Hillary: New Thatcher?

[Dr. Shane]

There have always been people against every war. However they were in the minority before the Iraq War and they had no evidence that Saddam could be believed. Let's not forget, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all believed that Saddam was a threat and had WMDs. I don't think they were sold a pack of lies by the Bush Administration.

[David Koot]

Very interesting. Having lived through that experience, I recall that the parties mentioned seemed to have relied upon the information they were given. None of them had first hand knowledge. I believe that a serious failing of the administration was the reliance on the estimates of the 'chicken hawks' instead of on the professional opinions of the generals. I remember very, very clearly the warnings given by a number of generals, to the point of coming out in public, which is unusual. But those warnings were ignored by the architects of the 'new American century.' Turns out they were wrong. And, of course, those architects, the 'Gang of Four,' were not only bellicose, but quite willing to 'go it alone' in spite of the concerns of the rest of the world. And now, having made their bed (our bed, unfortunately) they/we have to lie in it! It now remains for some politician, hopefully more astute than the current players, to attempt to salvage what is left of our international credibility. Is Hillary such a one? Personally, I have my doubts.

I just want to add that I rarely wax so vocal about politics. Nevertheless, I am an internationalist, and I also have appreciated the artistry of consummate statesmen from Metternich to Kissinger. And THEN I compare the bumbling of the current crop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am embarrassed for my country.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I recall that the parties mentioned seemed to have relied upon the information they were given. None of them had first hand knowledge.

They were given the information by the CIA and much of the CIA's information came from forgien intelligence. Much of the information was from Iraqi defectors, some belonging to Saddam's own family. Hilary Clinton stated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that the intelligence collected under Bush 1, her husband's administration and Bush 2 was all consistant. She further stated that before voting to use force in Iraq that she consulted the top security advisors that had served her husband's administration and they were confident Saddam had WMDs.

Many of those that opposed the Iraq invation also opposed military action in Afghanistan. There are only a few that supported Afghanistan but opposed Iraq. However now many are claiming that we should have stayed in Afghanistan and not went into Iraq. hindsight being 20/20, that is pretty obvious, but few that say that now were saying that then.

[bevin]

Shane...

Thanks to Bush's pressure the UN Weapons Inspectors were in Iraq. They were doing their job. They were telling the USA they had not found any evidence of an existing WMD program.

Bush told them they were incompetent.

Bush told them that we knew where the WMD were.

They told Bush "if you know, tell us"

Bush did, they went, there weren't any.

Bush lied. He said that we were sure when we weren't.

Bush was gullible. He did not believe the UN Weapons Inspectors - prefering to listen to the neo-con hawks.

Bush was stupid - he thought it would be a walk-over despite being told otherwise.

Flowers in the streets. Cheering.

And he lead our country into probably the worst foreign policy disaster it has ever been in.

Then he "stayed the course" because he was "the decider".

Violating the first rule of holes = when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Robert Gates speech this weekend at last shows a willingness to change direction. Amazing what a thumping at the polls will do to the most stubborn Texas ass.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The weapons inspectors had 12 years to do their job. Saying they just needed more time is SPIN. On one hand they suspected Saddam didn't have WMDs but on the other hand they were not willing to state he didn't. Plus they were very open about Saddam being uncooperative with them and acting as if he had something to hide. I don't buy the SPIN that the inspectors just needed more time. Giving him more time would have allowed Saddam to get sanctions lifted through the corrupt UN's oil-for-food program and start his WMD programs again.

Quote:

Bush told them they were incompetent.

Please show a cite for that quotation.

Quote:

Bush lied

That is emotionally-charged, inflamatory language. Please clean it up for discussions here.

Quote:

Flowers in the streets. Cheering.

It is not hard to get footage of the warm welcome coalition forces recieved - especially in kurdastan. The SPINmisters want us to only focus on all the death and forget how grateful most Iraqis were initially to have us free them.

Quote:

And he lead our country into probably the worst foreign policy disaster it has ever been in.

I would agrue that President Wilson leading us into WW1 was a much worse forgeign policy disaster which lead directly to WW2.

Quote:

Then he "stayed the course" because he was "the decider".

On that I can agree. The war has not been ran well. Our reasons for invading were noble but we have not executed the war well.

