View Full Version : Clinton attacks Bush's "irresponsibility" on Iraq
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Iowa on Sunday President George W. Bush should find a way out of Iraq before he leaves office and called it "the height of irresponsibility" to leave the problem to the next administration
Read more here (http://news.aol.com/politics/story/_a/clinton-attacks-bushs-irresponsibility/n20070128164909990006?cid=771)!
testingtesting
01-29-2007, 06:02 PM
testing testing
It seems to have worked for her and why shouldn't it?
It sounds to me like a case of the pot caling the kettle black. Didn't Hillary vote for the invasion? Didn't she do a total flip flop after seeing that the war was a disaster?
If a majority of the voters were to rally behind Bush and his ill advised war, Hillary would be talking out of the other side of her mouth. She will do or say anything to get elected.
And Bush isn't going to get us out if Iraq before he leaves office. He will do just what Hillary said he would do: Leave the problem for the next administration to solve, along with the budget mess and the illegal immigration fiasco.
Why do we keep electing idiots to high office?
Castle
04-30-2007, 08:06 PM
Why do we keep electing idiots to high office?
Excellent question!
Maybe because we assume people that have made the acquisition of wealth their first and only endeavor are all blessed with superior intellect. As the last few Presidents have shown, this might not be true....lol :D
-Castle
not2needy
05-01-2007, 03:30 PM
Most of Congress voted for the invasion, because like the public, they had been misled. Now Bush is using it against them, just like he is using it against America and the troops.
zerorelations
05-01-2007, 04:00 PM
Let's just hope that our next president doesn't turn out to be like Bush.
not2needy
05-01-2007, 05:37 PM
Hope and pray our next president has some morals and ethics.
Most of Congress voted for the invasion, because like the public, they had been misled. Now Bush is using it against them, just like he is using it against America and the troops.
How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. Congress has committees to review intelligence reports and they all came to the same conclussions.
USMC the Almighty
05-01-2007, 08:10 PM
How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. Congress has committees to review intelligence reports and they all came to the same conclussions.
Dave, don't say that. Your ruining the DNC's talking points.
How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did.
No they didn't.
No they didn't.
What specifically did the President see that Congress did not?
not2needy
05-02-2007, 09:41 AM
I don't think it's what he saw, rather what he portrayed to Congress and the American to rally support for his war. The end justifys the means.
endtyranny
05-03-2007, 06:03 PM
Congress wasn't misled, they drew their own conclusions from the intelligence available and decided to vote with the president's high approval ratings in mind.
Castle
05-03-2007, 07:48 PM
I don't think it's what he saw, rather what he portrayed to Congress and the American to rally support for his war. The end justifys the means.
I could not disagree more. Congress was always able to base their decisions with respect to Iraq on the same information that President Bush had along with historical data. It is simply now convenient to claim ignorance as their justification for supporting the Iraq campaign. I can respect those that claim to have had a change of heart and now believe that our presence there is counter-productive. This topic is ripe for debate but to claim to have been misled is an underhanded tactic that I had hoped was beneath even the hard left in this country.
I am offended that many in Congress assume we have such a short memory. At least those of us that don't blindly follow party lines. Of course, the liberal agenda is to force the "weapons of mass destruction" and "Al-Qaeda link" down the publics throat as the only justification for war. Are all of you that naive? Have we all decided to forget the first Gulf War? Well, I remember the conditions set forth for the cessation of hostilities in Iraq. I also remember that Saddam Hussein agreed to and never adhered to those conditions. Were the UN resolutions meaningless? Should we have continued to ignore Saddam's snubbing of those resolutions for another decade? I suppose the "oil for food" program was just another misunderstanding with respect to where those funds were appropriated. As President, I wouldn't have trusted the UN or Saddam's incomplete and inaccurate accounting for weapons at that time. You only have to look at the current situation between the UN and Iran. How many resolutions do you think it will take before Iran ceases it's enrichment program? The UN will do what it is famous for.......NOTHING. When Iran finally has the bomb and can back up it's threats, what tactics will be available to us then? All Iran needs is time and that is exactly what the UN is and will continue to give them. Oh, but I'm sure when enough time has passed we'll be able to claim ignorance due to being misled by Bush on this subject as well.
It's time Congress started taking responsibility for it's own choices (past and present) and display some leadership qualities in the pursuit of securing our future....not just their own political futures.
