The Great Politics Thread (Split from Campaign Thread)

[_Moniker]

Oh, and by the way Coggins -- I think Clinton should have done more. So you can stop trying to convince me. You go back in time and show me who was against him doing what you now wish he'd done. Okey doke? That's the point.

[_Moniker]

Or here I'll do it for you:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... .react.02/

Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- White House officials insist a looming impeachment vote in the House had no bearing on President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq -- but planes were still in the air as a chorus of critics began voicing skepticism about the timing.

Prominent among the skeptics: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Armey renewed his call for the president to resign.

"Whatever happens, it will take years to repair the damage President Clinton has done to his office and his country," Armey said.

House intelligence chair says not consulted

Rep. Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was unaware that U.S. airstrikes were planned against Iraq until he saw them under way on CNN.

Goss (R-Florida) expressed anger that he was never notified by the White House that a strike was imminent and that no members of the House Intelligence Committee were brought into the loop.

"To be cut out at the eleventh hour is annoying, and it's certainly not helpful," Goss said.

He called the fact he was not contacted "a bad mistake of judgment or an oversight by the White House. ... Today the White House should be looking for friends. It's not a good idea to ambush people."

"It's certainly rather suspicious timing," said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). "I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."

Torricelli calls GOP criticism 'unforgivable'

Some Democrats reacted angrily to the criticism of Clinton's motives by congressional Republicans.

Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) called the GOP reaction "as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible."

"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota).

He and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) issued a joint statement defending the timing, saying "any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts."

A number of administration officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, rejected the charge that the president's political problems were a motivating factor.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed up that assessment.

Eagleburger: 'Timing stinks'

Some Republicans also were supportive of Clinton's actions. Outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the strikes were an example of "the U.S. leading the world by exercising its military power in an appropriate way."

But some outside Congress wondered about the timing. Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state during the Bush years, noted the proximity to the impeachment proceedings, saying, "While I approve the action, I think the timing stinks, frankly."

Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote "is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress."

Impeachment debate delayed

Clinton ordered what he called a "strong, sustained" military strike against Iraq on Wednesday in retaliation for its continued failure to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

The decision came one day before the House was to meet to consider four articles of impeachment. charging Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton has admitted the affair, but he has steadfastly denied he committed perjury.

In the days and hours before the strike, the president's political situation deteriorated as a steady stream of undecided House members, most of them Republicans, announced they would support impeachment.

House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana) later announced a delay in the impeachment debate, possibly until Friday or Saturday. The decision came after a caucus of House Republicans during which, Livingston indicated, there was a strong debate over whether to delay impeachment.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said GOP leaders could lose the momentum for impeachment during a delay if pro-impeachment Republicans get skittish.

"These guys are ready to vote but, truthfully, I don't know how much more pressure they can stand up to," Newhouse said.

Rep. Solomon: Attack designed to create 'leverage'

The public expressions of skepticism accelerated when an angry Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-New York) issued a statement with the headline: "Bombs Away -- Save Impeachment for Another Day?"

"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN.

Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing. When you put our troops in the air or on the ground, you are risking their lives. This president ought to know better. I don't know if he does or not, because he's so unpredictable."

Solomon complained that key congressmen had not been told of the military strike. He said Clinton should have briefed more members of Congress and delayed the attack until early next week.

"It would still be spontaneous," Solomon said. "He could still launch the attack, but it would not have been political the way it is today."

Upon hearing Solomon's remarks, Democratic Rep. Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut went before CNN's cameras to rip into Solomon for his accusation.

"Gerry Solomon's spent a career here making outrageous statements, but as an ex-Marine, he ought to know better," Gejdenson said. "That was an outrageous, outrageous statement."

Gejdenson said the nation cannot tie a president's hands based on developments on Capitol Hill.

"Think of the message," Gejdenson said. "If we tell every country out there that might want to do harm to America's interests that every time there's a political squabble in Washington, the presidency has to be frozen, that's outrageous."

