Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is not OK for the president to lie about the reason he is sending troops to battle. That said, I don't think Bush lied. His statements may not have been accurate, but I don't think he knew that to be the case at the time made.

Cue for Ty to instruct us to read ___________.

The Economist had a cover article calling Bush and Blair "Eager Deceivers" (or something like that). It is worth reading -- it's pretty sober, as one would expect from the Economist, and not partisan. It reflects about 90% of what I believe about the situation.

Note that the Economist maintained, and continues to maintain, the view that invading Iraq was the right decision. It is, in fact, possible simply to believe that Bush was dishonest in promoting the war -- without having a different, political purpose in mind when taking that position.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is going to cause an explosion, but I think every President from Eisenhower to W., including Clinton, knew what they were doing when it came to foreign policy. The only exception was Carter (and maybe Johnson in the later years of Vietnam). I think almost every decision they made, from the perspective of the time when they made it, made sense. They all made mistakes, but I think the decisions that led to the mistakes were well thought out and just turned out to be wrong. I think they had the countries best interest in mind and were bright practical people. On the other hand, every time Congress has gotten involved in Foreign policy they have just botched it up. They have just done stupid things, that would lead to obvious disasters: Limiting the funds to Korea, cutting off funds to South Vietnam in 1974, cutting off funds to the Contras etc. Therefore, you don't want to hear my answer.

I think you underrate Carter. Carter brokered peace between Israel and Egypt that has lasted until the present day, despite the tensions. He seized on an expanded the Nixon/Kissenger concept of hamering the Soviets with Human Rights provisions in treaties, which are largely credited by serious historians in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet empire. He gets shit about the Panama Canal, but I think we've all shown that the Canal is really ours, no matter whose real estate it's on, and that we're more than capable of taking care of business in Panama should push come to shove.

He was played a nasty hand by Iran, and I'm not sure what he could have done differently. Had we invaded, a territorially ambitious Saddam Hussein, funded and armed by the Soviets, would probably have taken advantage of the situation to seize Iran's southern oilfields, and we would have found ourselves in another proxy war.

As for the essence of your post, foreign policy is not efficient when run by committee, and the Executive Branch generally has free reign. However, treaties must be approved by Congress, and Congress controls the pocketbook. Therefore, there needs to be a certain degree of cooperation and trust between the White House and Congress on foreign policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I would agree with most of this except for the fact that I believe that Bush believed that there were WMDs. Why else would Saddam have been playing those games? As good as our intel is it could not tell him for sure one way or another - and the way Saddam Hussein was acting any reasonble person would have concluded he had WMDs.

Maybe Bush did believe it, but it was reckless to tune out facts inconsistent with those beliefs, and it was reckless to say things that were unsupported by the facts. Foreign policy is one place where a president shouldn't be reckless.

As to why Hussein was acting that way, you could chalk it up to brinksmanship, or to him acting irrationally, or to a fear that captitulating would leave his grasp on power much weakened.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think you underrate Carter.

He also started the military buildup that continued under Reagan.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I would agree with most of this except for the fact that I believe that Bush believed that there were WMDs. Why else would Saddam have been playing those games? As good as our intel is it could not tell him for sure one way or another - and the way Saddam Hussein was acting any reasonble person would have concluded he had WMDs.

Was it reasonable belief? Hope? I sure hope he isnt' running faith-based foreign policy.

As to why SH was playing those games, it has been widely explained that SH wanted his neighbors to think he had them so they wouldn't take advantage of a weakened Iraq, he wanted his people to believe he had them to keep them in line, and he wanted everyone to see him as standing up to the big, bad US of A. I'm sure this was explained to the President prior to the war, he just didn't want to believe it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, I remember that being exactly the rationale that Bush & Co. advanced.



Let me guess -- was this on the editorials page?





No doubt you are willing to wait the 12 years Rummy (now) says that will take.

Or did you mean the ultimate victory we had when Bush declared our mission Accomplished?

1. I think he offered a variation.

2. Also on page one in the column on the right. I am not saying I buy it whole cloth, but there might be things worth examining further.

3. Yes, I am. Post-war Europe and Japan were not stable in '46 or '47 or '48......why should we expect a country with no history of democratic process and a 20 year history of self-destructing its infrastructure to be able to be turned around in 1, 2,, 3....years?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
3. Yes, I am. Post-war Europe and Japan were not stable in '46 or '47 or '48......why should we expect a country with no history of democratic process and a 20 year history of self-destructing its infrastructure to be able to be turned around in 1, 2,, 3....years?

Because Cheney said so?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
3. Yes, I am. Post-war Europe and Japan were not stable in '46 or '47 or '48......why should we expect a country with no history of democratic process and a 20 year history of self-destructing its infrastructure to be able to be turned around in 1, 2,, 3....years?

Yeah, Bush said that a lot before the war too.

Post-war Europe and Japan were "stable" in a lot less than 12 years.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
3. Yes, I am. Post-war Europe and Japan were not stable in '46 or '47 or '48......why should we expect a country with no history of democratic process and a 20 year history of self-destructing its infrastructure to be able to be turned around in 1, 2,, 3....years?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that groups of Nazis were killing hundreds of US and British troops (and thousands of Germans who were trying to rebuild the country) for years after the surrender.

And as for that question of "why should we . . ." the leader that you seem to think is doing such a great job told us that the Iraqis would be laying rose petals at our feet. The administration ignored the experts who told them that reconstruction would be a long, arduous process. Some of them are still saying that the worst is over.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And as for that question of "why should we . . ." the leader that you seem to think is doing such a great job told us that the Iraqis would be laying rose petals at our feet. The administration ignored the experts who told them that reconstruction would be a long, arduous process. Some of them are still saying that the worst is over.

Yeah, but is that a crime?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, Bush said that a lot before the war too.

Post-war Europe and Japan were "stable" in a lot less than 12 years.

Greece....Italy? The Balkans?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I could be wrong, but I don't think that groups of Nazis were killing hundreds of US and British troops (and thousands of Germans who were trying to rebuild the country) for years after the surrender.

I'm not sure there has been a surrender, although I would be willing to drop a couple of A bombs to see if we could choke one out of them.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm not sure there has been a surrender, although I would be willing to drop a couple of A bombs to see if we could choke one out of them.

I believe that there was an official date marking the end of "active" hostilities or something like that. Forget what it was called.

Or we could go with the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis last year.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Greece....Italy? The Balkans?

Germany? England? France? Holland?

Are you suggesting that, just as we saw tremendous growth in Europe beginning in 1948, we will see similar growth in Iraq from three years after the war ended (so, starting next March), with a few minor pockets of continued disruption?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I believe that there was an official date marking the end of "active" hostilities or something like that. Forget what it was called.

Mission Accomplished.

(I know you were being sarcastic. I just love saying that, and picturing Bush playing dress-up warrior.)