy stances and career. You miss my point. The Powell Doctrine was cited by Republicans to limit Clinton's ability to use force. Fairly often.

You're analogy is artificial Moniker, that's the problem. The fact of the matter is, whatever the value of the Powell doctrine as a whole, their were, in fact, no clear national security issues involved in Haiti, Bosnia (although there could have been there, but that would be an alternative history), or with any of Clinton's other adventures.

There most patently were and are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stakes are exceptionally high, as high or higher than they were in WWII.

[_Moniker]

President Clinton, in launching the massive Dec. 16 attack on Iraq, used a manufactured crisis to deceive the American people, and to bypass Congress' power to declare war.

Sound familiar? ;)

Yes. This is the lie the Democratic Party and its left wing base have been telling about the War in Iraq since it began. The difference, Moniker, is that we know Clinton wasn't actually really targeting anyone, and there was no national security risk at the time. Clinton was, however, and virtually all conservatives credit him, as being correct about Saddam's WMD threat in the late 90s.

Right, and yet he was criticized (at the time) for attacking Iraq (see some of the copy and paste above) for going in without wide ranging support from the world community. Where did this criticism originate? From Republicans/conservatives. Oopsie! That sounds familiar? Don't it? When Clinton was in office they railed on him and said he deceived the public and there were no WMD's. What changed? Huh? You see Coggies, I could do this for hours. The complaints against Clinton from Republicans are almost identical to the complaints against Bush from Democrats. Get it? Consistency on both sides is lacking. Severely. Yet, let's not pretend it's one side. It is NOT!

You're problem here is going to be the use of partisan party politics as a proxy for principled political policy decisions. Its widely understood that Clinton's flinging Cruise Missiles at Iraq was a Monica distraction technique. Do you remember 9/11 Moniker. We were already at war with Saddam when it took place, and we now know that he did have WMD programs in place and had broken them down and hidden them in expectation of waiting out the inspections and enriching himself through the oil for food program, anticipating reconstituting them at a future date. His country was also a major hub for terrorist training and safe haven. Mohammad Atta came into this country with an Iraqi passport.

Partisan politics does create policy decisions! What rock do you live under? Yes, did you see where I said "wag the dog" above Coggies? Why don't you google that? I recall that entire fiasco, quite well. I understand that the conflict never 'really' ended -- I get that! My point is that there is little consistency (since you brought that up to beat up libs) on either side when it suits their purposes!

I'm not sure I understand: who died and made Colin Powell king of national security doctrine?

Do you not get what I'm saying or trying to be dense? The Republicans routinely cited this doctrine during Clinton's Presidency. Where is it now? I GET it that the times changed. Did you not see that I do not believe one doctrine should sum up our policies? Times change, our interests change, and with it should our ability to engage in conflict to suit the purpose at that time.

You were the one that talked about inconsistencies and I'm merely pointing them out as they relate to the party that you more closely align yourself with. You cite liberals this and liberals that. Just thought you might wanna get a bit "frothy" at those Republicans that are hypocrites as well. Dontcha wanna do that? I find it intensely gratifying.

[_Moniker]

I know who Powell is. Quite well. Read scores of books on him as well as articles relating to his policy stances and career. You miss my point. The Powell Doctrine was cited by Republicans to limit Clinton's ability to use force. Fairly often.

You're analogy is artificial Moniker, that's the problem. The fact of the matter is, whatever the value of the Powell doctrine as a whole, their were, in fact, no clear national security issues involved in Haiti, Bosnia (although there could have been there, but that would be an alternative history), or with any of Clinton's other adventures.

There most patently were and are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stakes are exceptionally high, as high or higher than they were in WWII.

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa Iraq was MORE of a threat in the Bush administration than the Clinton administration? Please do elaborate. :)

[_Coggins7]

Could you cite some sources of people who were claiming their were no WMD's in Iraq in the late nineties. Clinton, virtually the entire Democratic Party leadership, The U.N. leadership, U.S. and numerous foreign intelligence agencies, and the conservative intellectual community was on the same sheet of music here.

When did this happen? Who made the claims?

Iraq may not have been more of a threat after Clinton. However, a little thing called 9/11 happened, and that created a new dynamic. Iraq, the Taliban, Al Quada, Hamas, Hezbollah, they're all of a piece Moniker, and all interconnected and enmeshed. You have not engaged the points I made that we had already been at war with Saddam for over ten years, Iraq was a major terrorist training center, safe haven for terrorists, and a WMD threat (that Clinton, as with Islamist attacks and provocations since the early nineties, had done nothing in response to his entire administration).

Why, after 9/11, and after you predecessor had done nothing in response to attack after attack, on our own shores and on foreign soil against Americans and American assets, should Iraq not have been dealt with. Its a very strategic area-right smack dab in the middle of the Islamist world.

Here's a long and in depth debate on the connection between Saddam and Al Quada from both the Left and the Right:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 96771539D6

[_beastie]

Coggins,

You're full of hot air. You already know this evidence exists. that's why you preemptively declared it wouldn't matter if it were so. You own words screwed yourself on this topic, you're now just blowing hot air and smoke in the hopes of diverting attention from that fact.