-Castle
endtyranny
05-04-2007, 06:28 AM
The American people were misled, but there was still enough intelligence available to everyone to know that Iraq was not a threat and war was not the answer. Unfortunately, the country was caught up in 9/11 fever and many decided to blind loyalty to the president was the most patriotic thing to do (this led to a lot of coersion and terrorizing of war critics), which it certainly wasn't. As for those who voted for it, the Republicans were falling in line as usual, and the Dems were just following the fever.
Castle
05-05-2007, 07:07 PM
The American people were misled, but there was still enough intelligence available to everyone to know that Iraq was not a threat and war was not the answer. Unfortunately, the country was caught up in 9/11 fever and many decided to blind loyalty to the president was the most patriotic thing to do (this led to a lot of coersion and terrorizing of war critics), which it certainly wasn't. As for those who voted for it, the Republicans were falling in line as usual, and the Dems were just following the fever.
So, again we see the Iraq War viewed through a straw as if there was no history leading up to Saddam's demise other than WMDs and "911" fever.
I'm sorry that you and so many others felt misled.....although I suspect this is more political opportunism than anything else. I am perplexed that the large WMD stockpiles have not been located. If I knew nothing of the first Gulf War and the numerous UN resolutions that were never upheld or the constant attacks in the "no fly" zone, I would cling to the only thing left that would justify your position.....the absence of large WMD stockpiles. As I have no political horse in this race, I simply look at everything that brought us to Baghdad.....not just a select entry from a long list. I just can't muster up the feeling of being misled unless I ignore the plethora of information that we've all had access to for many years.
One quick question. You comment that war with Iraq was not the answer. Can you describe for us what you think would have been the answer? I'm looking for something that had not already been tried over the previous decade. Something to consider - Do you think that the US and allies would wave squabbled with Germany and/or Japan for over a decade had they decided to snub the terms of surrender after WWII as Saddam clearly did after the first Gulf War?
-Castle
vyo476
05-05-2007, 07:30 PM
You know, I might be crazy, but for some reason I think that liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was enough justification for invading Iraq. He was an unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictator, and we've replaced him with a popularly-elected government. Living conditions in the capital have fallen through the floor, but they're still in a transitional period; and anyway, pointing at the living conditions too much raises the question of whether or not the pointer believes totalitarianism preferable to democracy simply because a totalitarian leader offers more organization and order, or if the pointer believes that there is so much disorganization inherent in democracy that a totalitarian government is preferable.
You know, I might be crazy, but for some reason I think that liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was enough justification for invading Iraq. He was an unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictator, and we've replaced him with a popularly-elected government. Living conditions in the capital have fallen through the floor, but they're still in a transitional period; and anyway, pointing at the living conditions too much raises the question of whether or not the pointer believes totalitarianism preferable to democracy simply because a totalitarian leader offers more organization and order, or if the pointer believes that there is so much disorganization inherent in democracy that a totalitarian government is preferable.
Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?
vyo476
05-05-2007, 07:45 PM
Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?
Take your pick. If he fits all those criterion I'll probably be behind it - ideologically, anyway. The money for it is another issue. Still, if a leader is all of those things - unpopular, murderous, and tyrannical - I think it would be well within our moral scope to encourage his ouster from power. With force if necessary.
Castle
05-05-2007, 07:58 PM
Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?
I take it that you are generally against taking out murderous, tyrannical dictators. As opposed to what exactly? Cultivating them, which we have also done on occasion. Guess I'd rather be accused of the former.
-Castle
vyo476
05-05-2007, 08:02 PM
I take it that you are generally against taking out murderous, tyrannical dictators. As opposed to what exactly? Cultivating them, which we have also done on occasion. Guess I'd rather be accused of the former.
-Castle
We could also just leave them alone. Then again, "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Castle
05-05-2007, 08:19 PM
We could also just leave them alone. Then again, "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Ah yes......I believe Chamberlain took that approach after meeting with Hitler just prior to his march across Europe. What were his words?......"secured peace in our time." Yeah, I'm reminded of the saying "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-Castle
Take your pick. If he fits all those criterion I'll probably be behind it - ideologically, anyway. The money for it is another issue. Still, if a leader is all of those things - unpopular, murderous, and tyrannical - I think it would be well within our moral scope to encourage his ouster from power. With force if necessary.
Do you subscribe to the goals and ideals of the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), then?
