Bush: Iraqis must step up, U.S. role 'not open-ended'

[Sonny]

It isn't a deflection, but a statement of fact.

The WTC was originally bombed under Clinton's watch (1993). Don't forget about the USS Cole getting bombed, the US Marines withdrawing from Somalia, US embassy bombings in multiple countries, etc. Oh and don't forget that OBL was offered to the Clinton administration on a silver platter and he didn't want to take him.

Perhaps, just perhaps if something had been down under 8 years of Clinton to combat Radical Islam - we wouldn't be in our current situation. Maybe if Sandy Berger had intentionally destroyed top secret govt. documents, we might now know what Clinton & Co. knew back then.

[Beta]

Any takers on how long it'll be till we attack Iran?

[Sonny]

Any takers on how long it'll be till we attack Iran?

I think Israel will beat us to the punch there.

[Tim Whitehead]

It isn't a deflection, but a statement of fact.

The WTC was originally bombed under Clinton's watch (1993). Don't forget about the USS Cole getting bombed, the US Marines withdrawing from Somalia, US embassy bombings in multiple countries, etc. Oh and don't forget that OBL was offered to the Clinton administration on a silver platter and he didn't want to take him.

Perhaps, just perhaps if something had been down under 8 years of Clinton to combat Radical Islam - we wouldn't be in our current situation. Maybe if Sandy Berger had intentionally destroyed top secret govt. documents, we might now know what Clinton & Co. knew back then.

Of course its a deflection, Sonny. You're asked about George Bush, and you reply, "Well, Clinton did this!" You're not talking about the current situation and what can be done to fix it. You're talking about stuff that happened over ten years ago, and blaming Clinton. It's like if I got caught stealing something, and I'm asked to explain my actions, I say "Well what about OJ -- he killed someone!" It has nothing to do with my situation, it's just deflecting attention away from myself.

So, Adam saying that the situation under Bush has been crap, and you saying "well its not as bad as Clinton", it's a deflection. It does nothing to help the current situation, it's counterproductive. All it does is draw attention away from the problem at hand. Way too many people (yourself included) seem way more concerned with saving face and ensuring re-election than with actually making peace and bringing your troops home. And that's a damn shame.

[Beta]

Any takers on how long it'll be till we attack Iran?

I think Israel will beat us to the punch there.

I wonder how the US will react to that. With Iran comes Syria, whom isn't too fond of Israel either...not that anyone in the middle east is...or ever has been. I wonder what Egypt and Jordan have been up to...seemingly quiet lately.

[Sonny]

So, Adam saying that the situation under Bush has been crap, and you saying "well its not as bad as Clinton", it's a deflection. It does nothing to help the current situation, it's counterproductive. All it does is draw attention away from the problem at hand. Way too many people (yourself included) seem way more concerned with saving face and ensuring re-election than with actually making peace and bringing your troops home. And that's a damn shame.

I'm never said the current situation was not as bad as under Clinton. I freely admit that the current situation is much worse.

What I'am saying is that we (collectively the West) left Radical Islam unchecked for a extended period of time, a time in which they construed the US as weak. We are paying the price now.

[Adam Gamradt]

I don't think your post is an attempt to deflect blame to the Clinton Administration. Our foreign policy decisions are inextricably linked, no man is an island unto himself. This is all the more reason to excise the divisive incomeptents from the White House forever.

I find it interesting that the theories about Sandy Berger really picked up speed only after he took a job working for John Kerry.

The liberal media folks at the WSJ disagree with Sonnys assesmentv of Sandy Bergers actions, it's not Sonny, so much as Rush Limbaugh talking.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/fea ... =110006521

"After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out."

As for Somalia, President George H. W. Bush continued Regans inept policies, and then handed off that mess to Clinton. The first Bush was happy to ignore the humanitarian crisis which claimed 300,000 lives, although some aid was given during his term.