At any rate, the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before he was elected has been testified to by both Paul O'Neill and Mickey Herskowitz. And, of course, this doesn't even deal with Bush's ties to the neocons, Project for New American Century, who had been plotting the war as well.

[_Moniker]

Could you cite some sources of people who were claiming their were no WMD's in Iraq in the late nineties. Clinton, virtually the entire Democratic Party leadership, The U.N. leadership, U.S. and numerous foreign intelligence agencies, and the conservative intellectual community was on the same sheet of music here.

When did this happen? Who made the claims?

Coggies, when you copy and paste ENTIRE articles I usually try to read them. You can't click on my links or bother reading my posts? I posted one quote from this article on the previous page.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981222-IraqAttack.html

Here is a quote from that link:

Mr. Clinton's reference to Iraq's nuclear weapons was completely at odds with the report of the agency charged with reporting on Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons capabilities.

Says the MacLaughlin Group, there is another report that was filed with the UNSCOM report: the International Atomic Energy Agency report. The IAEA worked hand in glove with UNSCOM. The agency is charged with determining any Iraqi clandestine nuclear weapons capabilities. This week the IAEA filed a companion separate report, accompanying the UNSCOM report, that went largely unnoticed. In it, the IAEA gives Iraq a clean nuclear bill of health, describing Iraq's level of cooperation as, "efficient and effective," reported the McLauglin Group.

Iraq may not have been more of a threat after Clinton. However, a little thing called 9/11 happened, and that created a new dynamic. Iraq, the Taliban, Al Quada, Hamas, Hezbollah, they're all of a piece Moniker, and all interconnected and enmeshed. You have not engaged the points I made that we had already been at war with Saddam for over ten years, Iraq was a major terrorist training center, safe haven for terrorists, and a WMD threat (that Clinton, as with Islamist attacks and provocations since the early nineties, had done nothing in response to his entire administration).

Yah, I understand how 9-11 put everyone into a frenzy and the threat that the Clinton administration had said existed (which the Republicans said did NOT) all of a sudden became accepted. :)

YOU ARE MISSING MY POINT! I UNDERSTAND THE POLICY DECISIONS! I don't agree with them, necessarily -- but I understand the time line, events, and that we had never disengaged from Iraq. I said that BEFORE. Do you read my posts? MY POINT IS INCONSISTENCY! YOU STICK TO THE POINT! You're trying to bring in things that are not relevant. IF the WMD's were there during Clinton's years (as Republicans like to say that is so now) then why were they AT THE TIME trying to keep him out and criticizing ALL and ANY military action as it related to Iraq? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Why, after 9/11, and after you predecessor had done nothing in response to attack after attack, on our own shores and on foreign soil against Americans and American assets, should Iraq not have been dealt with. Its a very strategic area-right smack dab in the middle of the Islamist world.

And who criticize him for bombing Afghanistan? Who criticized him for bombing Iraq? I know! *waves hand wildly in the air* I know!

Who attacked any and every military action that Clinton EVER engaged in? I know that too!!!

Here's a long and in depth debate on the connection between Saddam and Al Quada from both the Left and the Right:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 96771539D6

Oh gawd. Coggins, you really exasperate me at times. I UNDERSTAND. Did I say I was against entering Iraq during either administration? Nope -- I won't comment on it or my political affiliations on this board. I won't do it. You are just trying to sidetrack.

We're done.

[_Coggins7]

MY POINT IS INCONSISTENCY!

THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY! That some voices, here and there, were raised agianst Clinton on these grounds is not relevant because, for the most part, the entire country, including most conservatives, were behind him. Here's an interersting essay:

Bill Clinton Defends Bush on Iraq
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | Friday, August 01, 2003

President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Presidential contender Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, actually suggested impeachment of the president over Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech reference about an Iraqi-Africa uranium connection. But Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."

About the gravity of the president's "error" -- never mind that the British still stand by the Africa/uranium assertion -- Clinton said, "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do right now."

Why does Clinton, a consistent and persistent critic of this administration, suddenly leap to Bush's defense? After all, polls show Bush's popularity coming down from the post-major-Iraqi-war-operations peak. And the White House appears off-balance in their defense of Bush's speech reference to Iraqi attempts at purchasing uranium in Africa. Furthermore, Americans quite understandably show concern over the almost daily headlines of anti-American Iraqis ambushing soldiers.

Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it.

Meanwhile, the Bush anti-war critics either support or sit silently as Bush ponders the use of our military to stop civil war bloodshed in Liberia -- a humanitarian mission. But does the existence of Iraqi shallow graves, torture chambers, and executions translate into support, if belated, for the war against Iraq?