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
vyo476
05-06-2007, 07:43 AM
Do you subscribe to the goals and ideals of the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), then?
I don't agree with everything they have to say, but I do like this one:
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
It's on that nice little bulleted list on the link you sent me. That other stuff about promoting American interests aggressively, no, I'm not such a fan of that; I'm more a fan of replacing tyrannical regimes with free ones. The manifest function of these operations would be the liberation of oppressed populations and the establishment of free governments in their stead.
Myanmar would be a good place to start. The people there are still under the rule of a harsh and unpopular dictatorship which refuses to recognize the results of their last free election (which was all the way back in 1990, and the military regime has been denying it all this time). Economic sanctions haven't worked, largely because other Asian nations have refused to cut ties and stop doing business in and with the military Myanmar government.
They already have a large peace movement which would be highly beneficial in establishing a new government after an invasion by us to ouster the military dictators. If we were to help them update their infrastructure a bit they could get their economy back on track again too. The people of Myanmar have nothing but government cruelty to live on right now; with a few changes and a helping hand from the USA they could go back to being one of the richest nations in Southeast Asia.
There are, of course, problems with the whole thing. The Chinese are opposed to any regime change ideas in Myanmar because the present government of Myanmar is taking kickbacks to allow the Chinese to basically strip-mine the whole country (using Burmese citizens as slave labor, by the way). We'd have to find a way to politically navigate around China before invading Myanmar, but that's what we have diplomats for. I think they could be persuaded, especially if we can get them cut in on the modernization of the infrastructure.
But I suppose you wouldn't want to help this country in need. You'd let them sit there and starve as the tyrants calling themselves "the government" live fat off foreign money, let them sit and watch as their country's natural wealth and beauty is stripped and sent abroad, let them languish in injustice as the armed forces of their nation violently keeps them in "their place." If a self-styled revolution were possible they would have done it by now. They need our help.
vyo476
05-06-2007, 07:47 AM
Ah yes......I believe Chamberlain took that approach after meeting with Hitler just prior to his march across Europe. What were his words?......"secured peace in our time." Yeah, I'm reminded of the saying "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-Castle
An outstanding point. We're almost (but not quite) as much to blame for Hitler as Chamberlain and his French counterpart (whose name escapes me - it wasn't Petain or de Gaulle at that point). America stuck its collective head in the sand after WWI and especially after the Crash of 29, relegating our nation, which was at that point becoming one of the most powerful in the world, to isolationist status. The only thing we were hiding from in the end was the truth.
I don't agree with everything they have to say, but I do like this one:
It's on that nice little bulleted list on the link you sent me. That other stuff about promoting American interests aggressively, no, I'm not such a fan of that; I'm more a fan of replacing tyrannical regimes with free ones. The manifest function of these operations would be the liberation of oppressed populations and the establishment of free governments in their stead.
Myanmar would be a good place to start. The people there are still under the rule of a harsh and unpopular dictatorship which refuses to recognize the results of their last free election (which was all the way back in 1990, and the military regime has been denying it all this time). Economic sanctions haven't worked, largely because other Asian nations have refused to cut ties and stop doing business in and with the military Myanmar government.
They already have a large peace movement which would be highly beneficial in establishing a new government after an invasion by us to ouster the military dictators. If we were to help them update their infrastructure a bit they could get their economy back on track again too. The people of Myanmar have nothing but government cruelty to live on right now; with a few changes and a helping hand from the USA they could go back to being one of the richest nations in Southeast Asia.
There are, of course, problems with the whole thing. The Chinese are opposed to any regime change ideas in Myanmar because the present government of Myanmar is taking kickbacks to allow the Chinese to basically strip-mine the whole country (using Burmese citizens as slave labor, by the way). We'd have to find a way to politically navigate around China before invading Myanmar, but that's what we have diplomats for. I think they could be persuaded, especially if we can get them cut in on the modernization of the infrastructure.
But I suppose you wouldn't want to help this country in need. You'd let them sit there and starve as the tyrants calling themselves "the government" live fat off foreign money, let them sit and watch as their country's natural wealth and beauty is stripped and sent abroad, let them languish in injustice as the armed forces of their nation violently keeps them in "their place." If a self-styled revolution were possible they would have done it by now. They need our help.
