The Great Politics Thread (Split from Campaign Thread)

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:07 am

No, it isn't strange at all that you challenge me for documentation, and then in the next breath, insist it wouldn't even matter at all.

And no, I wasn't seriously wanting to "talk" to you about it. "Talking" to you about it would be akin to trying to "talk" to a blaring radio, permanently stuck on rush limbaugh, or some such right winger polemist. Not interested.

Let's see the source for your claim that Bush had "decided" before he was even elected, and before 9/11, to go to war in Iraq. Let's see the intellectual pedigree of this claim.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:23 am

And yet who routinely criticized Clinton and railed on him with the Powell Doctrine? Oooo, those wascally Republicans and their adherence to that doctrine sure did float outta the window when their man entered the picture, eh? Recall wag the dog? Clinton was put on a tight leash and all military action was condemned on a routine basis by Republicans. Such double standards.

No double standards at all. Virtually none of Clinton's adventures, either in Haiti or in Bosnia, had any direct link to U.S. national security. William Buckley and other conservatives (such as myself),initially supported Clinton's military intervention in that area for both moral and historical reasons, but it soon became clear that for both the U.S. and the U.N. forces, the entire thing was degenerating into a glorified Boy Scout mission in a region roiling in centuries old animosities (not to mention as a transparent diversion from Monicagate) that had no national security purpose. Many liberals and conservatives are after Bush for his attempt at nation building in Iraq right now, the same thing Clinton was attempting in Bosnia. In that war, we took both sides alternatively and created bad blood toward us in both camps.

Keep in mind, leftists are only against the use of military force abroad when it is in America's interest; when it is a matter of national security and long term self preservation. They will use the military, on occasion, in a moral crusade to save a people from themselves (Clinton didn't seem to think Rwanda was one of these instances, for some reason), such as in the Balkans, or in Haiti, but not to project American power for its own national security interests. That is a matter of ideological principle, not unwillingness to use force.

Clinton cut the military essentially in half in the 90s (by about 40% actually within all the services) and then deployed it more than any President in recent history. Noncoms and field grade officers left the military in droves in the 90s due to the skeleton crew nature of its size (which Bush has not addressed), debasement of training standards, gender norming, and a creeping civilianization of its culture. Bush has addressed some of this but left other problems (such as the military's over bureaucratization and legal hand wringing over soldier's behavior in the field of combat) for another day.

Post by **_Moniker** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:01 am

Ah, Coggins, is "national security" interests the only thing the Powell Doctrine requires? Nope.

Do you need a refresher? I'll let you do your own homework. THEN tell me how they didn't COMPLETELY disregard this mantra/doctrine as soon as Bush entered the picture. THIS is hypocricy. The POWELL DOCTRINE WAS USED CONSISTENTLY TO CONDEMN ANY MILITARY ACTION AS IT RELATED TO IRAQ!!!!! Ya see, some people have good memories. I'm one of 'em. ;)

Post by **_Moniker** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:11 am

by the way, since we're talking about Powell, it's been reported that he referred to neocons in the Bush administration as "f***ing crazies" when talking to Jack Straw. Isn't Powell maaahvelous? :)

Post by **_Moniker** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:27 am

Just for giggles:

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

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? ;)

In a little-noticed speech on the House floor last Thursday, Rep. David Skaggs (D-CO) said: "President Clinton acted in violation of the Constitution in ordering these attacks without authority of Congress."

Presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan (Failed President, Flawed Policy, Dec. 18) says, "It is time to ask how grave a threat Iraq is to America. In the Gulf War, Iraq did not attack us; we attacked Iraq. We launched the 'round-the-clock air strikes with 2,000 planes for six weeks; Iraq fired back a handful of Scuds. Iraq killed scores of Americans; we killed thousands of Iraqis. Yes, Saddam makes "war on his own people," but who inflicts the greater suffering -- Saddam or a U.S.-led embargo that has claimed the lives of 239,000 children, 5 years old and under, since 1990?"

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.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

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?

There. Now I'm in laze mode again.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:29 am

Let's see the source for your claim that Bush had "decided" before he was even elected, and before 9/11, to go to war in Iraq. Let's see the intellectual pedigree of this claim.

Oh, please. Why would I waste any energy on this when you've already declared it wouldn't matter (to say nothing of the fact that your political rants are endless and annoying enough as it is, and I shouldn't have poked the hornets' nest)?

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:36 am

Moniker, Powell is a believer in diplomatic and international solutions; he's a relic of the era of realpolitik and detente'. He is rather a standard Cold War era Rockefeller Republican, and an example well as the standard naïve liberalism of the Democratic Party during that era that imagines a world made up of people pretty much just like us who, if we can only just talk to them and get them into a 12 step program where we can make them see that we're all codependent, that we can all come to an understanding, talk out our differences, give each other a hug, and make nice. Powell's mentality and beliefs merge nicely with the attitudes and Zeitgeist at Foggy Bottom, but not with the real world.

Reagan broke that mold, to the betterment of the entire world and its people. I'm not sure exactly why you think Bush should have gone with the Powell doctrine and not actually reacted aggressively to 9/11 and Saddam's continuing provocations, but its a good thing he did. Powell's apparently a great guy, and he's good when the shooting actually starts, but had it been up to people like him, the Soviet Union would never have collapsed and the Cold War would still be a going concern.

Beyond this, I'm really not sure what your talking about. Powell is somewhat of a liberal but he's no leftist. The left will not use American power to protect America from even its most mortal enemies. They wouldn't use it, had they had the power (and Carter epitomized this attitude) during the Cold War and they are against using it now against global Islamofascism.

Bush had no choice but to go to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and clear the chessboard in Iraq. Our national security was a major theme and prime motivating factor in both engagements. It never was for Clinton.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:38 am

By the way, if you're referencing Powell's idea that there needs to be enough manpower to ensure victory and a successful post war reconstruction, that's something Bush has indeed failed to do. Recall, however, that it was his predecessor who gutted and defended the military to its present skeleton crew size.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:41 am

Oh, please. Why would I waste any energy on this when you've already declared it wouldn't matter (to say nothing of the fact that your political rants are endless and annoying enough as it is, and I shouldn't have poked the hornets' nest)?

No Beastie, its just that you don't want to make it clear that the fountain for this claim, as for so many others of similar type about the President, are fabricated tales generated in places like MoveOn.org, Democrats.com, Democratic Underground, The Daily Kos, the Indy culture political blogasphere, International ANSWER, and Link TV.

You're right to shrink from the task.

Post by **_Moniker** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:44 am

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.

It's almost as if watching these men (otherwise ethical and consistent) forget their own mantra when Clinton was in office. The Powell Doctrine worked for them when Clinton was President. Not so when Bush became President. Do you see a problem with this?

I don't really -- ya see I think that as times change, and our nation's interests change, we don't have to rely on Vietnam as a reference point for every conflict. Yet, when you use one set of factors to beat an opponent upon the head and then switch over quite radically to ignore your prior mantra to support your guy there's a problem there with consistency. Do both sides do this? Yes sirree. But let's be clear -- it is BOTH sides of the aisle that swing to support their guy. Okey dokey?