Human Rights Watch says, "The Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party has been in power in Iraq since 1968. Under the leadership of President Saddam Hussein, who seized power in 1979, the Iraqi government has committed a vast number of crimes against the Iraqi people and others, using terror through various levels of police, military, and intelligence agencies to control and intimidate large segments of the Iraqi population. Two Iraqi groups in particular have suffered horrific abuses -- the Kurds in the north, and Shi'a populations in the south. Two decades of oppression against Iraq's Kurds and Kurdish resistance culminated in 1988 with a genocidal campaign, and the use of chemical weapons, against Kurdish civilians, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. . . . Saddam Hussein and others . . . are responsible for a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been 'disappeared' since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opposed the war in Iraq, despite the U.S.'s national security concerns. Back then, Annan said, "My position has always been very clear, that I think it would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle East." Yet Annan now demands that the U.S. send troops to Liberia, "I think we can really salvage the situation if troops were to be deployed urgently and promptly."

Maybe Annan might benefit from a chat with former President Clinton.

Your source, Moniker, cites one conservative, Bob Novak, a UNSCOM member, The McLaughlin Group, and Rowan Scarborugh. It appears to me, Moniker, that

1. Tentative suspicion crossed Left/Right lines.

2. Clinton was right

3. Bush was right.

4. Clinton did virtually nothing while Al Quada and other Islamists attacked America again and again throughout the nineties (beginning with the first Twin Towers In February 1993, and continuing with numerous attacks, both planned and carried out, in its aftermath, including plans to blow up UN Headquarters, the FBI Center, and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in New York, a plan to assassinate the Pope (well, the KGB failed, so someone had to get him), a plan to blow up 12 packed jumbo jets in 1995, the Khobar towers attacks, attacks on US embassies in Nairobi, Dar-es-Salam, and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole. This is just getting warmed up.

The bulk of the conservative criticism (less Republican criticism) was for Clinton's failure to respond to these events, his administration's treating of them as a civilian criminal matter, and a literal wall of separation erected by his Justice Department between the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies that made it well nigh impossible for them to share information.

I'm not a party man. I'm not going to defend this or that Republican for inconsistency. Clinton was right about WMD. He was wrong not to do anything about it or about the metastasizing threat of Islamist Jihadism.

[_Moniker]

MY POINT IS INCONSISTENCY!

THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY! That some voices, here and there, were raised agianst Clinton on these grounds is not relevant because, for the most part, the entire country, including most conservatives, were behind him.

BULL S***! BULL S***! You are supporting that "the entire country, including most conservatives, were behind him." BACK IT UP! CFR! You find something that says that from the time period. YOU ARE FULL OF IT!

Here's an interersting essay:

Bill Clinton Defends Bush on Iraq
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | Friday, August 01, 2003

SNIP.

You don't get it do you Coggins? That is NOW! You show me where Republicans and the "country" were behind Clinton during that time period with his military activities as it related to Iraq! You assert that -- CFR!

Your source, Moniker, cites one conservative, Bob Novak, a UNSCOM member, The McLaughlin Group, and Rowan Scarborugh. It appears to me, Moniker, that

1. Tentative suspicion crossed Left/Right lines.

2. Clinton was right

3. Bush was right.

4. Clinton did virtually nothing while Al Quada and other Islamists attacked America again and again throughout the nineties (beginning with the first Twin Towers In February 1993, and continuing with numerous attacks, both planned and carried out, in its aftermath, including plans to blow up UN Headquarters, the FBI Center, and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in New York, a plan to assassinate the Pope (well, the KGB failed, so someone had to get him), a plan to blow up 12 packed jumbo jets in 1995, the Khobar towers attacks, attacks on US embassies in Nairobi, Dar-es-Salam, and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole. This is just getting warmed up.

OMG! Am I really that difficult to comprehend? I'm not saying WHO WAS CORRECT OR WHO WAS WRONG! IS THIS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? I am not debating the policy decisions and who was correct.

The bulk of the conservative criticism (less Republican criticism) was for Clinton's failure to respond to these events, his administration's treating of them as a civilian criminal matter, and a literal wall of separation erected by his Justice Department between the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies that made it well nigh impossible for them to share information.

When he was in office they did NOT want Clinton to invade Iraq! Everything he did militarily was criticized! And you know why? THE POWELL DOCTRINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a party man. I'm not going to defend this or that Republican for inconsistency. Clinton was right about WMD. He was wrong not to do anything about it or about the metastasizing threat of Islamist Jihadism.

Hahahaaa, and the Republicans were WRONG then! Right, Coggies? Cause they were the ones lambasting him -- recall you just stated that what he did was a "wag the dog" incident. That was the standard line. EVERYTHING he did militarily was wrapped by the right into a way to deflect attention. Sure Clinton screwe up BIG TIME by the ML fiasco and that essentially made him the whipping boy and EVERYTHING he did was a "wag the dog" incident. Yet WHO was vehement in their opposition to him bombing Afghanistan? Who was vehement against invading Iraq, bombing Iraq or anything else during the Clinton years? It was the RIGHT! NOW, NOW, NOW they criticize him for not doing more.

Am I making any sense? Geez.