I've already commented on the troop withdrawl from Somalia. The Republicans proposed several bills to pull both funding, and troops, out of Somalia.

My friend at work here is from Somalia, so I'm going to have lunch with him to discuss his homeland, and whether or not my perceptions are accurate.

I remember being in an airport when Clinton launched the cruise missle attack. I remember being upset, because I, along with most Republicans, thought it was an attempt to distract people from the impending impeachment. I guess we were both wrong.

I now find humor in the fact that Republicans get worked up over an improper sexual relationship, yet have no questions about why we have killed several hundred thousand of the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

I think Clinton did quite a bit to combat Al Qaeda. I also think President Bush didn't listen to what his predecessor said about terrorism. I think President Bush ignored the warnings of the Clinton Administration, due to partisan politics.

I also don't want to get too far off track. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the WTC, and had very little to do with the war on terror. That is, Iraq didn't have anything to do with the war on terror, until President Bush decided we needed to show the world we were still powerful.

Someones ass had to be kicked you see, because Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney were afraid we looked appeared weak, in a post 9/11 world.

Given the terms of our current discussion, I think your post is a swing and a miss, even if it is on topic.

[Adam Gamradt]

Sorry to reply to my post, but my test server is down, and I've nothing but time on my hands

Clinton spent more money, more effectively, on defense than the 1st Bush. I could prove this with economic data, but I am too lazy to look up the statistics, and will make an argument based on operational efficiency instead.

Here's an interesting quote from Dick that helps prove my point.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knl ... tID=251793

"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow.

The article continues...

The combination of Joint Defense Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and unmanned aerial drones -- both products of that shift -- made it possible to find and destroy targets, including mobile targets, more precisely and quickly during Operation Enduring Freedom, the response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom than in any previous war. As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years. The Clinton administration also tried to maintain the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.

President Bush's campaign "charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life."

Yet in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush is expanding the U.S. military presence overseas faster than Clinton ever dreamed of doing. U.S. forces are not only deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Bush administration has sent advisers and support to the Philippines, Indonesia, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, Yemen, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The extra $70 billion a year that the administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and bigger paychecks, but it has not brought about a significantly larger force. Despite our expanded global war on terrorism, only about 27,000 troops have been added to our 1.4 million active-duty force.

The article concludes...

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserve enormous credit for the military victory over Iraq. Clinton deserves to share in that credit. Despite Republican cries of a "hollow military," the Clinton administration left behind a highly capable force that served the nation well when an unpredicted threat emerged. How do we know? Cheney said so.

--------------------------------------------------------

Here is some more information about Clinton's anti terror efforts, and this ominous quote from George Tennant, in the early 90's.

"In one briefing, Tenet said of bin Laden's network that the arrests were "breaking the organization brick by brick," but warned: "He's going to beat us again."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true


And just for fun. Here's some of the Republican criticism of Clinton's effort, that nearly killed Bin Laden. Please keep in mind that the criticism was not universal, and some Republicans saw these attacks for what they were, an attempt to kill a very bad man.

--------------------------------------------------------


Originating from a 1997 movie, Wag the Dog was a phrase used by the right to suggest Clinton’s airstrikes were driven by ulterior motives in an effort to distract the public. Some examples below:

Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):

“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]

Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):

“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]

Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):

“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]

Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):

“Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. … ‘The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered.’” [Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]

Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]

[Brent Burns]

Any takers on how long it'll be till we attack Iran?

I think Israel will beat us to the punch there.

I wonder how the US will react to that. With Iran comes Syria, whom isn't too fond of Israel either...not that anyone in the middle east is...or ever has been. I wonder what Egypt and Jordan have been up to...seemingly quiet lately.