Well, you have described yet another despicable, tyrannical government that needs to be overturned. There are a lot more, of course. Yet more questions remain, among them:
1. With the difficulties you described being posed by China, why start with Myanmar?
2. Who appointed the US to decide which governments around the world need to be replaced by force of arms?
3. Does the US government possess the wisdom, the patience, and the power to replace tyrannical governments around the world?
vyo476
05-06-2007, 02:03 PM
Well, you have described yet another despicable, tyrannical government that needs to be overturned. There are a lot more, of course. Yet more questions remain, among them:
1. With the difficulties you described being posed by China, why start with Myanmar?
2. Who appointed the US to decide which governments around the world need to be replaced by force of arms?
3. Does the US government possess the wisdom, the patience, and the power to replace tyrannical governments around the world?
1. Perhaps you have another in mind...? I picked Myanmar because it is as textbook an example of what I'm talking about as anything I could come up with. Yes, there are difficulties - but there would always be difficulties. If you're looking for a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom I suggest you don't look at history, because it has never happened and never will.
2. You know, you're right. No one appointed America to be the global police agency. Instead of doing everything within our power to help oppressed people where we see them, we should sit quietly behind our own borders and play with all of our money. That sounds like fun.
3. Not at present, but any administration with that plan would hopefully also have the wisdom patience, and power to do so. If we'd dedicate ourselves to this idea than I think we could make it work.
Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. Maybe I'm too willing to spend other peoples' money for the benefit of foreigners. Still, I think that America has fought too many times outside its basic principles and its time we showed that we really do stand for something.
1. Perhaps you have another in mind...? I picked Myanmar because it is as textbook an example of what I'm talking about as anything I could come up with. Yes, there are difficulties - but there would always be difficulties. If you're looking for a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom I suggest you don't look at history, because it has never happened and never will.
Maybe we should go all the way and take out North Korea?
If we don't look at history, we are doomed to repeat it. You're right that a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom has never happened and never will, especially if freedom is imposed from without by force of arms. Perhaps we will learn that lesson eventually in Iraq.
2. You know, you're right. No one appointed America to be the global police agency. Instead of doing everything within our power to help oppressed people where we see them, we should sit quietly behind our own borders and play with all of our money. That sounds like fun.
Or, maybe we should admit that other people should be in control of their own destiny. We can help, perhaps, through foreign aid and the Peace Corps, but we aren't helping when we try to impose a pax americana on the rest of the world.
3. Not at present, but any administration with that plan would hopefully also have the wisdom patience, and power to do so. If we'd dedicate ourselves to this idea than I think we could make it work.
Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. Maybe I'm too willing to spend other peoples' money for the benefit of foreigners. Still, I think that America has fought too many times outside its basic principles and its time we showed that we really do stand for something.
We can show that through example, not through force of arms.
Maybe one day we'll elect a government with the wisdom to actually accomplish some of what you have suggested. Personally, I'm not so much of an optimist when it comes to the competency of government.
vyo476
05-06-2007, 02:35 PM
Or, maybe we should admit that other people should be in control of their own destiny.
That's the problem. The people of Myanmar are not in control of their own destinies and all the sanctions we've come up with have failed to unseat the military dictatorship. If it were possible for them to rise up against their oppressors they'd have done it by now. I'm not talking about shoving democracy down the throats of people who don't want it, I'm talking about doing what we can to support democracy in countries that have demonstrated a desire for freedom but are oppressed by horrible, totalitarian regimes.
That's the problem. The people of Myanmar are not in control of their own destinies and all the sanctions we've come up with have failed to unseat the military dictatorship. If it were possible for them to rise up against their oppressors they'd have done it by now. I'm not talking about shoving democracy down the throats of people who don't want it, I'm talking about doing what we can to support democracy in countries that have demonstrated a desire for freedom but are oppressed by horrible, totalitarian regimes.
Trying to help the people of Myanmar is a noble ideal, but is it one that the US government can really accomplish? Getting rid of Saddam Hussain and freeing the people of Iraq was a noble ideal also, but look how that project is turning out.
vyo476
05-06-2007, 04:32 PM
Trying to help the people of Myanmar is a noble ideal, but is it one that the US government can really accomplish? Getting rid of Saddam Hussain and freeing the people of Iraq was a noble ideal also, but look how that project is turning out.
Personally I think Myanmar would be a lot different. For one thing there is no privileged minority that currently benefits from the regime - it is only the regime itself that benefits from its continued power. Get rid of the regime - and the rest of the country has no problem with the idea of a new government. It wasn't like that in Iraq, as the Sunnis suddenly found themselves equal to the Shi'ites and Kurds - which is largely how the insurgency there started.