[_beastie]

Well, there was one group that always wanted to invade Iraq, and it's no coincidence that members of this group went on to form Bush's cabinet - Project for New American Century. Here's the blueprint they worked up for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Jeb in Sep't 200:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... fenses.pdf

Note in particular:

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

and

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

and

And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who want to read an interesting take on the de facto "American Empire" (in denial) I would suggest the book Collossus by Niall Ferguson (who is quickly filling up my bookshelf).

Although I don't agree with some of his views, he does make a compelling argument for a "liberal empire".

[_Moniker]

Well, there was one group that always wanted to invade Iraq, and it's no coincidence that members of this group went on to form Bush's cabinet - Project for New American Century. Here's the blueprint they worked up for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Jeb in Sep't 200:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... fenses.pdf

Note in particular:

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

and

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

and

And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

Yep, the neocons always wanted to go into Iraq which is why Powell called them "f***ing crazies". :)

But, I'm talking politics here, and the politics of the day essentially hogtied Clinton. It would appear that there would be MORE of a threat during Clinton's presidency (if WMD were ever there) than the Bush presidency. Yet, politics in D.C. muddled the entire thing. The ONLY reason Bush got in was because the frenzy after 9-11, or it wouldn't have happened.

[_Bond...James Bond]

But, I'm talking politics here, and the politics of the day essentially hogtied Clinton. It would appear that there would be MORE of a threat during Clinton's presidency (if WMD were ever there) than the Bush presidency. Yet, politics in D.C. muddled the entire thing. The ONLY reason Bush got in was because the frenzy after 9-11, or it wouldn't have happened.

A very ironic thing that one learns after reading a book such as "Bush at War" is that Bush's Inner Circle thought that Afghanistan would be an unpopular war, and they were making plans to use Iraq as a popularity boosting war (d'oh!)

[_Moniker]

But, I'm talking politics here, and the politics of the day essentially hogtied Clinton. It would appear that there would be MORE of a threat during Clinton's presidency (if WMD were ever there) than the Bush presidency. Yet, politics in D.C. muddled the entire thing. The ONLY reason Bush got in was because the frenzy after 9-11, or it wouldn't have happened.

A very ironic thing that one learns after reading a book such as "Bush at War" is that Bush's Inner Circle thought that Afghanistan would be an unpopular war, and they were making plans to use Iraq as a popularity boosting war (d'oh!)

Yah, sorta sucks for them.

Anyway, Bond why don't you split all this stuff down to off-topic... unless Beastie minds? Beastie do you mind? This totally diverted from the election.

[_beastie]

Yep, the neocons always wanted to go into Iraq which is why Powell called them "f***ing crazies". :)

But, I'm talking politics here, and the politics of the day essentially hogtied Clinton. It would appear that there would be MORE of a threat during Clinton's presidency (if WMD were ever there) than the Bush presidency. Yet, politics in D.C. muddled the entire thing. The ONLY reason Bush got in was because the frenzy after 9-11, or it wouldn't have happened.

Yes, I agree with you. I was quoting from the neocons to give coggie evidence that Bush always planned to invade Iraq.

I well remember the "wag the dog" accusations, and the hissy fit the republicans pitched when Clinton bombed the "aspirin factory" in Afghanistan to try and get Bin Laden.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

It appears Clinton knew that he was going to be accused of "wag the dog" considering the timing around the ML, so the fact that he ignored that inevitability and still tried to get bin laden demonstrates that at least he took bin laden seriously, unlike those who would later ignore the warning "bin laden determined to attack inside the US".

[_beastie]

Anyway, Bond why don't you split all this stuff down to off-topic... unless Beastie minds? Beastie do you mind? This totally diverted from the election.

That's fine with me. I don't intend to pursue this with coggins much longer. I can only take him in small doses.

[_beastie]

One more from Bob Woodward, who had unprecedented access to Bush and made tapes:

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ ... 2067.shtml

Given how the "higher Father" has always supported genocide of tribes on the "chosen people's" land, I don't think he was the right father to go to for advice on this one. Bush Sr, however, knew what a swamp Iraq would be. From his memoir, "A World Transformed":

Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

I think Bush Sr tried to indirectly influence his son to rethink invading Iraq, but Georgie was so certain that "the higher Father" told him what to do he wasn't interested in the opinions of mere mortals.