That's a good question as to how the US would react to that. It could be either we would support Israel's decision to do a pre-emptive attack on Iran or withdraw our support depending how much of a fallout may affect our economy and our citizens. In response to Sonny's "I think Israel will beat us to the punch there," I would like to bring up this link:

http://www.israelinsider.com/maps

Israel Insider has a lot of Flash-based interactive maps on the Story of Israel's History. There is one interesting map showing Israel facing the regional threats from its neighbors, so you would have to do the following:

*Click on "Threats and Topography" map

*Click on Enter

*Click on "Threats & Topography" at the bar on the far right.

You can see the time and the distance the conventional weapons (missiles and planes) could reach Israel For example, a Shabib missile from Iran could reach Israel in about 10 minutes.

There is one thing that keeps cropping up in my mind as I have read this several times when growing up. That is from Isaiah 17 which is about the Oracle of Damascus which remains one of the oldest and continuous cities in the world. In fact, this oracle on Damascus is not really fulfilled yet as it speaks about the utter destruction of Damascus. This is really an interesting FYI.

[Beta]

Seems like a sure-fire start to WW3 doesn't it?

[Adam Gamradt]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html

Israel will not attack Iran.

Public debate in Israel, about how the war with Hezbollah was conducted, will most likely prevent any premptive strike on Iran.

I can not imagine the majority of the Israeli people, nor a majority of the Iranian people, have a taste for blood.

Wars are started by politicians.

Due to the peoples willingness to accept such poor leadership, our nations will continue to put posture, before prosperity.

I think we should move the argument about Israel attacking Iran to the thread for 24.

[Sonny]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/16/israel.resigns/index.html

Had to admit I got a chuckle from that article when I read this line from the CNN article:

Deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, Hezbollah's tactics have ranged from car bombings to rocket attacks.

You think? Glad to see that fair and balanced CNN is johnny on the spot with their astute analysis of the situation.

Israel will not attack Iran.

Couldn't disagree more. Israel most certainly will defend themselves if they believe a nuclear threat is eminent from Iran (or elsewhere in the Arab world). You are sadly mistaken if you think Israel is going to sit by and let Iran get control of a nuclear missle - a country who's leader had said on more then one occasion that he wants to push them into the sea.

Wars are started by politicians.

Right. The suicide bombers and "ethnic cleasings" have nothing to do with it.

[Adam Gamradt]

The point of the CNN article, was in regard to the resignation of the IDF's cheif of staff.

No country will launch a nuclear strike, as it would mean the complete destruction of their country in return.

Iran's president is posturing.

It's our job as the most powerful country in the world to make sure this remains the case.

Suicide bombing is a tactic, you can't fight a war against a tactic.

I agree we should do more to stop ethnic cleansing. The UN and\or the US Military should intervene in Darfur.

[Adam Gamradt]

It is important to note that I think Iran is acting recklessly.

It is also important to note that I do not think there is a military solution to the problem.

And it seems I even concur with the Republican party!

"Let me reassure you and everybody else: We're not planning on invading Iran," White House spokesman Tony Snow said at a briefing.

"Instead, the strategy continues to be the use of diplomacy as a way of putting pressure on the regime in Teheran," Snow said.

Even Pat Buchanan agrees a war would be a bad idea, however he does seem to think it's entirely possible for Israel to attack Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10290

[Brent Burns]

Not only Dan Halutz resigned as the IDF's Chief of Staff, there are also several prosecutors in Israel seeking to investigate Olmert of something that he did wrong.

All of these discussions so far reminds me of a book that I had to stop for a long time because it is quite academic and the font size is small for me to read as I freely admit that I'm 45 years old and am wearing reading glasses. That name of the book is From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine by Joan Peters. Right now, I am on chapter 4 called "Ideology of the East, Rhetoric of the West." It is 601 pages long including appendixes,notes, bibliography and index.

Just thought of something... I'm sure most of y'all know that this conflict really dates all the way back to the time Abraham had Ishmael (through Hagar), Isaac (through Sarah), and Ketruah (both had 6 children). Needless to say, this is really the world's longest family feud between the Arabs and the Jews.