That's just a personal opinion though.
Personally I think Myanmar would be a lot different. For one thing there is no privileged minority that currently benefits from the regime - it is only the regime itself that benefits from its continued power. Get rid of the regime - and the rest of the country has no problem with the idea of a new government. It wasn't like that in Iraq, as the Sunnis suddenly found themselves equal to the Shi'ites and Kurds - which is largely how the insurgency there started.
That's just a personal opinion though.
Maybe the neocons would have been more successful in Myanmar than they were in Iraq. Maybe such a success would have made their agenda a little more credible. We'll never know.
vyo476
05-06-2007, 06:29 PM
Maybe the neocons would have been more successful in Myanmar than they were in Iraq. Maybe such a success would have made their agenda a little more credible. We'll never know.
Thing is, the neocons would never help Myanmar. What's in it for them? Nothing.
Thing is, the neocons would never help Myanmar. What's in it for them? Nothing.
Wouldn't it prove their ideas viable if they could replace a tyrannical government and free the people of Myanmar? If it would have been easier than liberating Iraq, it might have been a place to start. It's always better to do the easiest tasks first, just to improve your confidence and credibility by starting with some successes.
Now, of course, had Myanmar become the disaster that Iraq has, they wouldn't have gained anything from that either.
3. Does the US government possess the wisdom, the patience, and the power to replace tyrannical governments around the world?
Its the American people that don't possess the patience, and that is sometimes reflected in the government they choose. Nation-building in Iraq can work, but not if the American people won't let it. When we hear people saying that the recent troop surge isn't working when it hasn't even been fully implemented yet, that just shows that Americans are not going to give it a chance. This administration has the patience to stay with the war and see it through, but I can't say the same for he country.
ArmChair General
05-06-2007, 07:43 PM
Its the American people that don't possess the patience, and that is sometimes reflected in the government they choose. Nation-building in Iraq can work, but not if the American people won't let it. When we hear people saying that the recent troop surge isn't working when it hasn't even been fully implemented yet, that just shows that Americans are not going to give it a chance. This administration has the patience to stay with the war and see it through, but I can't say the same for he country.
The Surge. Jeez, just that title, "the Surge" - what Stan Lee fan thought of that? The DoD is addicted to these corny titles. Can't just say we're going to increase troop numbers in Baghdad. No, it's "The Surge"! Like the name you'd give some lame X-Man added for ethnic balance, maybe a gay Samoan cripple who can turn himself into a tidal wave when danger threatens. One minute he's a mild-mannered Green-Zone accountant making $800 a day, and then -- Kaboom! he becomes a Tsunami of freedom, washing the scum off the "Arab Street."
If only. Unfortunately, this isn't a surge, just a reinforcement, and a pretty small one. And if you have to ask whether it'll work, you don't understand guerrilla war. Of course it won't work. Classic guerrilla doctrine - Hell, plain common sense - says when the occupier floods the city with troops, the guerrilla lays low. Which the Iraqis are doing. And yet people are so stupid they're already crowing that "incidents are down" since the Surge.
Well, duh. That's the idea: avoid battle, watch the Arabic-subtitled Dynasty reruns, let the clueless foreigners zoom up and down the alleys. Meanwhile, every soccer-playing kid in the street is memorizing patrol times and tipping his uncle off about the vulnerable small outposts we're now occupying as part of our meet-&-greet policy.
There's no point watching this like a Dow Jones graph, because any sane primate knows where it's going. Bush drove our car into a tree, and it's not going to un-total itself. and feeding more troops in, putting them on show to be blasted by IEDs - that's not warlike, that's...see, I can't even come up with a word for what these neocons are. They're not warmongers, that's for sure, because they'll never use our nukes. They're tinkerers, that's what it is - home improvement assholes who hit the sewer main with their first dig, then try to pretend the **** isn't filling up the basement. They won't nuke or leave, just hope their salaries rise faster than the sewage level.
Coyote
05-08-2007, 11:51 AM
The Surge. Jeez, just that title, "the Surge" - They're tinkerers, that's what it is - home improvement assholes who hit the sewer main with their first dig, then try to pretend the **** isn't filling up the basement. They won't nuke or leave, just hope their salaries rise faster than the sewage level.
:D lmao - great imagery...unfortunately, apt.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.