June 12th, 2007 5:05 pm
Highlights from the transcript:
“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”
“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance“
“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”
“[Saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program“
“Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”
“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”
“Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”
And Gore reminds us about the tough stand he took regarding Iraq:
“I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action”
It’s clear why a tough stance would be needed against Iraq, afterall…
“…the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.
…and the money quote of the day:
Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible.
Ok, so it was 1992 and Gore was blasting the first President Bush…
So for those of you keeping score at home:
The first President Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Iraq despite mountains of evidence of its ties to terrorism and involvement in WMD programs while the second President Bush not only deserves blame for taking action, but is also now accused of making up the evidence, much of which existed a decade before he became President.
Just more proof that Democrats don’t really stand for anything and will always campaign on the “whatever the Republican did is bad” strategy.
By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.
Afterall, “Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible”, right Al?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
Gore Blast Bush On Iraq
No, it’s not what you think….not by a long shot.
The date was Sept. 29, 1992. In this video…
…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 5:23 pm
Actually considering how young he looked, the tone of his voice, the style of his hair and the glaring display of “September 29 1992″ it was exactly what I thought.
Comment by CommonSenseRules — 6:47 pm
Gore Blasts Bush Sr. On Iraq
Late to the party on this one but still just have to highlight it. Here is Al Gore blasting…I mean giving George H.W. Bush both barrels…for not doing enough against Saddam. Some of the highlights: (via Texas Rainmaker) “it was…
Trackback by Flopping Aces — 9:48 pm
Oh, how quickly we forget.
Comment by Big White Hat — 9:15 am
Wow, so you’re saying the world didn’t change an iota between 1992 and 2002? Don’t forget the facts: Saddam did at one time have WMDs. A policy of containment throughout the Clinton/Gore administration got rid of them. When Bush 43 attacked Irag they had no WMDs, had no ties to Al Qaeda and were not a threat to US. Sounds to me like Al Gore, with his remarkable ability to see the truth then and now is right on both scores.
Comment by chrenson — 11:32 am
Of course, there is no big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Or between the situation where we were fighting Iraq with a degree of international approval and cooperation that dwarfs the “Coalition of the Willing.” Not to mention that Gore is pointing out the degree to which the elder Bush helped to arm Iraq during AND after Iraq’s war with Iran. Also, when opposing younger Bush’s push for war in 2002 and 2003, Gore didn’t base his argument on whether Iraq had or was seeking WMDs, but on the fact that the war was not garnering international support and a unilateral action would most likely damage our credibility around the world as well as increase the danger of further terrorist acts (not to mention that beating Sadam would be the easy part, the hard part being dealing with the ruins and internal conflict afterwards). He also objected to Bush pushing the vote just before midterm election to help pressure Congress into war. What he called for at the time was an open, honest debate. He called for Bush to show us the evidence of WMDs and the implied link between Iraq and 911. Surely you agree that if we, as a nation, had taken the time to look at the situation soberly we would be on better footing now.
Guess what, Gore was right.
Comment by motlo — 12:22 pm
A policy of containment throughout the Clinton/Gore administration got rid of them.
Pfffffffffffffffffff-bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Dude, gimme some kind of heads-up before you crack me up with something like that again!
Comment by crushliberalism — 12:32 pm
That’s interesting that you think “a policy of containment” helped change the entire landscape of Iraq in terms of WMDs and ties to terrorism…
Especially considering the Clinton Justice Department in an indictment in 1998 said “that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.”
And again in 1999, Clinton’s National Coordinator of Counterterrorism and Computer Security Programs, Richard Clarke said “the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at [El Shifa] … and that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts.”
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:17 pm
Crush, put down your crack pipe, come up out of your room in your mother’s basement and tell me why our troops haven’t found, like, even the weapons we sold them in the 80s, much less any of the WMDs Bush 43 said he’d find. Reality has a well known liberal bias, homeslice.
And I was going to choose a hip moniker like “crushconservitivism,” but you guys seem to have it covered.
Comment by chrenson — 1:17 pm
TR, that’s all fine. But none of that knowledge or speculation was used by the Clinton/Gore administration as grounds to go in and start a preemptive war based on lies and conjecture that would ultimately destabilize an already volitile region and be used to recruit thousands of new terrorists. You can pull up all the selective quotes you want, just like I can pull up the one where Bush 43 says the US should not get involved in nation building, etc. But my point is that you’re treating this one speech of Gore’s as if he said it yesterday. I could just as easily say that Bush 43 is a coked-up alcoholic. According to AA he is and always will be. But, to ignore the passage of time, the enormous changes in geopolitics, or the possibility that opinions can and should change in light of fresh information is to give your argument the pallor of gleeful ignorance.
Comment by chrenson — 1:30 pm
But you’re simply ignoring the fact that Iraq’s ties with terrorism DIDN’T change. From the time Gore said it in 1992 to when the indictment said it in 1998 to the time Richard Clarke said it in 1999 to the time Abu Nidal died in his Baghdad home in 2002 to the time Abu Abbas (mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro incident Gore referred to in the speech above) was captured in a Baghdad suburb by U.S. forces in 2003. And let’s not forget the documents found in Iraq after the invasion that revealed the presence of al-Qaida members pre-invasion.
And you’re right, the Clinton-Gore admin didn’t “start a preemptive war”… but then again, neither did the Bush administration. The Bush administration led the way to enforcing U.N. resolutions that had been passed demanding certain things of Iraq, for which they continuously played games an breached. The enforcement action was begun after approval of the U.N. security counsel and an affirmative vote in Congress…. which is why you guy keep running with the “Bush lied” meme… it’s your way of attempting to invalidate the U.N./Congressional votes in hindsight. But logically, it doesn’t work, because of the continued drumbeat by the same Democrats for years leading up to Bush’s arrival in office and their continued drumbeat up to March, 2003.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 2:38 pm
Quick hits
“It ain’t over ’til the illegal immigrant wins.”
Al Gore blasts President Bush for ignoring Iraqs ties to terrorism.
The Religion of Peace, murders over 70 Buddhist teachers.
Trying to poke holes in Fred Thompson.
Terrorist training camp in N…
Trackback by Reverse_Vampyr — 3:02 pm
“The Bush administration led the way to enforcing U.N. resolutions that had been passed demanding certain things of Iraq, for which they continuously played games an breached.”
This was - of course - the conservative talking point before the war (and one to which far too many democrats acquiesced to) - but saying it doesn’t make it true. At the time, it seemed quite clear to me that Saddam was in the very difficult position of trying to prove a negative. No matter how much he bent to U.N (and Bush) demands - the U.N. could always suggest that there was one more rock it had yet to look under (and Bush played the master of ceremonies in encouraging this very hard line from the U.N.). And as it turns out - this was exactly what was going on. 5 years later - and no WMD’s. I’m not saying that Saddam wasn’t a monster - but at least with the benefit of hindsite you must admit, Tex, that Saddam was not playing games. He wasn’t hiding WMD’s.
Moreover - in seconding chrenson’s point that for all of the Clinton administrations bluster, they did not mount a pre-emptive war - I would also add that such bluster is, simply, part and parcel of diplomacy. Diplomacy often involves arguing the extreme case with the hopes that your threats and innuendo will force change (this is why many democrats initially signed on with Bush vis-a-vis invading Iraq - and they really shouldn’t have to explain this point). But this certainly doesn’t mean that you fully believe everything you bluster about. So no - there simply isn’t anything inconsistant between Gore’s 1990’s bluster about Iraq - and his current critique of the Bush administration. Gore and Clinton’s bluster DID contain Iraq. Bush’s war, by contrast, has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism. Tell me Tex, which do you really prefer. Do you really hate America so much that your blind allegiance to Bush foreign policy makes you incapable of recognizing that this policy has made the world a much more dangerous place?
Comment by djernigan — 7:44 pm
chrenson,
Bill Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 without U.N. Approval. He bombed
Saddam Hussein never complied with Inspections so Clinton pulled the Inspectors out and when he left office he stated he believed Saddam has reconstituted WMDs.
In 1998 Clinton said that he ordered the U.S. Military to strike Iraq’s
“nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs”.
He also stated that they couldn’t get it all, but wanted to “degrade” it
and then stated Saddam could rebuild in MONTHS not years. So when 9/11 happened we hadn’t had weapons inspectors in Iraq for 3 years. More than enough time for Saddam according to Clinton.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.
“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
============================================================
When President Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days in December 1998 he stated that “without inspections Saddam could rebuild his WMDs”. And “Saddam could rebuild his chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.”
========================================================
Quote:
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
“If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,” said Clinton. “He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction.”
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
======================================================
In 1998 President Clinton signed the “Iraqi Liberation Act”, which was approved by a majority vote of DEMOCRATS and Republicans. The “1998 Iraqi Liberation Act” endorsed REGIME CHANGE for Saddam Hussein and made it policy for the Clinton Administration.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
In July 2000 Al Gore re-stated the Clinton Administration’s official stance of REGIME CHANGE for Saddam Hussein and stated
he was for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein before Bush was sworn in as President on January 20, 2001!
==================================================
Quote:
“The United States will not flag in supporting your efforts to promote a change of regime. I believe that there can be no peace for the Iraqi people and a genuine peace for the people of the Middle East
so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours,” Gore told the representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an American-backed group seeking to overthrow Saddam.
“In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, [Saddam] must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support.
It is the policy I am personally committed to,” he added.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/489/re8.htm
=======================================================
Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2002 Russian President, Vladimir Putin, told Bush that Saddam Hussein was planning “terrorist attacks for inside America”.
CNN.com - Russia ‘warned U.S. about Saddam’ - Jun 18, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/
======================================================
Quote:
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) — Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein’s regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.
The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.
However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam’s regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.
“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations,” Putin said.
=====================================================
After Bill Clinton pulled Weapons Inspectors in 1998 he stated he bombed Iraq’s “nuclear, chemical, and biological programs” and said they could only “degrade” the WMDs and not destroy all of it.
Clinotn NEVER got Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq and when 9/11 happened Weapons Inspectors had been out of Iraq for 3 years.
In an interview with Jim Leher Madeleine Albright also reiterated the Clinton Administration’s belief that they wouldn’t be able to destroy all of Saddam’s WMDs, but they wanted to “seriously degrade” them.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_12-17.html
Madeleine Albright also stated that “Saddam Hussein had enough VX to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth.”
=====================================================
Quote:
JIM LEHRER:
Sure. Degrading is the word that you have used; the president used. What does that word actually mean in this context? What do you mean “degrade?” Bombing to degrade-bombing is destroying, is it not?
SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT:
Well, I think that - you know - I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century.
It’s hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to - you know - Saddam Hussein had the capability to - with the VX agents -
to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth.
So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat, and what the president decided to do, I think, was very sound, very important for our national security and take action when he could, and what it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.
=====================================================
Comment by Gunner — 9:05 pm
[…] Late to the party on this one but still just have to highlight it. Here is Al Gore blasting…I mean giving George H.W. Bush both barrels…for not doing enough against Saddam. Some of the highlights: (via Texas Rainmaker) […]
Pingback by The Baltimore Reporter — 9:59 pm
Gunner - Why is 9/11 the arbitrary day by which you reference how long it had been since UN inspectors had been in Iraq? Still conflating Al Qaida operatives in Afghanistan - with The Iraqi government, are we.
The important point is that UN inspectors were in Iraq between November 2002 and late February 2003 - without turning up a thing. Not because Saddam was being uncooperative - but because there was nothing to turn up.
Comment by djernigan — 1:24 am
Gunner, maybe it’s just me, but I see a difference between 4 days of targeted bombing [which I was not happy about at the time] and four years of preemptive war. One big difference is that, in retrospect, the former appears to have worked whereas the later has been a monumental failure. The quotes you’ve cited are all excellent examples of diplomatic posturing, critical to the process of containment. Compare them to statements like “the insurgency is in its last throes”, “Bring it on” and “Mission Accomplished” and the Bush 43 administration appears illequipped for the world stage.
Comment by chrenson — 4:16 am
TR, at first glance it appears that the documents to which your refer, showing the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, at least the ones cited on your link, are dated after 9/11. That Al Qaeda entered Iraq after 9/11, when our sabers started rattling, and is in Iraq now is kind of obvious. Bush and Co. were careful to build a case for the war by linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks specifically. As evidence of this tactic’s effectiveness consider that 75 percent of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 still believed Saddam Hussien was respponsible for 9/11, even though Bush himself had admitted he was not.
Comment by chrenson — 4:29 am
“TR, at first glance it appears that the documents to which your refer, showing the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, at least the ones cited on your link, are dated after 9/11. That Al Qaeda entered Iraq after 9/11, when our sabers started rattling, and is in Iraq now is kind of obvious.”
Ok, then chew on this.
Oh, and about all this “unilateral”, “didn’t build a coalition of allies” stuff…
Hard to build an international coalition when your supposed allies are stabbing you in the back.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 6:51 am
“…I would also add that such bluster is, simply, part and parcel of diplomacy.”
If you believe “blustering” or “saber rattling” is effective in deterring our self-acclaimed enemy (radical Islamic jihadists, aka, Muslim terrorists), you are not only naïve, you are dangerous to the security of this nation! These people love death more than you love life – there is no deterring them. The only way to stop them is to find them and kill them before they have the opportunity to do the same to you. The “can’t we all just get along” whine of liberalism is totally ineffective with radical Islamic jihadists.
“Bush and Co. were careful to build a case for the war by linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks specifically.”
I do not recall such a case being built by Bush or any of his cabinet/advisors; Bush or administration quotes would be appreciated.
Regarding the “coalition;” here is a list of participating countries.
Comment by Old Soldier — 7:38 am
[…] (Hat tip to Texas Rainmaker) […]
Pingback by Gore Blasts Bush On Iraq at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — 8:31 am
“If you believe “blustering” or “saber rattling” is effective in deterring our self-acclaimed enemy (radical Islamic jihadists, aka, Muslim terrorists), you are not only naïve, you are dangerous to the security of this nation!”
Take a chill pill, Old Soldier - before you give youself a heart attack. I’m not sure blustering is sufficient - only that it is essential to the diplomatic process, and therefore does not mean that Gore has been inconsistant. Moreover, I am also sure that it is far more effective then what Bush has brought us; instead of getting so wound up, why don’t you respond to the simple point that under Bush Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists?
The last line of irrational and hyterical defense - the intelocutor is “dangerous to the security of this nation.” If that’s true - Old Soldier - then I should be locked up and tried for treason - simply for speaking my mind. Well - come and get me - before Bush and company do.
Comment by djernigan — 10:37 am
Oh — and “Don’t Forget Poland.”
Comment by djernigan — 10:38 am
“The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.”
Oh - you mean kind of like the relationship the U.S. built with Osama bin Laden in the early 80’s based on their mutual hatred of the Former Soviet Union?
Comment by djernigan — 10:42 am
“Oh - you mean kind of like the relationship the U.S. built with Osama bin Laden in the early 80’s based on their mutual hatred of the Former Soviet Union?”
You think our intent was to kill all innocent men, women and children unless they converted to our religion when we were battling the attempted spread of a failed policy like communism?
Yeah, that was exactly the same thing as Saddam and bin Laden’s plans to nuke us. The fact you would equate the two shows you do not understand the nature of today’s threat of terrorism.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:53 am
Silly, silly, silly little man you are sometimes Tex. Do I really have to spell everything out for you?? I was only working to show that sometimes you liase with those you really don’t care for very much — for various and sundry reasons. You can make a mountain out of the molehill of evidence that exists that Saddam and Al Qaida had serious connections to each other but the prepoderance of evicence proves otherwise, as the 9/11 commission found (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240326,00.html).
Comment by djernigan — 11:39 am
evidence that exists that Saddam and Al Qaida had serious connections to each other but the prepoderance of evicence proves otherwise, as the 9/11 commission found
Funny how two reasonable groups of people (well, one reasonable group and then you guys) can read the same thing and come to two completely different conclusions:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp
Reality is never a liberal’s best friend.
Comment by crushliberalism — 1:03 pm
Actually, crush, this line from your linked NRO article only proves my point:
“It also modifies the original “no collaborative relationship” description, now saying there was “no collaborative operational relationship” (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
My point - is that this is what all governing bodies do - no matter their ideological, religious, or fanantical differences. And to spin it into something larger than it is is simply that — spin. No doubt - there is also much evidence of U.S. talks with Iraq over these same years, sureptitious and under the table. But with nothing “operational” between Iraq and Al Qaida - please - what again was the great urgency for invasion?
Comment by djernigan — 6:49 pm
Actually, crush, this line from your linked NRO article only proves my point
Your parole officer must have stopped reading you the article at that point, otherwise you would have had him keep going to get to the meat.
Screw it, Jerkagain. You have no intentions of living in reality, so I shall abandon all attempts at getting you and your leftard ilk to do so. We get it already: America bad, Al Qaeda good, Bush = Hitler, yada-yada-yada.
Comment by crushliberalism — 6:40 am
”Moreover, I am also sure that it is far more effective then what Bush has brought us; instead of getting so wound up, why don’t you respond to the simple point that under Bush Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists?”
Your memory is apparently rather short-sighted. If you will recall after we summarily defeated the largest and supposedly the best Arab army in SWA directly on the heals of deposing the Taliban, the world took notice. Libya took notice; Lebanon took notice; Syria took notice; and even Iran and North Korea took notice. Why, because we were no longer blustering, we were putting our money where our mouth was – we were acting. The nation was united; the Congress was united and the sound bytes were oriented toward a resolved effort to violently respond to radical Islamic jihadists.
Our ‘problems’ arose when the all-knowing Democratic leadership decided to attack Bush rather than risk him executing a successful foreign policy. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Reid, and others started comparing our troops to Gestapo and Soviet Gulag henchmen, and likened our actions to Pol Pot’s. We undermined our own national resolve to counter terrorism. We displayed to our enemy an erosion in our resolve, and they quickly associated the behavior with Somalia. They knew if they could inflict enough blood loss that we would quit and go home. George Bush put the world on notice and the Democrats behind his back whispered, “We don’t really mean it.” Political and tactical mistakes were made, but they were made worse by the amplifying and dissenting actions of our Democratic leadership.
The net result was/is an increase in loss of life; however, the Democrats do not care because they can pin it on Bush. Politically, Democrats have undermined our resolve and their actions have emboldened the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Iraq is worse, not because Bush invaded it; it is worse because the Democrats blew our national unity and resolve to Hell. Stand up and take credit for your real accomplishments! Yeah, like that would actually happen…
Comment by Old Soldier — 8:47 am
No, John. The problem arose when this administration didn’t really believe there would be difficulties after Saddam was ousted, and thus didn’t prepare sufficiently.
Thats the biggest cause of the hell that is Iraq right now. Incompetence in planning for the post-Saddam era. Abu Ghraib, the protracted infiltration of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the exacerbations between Sunni/Shias it has caused, a sense of American occupation by most Iraqis, etc. are all a result of this lack of post-Saddam planning.
The number of viable people/organizations who have expressed this is numerous. Hell, this is the standard talking point for most GOP presidential candidates.
Comment by forrest — 10:05 am
Forrest, there is no argument that mistakes were made. Forrest, there is no argument that mistakes were made. However, where was the Democratic support (and heaven forbid - an actual plan) to turn a bad situation into a win? The Democrats became cannibals and started politically devouring the president rather than propose solutions. That’s being real team players, isn’t it? No, the Dems want the US to lose and Harry/Nancy and company are doing their best to ensure their desired outcome. Blame the president is all the Dems/libs can come up with - that and ensuring defeat.
Comment by Old Soldier — 11:03 am
John, the Democrats haven’t been putting up substantial opposition to the war until recently. Sure, their rhetoric has been anti-war for somewhat longer, but where had the tangible (ie. legislative since they really only have influence at this level) until this latest round of war funding? The various installments of funding had passed easily with most Democrats in support.
Sure, there had been great outcry for removal of SecDef Rumsfeld, but in my mind, that was warranted due to the lack of planning and “mistakes” that even you admitted were made.
There had been some support for redeployment plans back in (approxmiately) November 2005, but even then, it was a minority (albeit quite vocal) of Democrats that supported such a plan.
My point is this: Essentially the Democrats have not opposed the war in a practical sense until somewhat recently. They have gone along with the President legislatively, which is where they can have effect. Attempting to shuffle the blame onto them for their rhetoric rather than recognizing that the incompetent leadership with its lack of planning is the real problem seems to be misguided and dishonest partisanship to me.
Comment by forrest — 12:05 pm
”Attempting to shuffle the blame onto them for their rhetoric rather than recognizing that the incompetent leadership with its lack of planning is the real problem seems to be misguided and dishonest partisanship to me.”
You totally missed the point. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, and Murtha were making public statements disparaging our military and tossing little political grenades at the administration shortly after the war began. Where was their desire to see victory? Where was their war winning plan? The only Democrat plan to ever be executed since Mar 2003 is “blame Bush!” There still is no plan to win – only a plan to ensure defeat regarding Iraq. No, Forrest, the Democrats are not without blame regarding the situation in Iraq. However they are quite adept at diverting any responsibility by blaming Bush. Your ”incompetent leadership” comment has the most merit when applied to the party of “no ideas.”
Comment by Old Soldier — 8:09 pm
John, Senator Kerry did indeed lay out a plan for Iraq.
However, if he had been able to push this plan in the Senate, conservatives/Republicans would have undoubtedly called it an encroachment on the authority of the executive, or more simply, an attempt to micromanage the war. Last time I checked, any attempts from Democrats to change strategy in Iraq have been met with fury from people like yourself.
Also, I’d refer to you to the treatment of President Clinton by the GOP during the military involvement in Kosovo. Where was the desire to win there? Why were Republicans (such as current President) “tossing little political grenades” by way of demanding exit strategies or that we redeploy American troops?
I’d also point out that my “incompetent leadership” comment applies even more resoundingly to the party of “no principles”.
Comment by forrest — 8:30 pm
Forrest, name the coalition members involved in the Kosovo operation.
“I’d also point out that my “incompetent leadership” comment applies even more resoundingly to the party of “no principles”.”
At last, something we agree upon… because neither party has principles it appears.
Comment by Old Soldier — 3:30 am