[David Koot]

I would agrue that President Wilson leading us into WW1 was a much worse forgeign policy disaster which lead directly to WW2.

It was not our entry into WWI that was a foreign policy disaster. In fact, without that, the great German offensives would probably have succeeded. What was a disaster was the Treaty of Versailles. The French wanted their pounds of flesh, the Brits were not in a conciliatory mood, and Wilson was outnumbered and outgunned.

Dave

[Woody]

Quote:

On that I can agree. The war has not been ran well. Our reasons for invading were noble but we have not executed the war well.

Most times "wars" are not run very well. War is a difficult business. Can you name wars on the scope of Iraq that were run better? Actually the war to conquer Iraq was perhaps the most efficient war ever. It is the keeping the peace and nation building that is most difficult and in the case of Iraq perhaps impossible.

I will point out perhaps one of the worst wars fought. Afghanistan was a disaster. We had victory in sight with the major player like BinLaden surrounded in Kandahar. And what did we do ... ??? We told them all to leave and scatter so that we could hunt them down. That was terrible.

But, Iraq was one of the greatest millitary victories ever. It was run with efficiency like none before it. If Bush made an error it was in not seeing that Iraq would fall into a civil war where there is no way of winning. If Bush had had the insight to block all the borders so the terrorists could not enter the country and cause trouble ... then the country MIGHT have had a chance. But now with Iran sending in terrorists and weapons ... it is very difficult.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not sure the US wouldn't have been better off if Germany had succeeded. We were to be neutral in the war. President Wilson loaded up a passenger ship with arms for Brittian and then when the Germans sink it he told the American people it was an unprovoked attack! It is a good thing he died in office before the American people learned the truth. Of course he passed laws which then suspended freedom of speech so his little secret could not get out even if the press did discover it.

I would say loading up a passenger ship with arms when we are suppose to be a neutral country was even a bigger blunder the Treaty of Versailles.

[bevin]

Yes, the First World War was a really a piece of European stupidity that the USA, Australia, and New Zealand should have kept out of.

[David Koot]

Yes, the First World War was a really a piece of European stupidity that the USA, Australia, and New Zealand should have kept out of.

As should Germany, Russia, France and England. But . . . Francis Ferdinand received Willy's assurance of support, the Serbs received Nicky's assurance of support, and so on till all the dominoes tumbled down. Madness! Twould have been far better had they left Austria to deal with Serbia on her own.

Is that the case here? Should W have left things alone? I am reminded of two old sayings: hindsight is 20/20, and, to quote one Santayana, 'Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it."

Dave

[lazarus]

Quote:

But, Iraq was one of the greatest millitary victories ever. It was run with efficiency like none before it. If Bush made an error it was in not seeing that Iraq would fall into a civil war where there is no way of winning. If Bush had had the insight to block all the borders so the terrorists could not enter the country and cause trouble ... then the country MIGHT have had a chance. But now with Iran sending in terrorists and weapons ... it is very difficult.

what is happening in Iraq was not a complete surprise to the Bush Admin. There were many voices who gave warnings. Bush's own father indicated the danger of entering Bhagdad.

Bush listens to the likes of Bill Kristol who has been consistantly wrong about Iraq. That's why we are in this mess.

[there buster]

Quote:

what is happening in Iraq was not a complete surprise to the Bush Admin. There were many voices who gave warnings. Bush's own father indicated the danger of entering Bhagdad.

Yes, they said, "There's be 5000 body bags out of Baghdad alone."

Oh, wait. They were wrong!

[bevin]

Yes, they were wrong because they believed that the Iraqi's would do a traditional stand-up-and-fight defense.

The Iraqi's were smarter than that

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The majority of Iraqis welcomed the US soldiers with open arms. I will never forget the images of them pulling down the Saddam statute.

Problem was that we lost the propaganda war that followed and many of the Iraqis that had welcomed us have since changed their mind.

[bevin]

We did not "loose the propaganda war" - we lost the hearts and minds of the people by being thoroughly inadequate at the whole stabilize-and-rebuild phase.

Of course, we had been told by experts that this phase was difficult to the point of being impossible - but it didn't help that Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush were also totally incompetent.

Let us look at the actions

(a) They destroyed the working government - unlike what had happened in Germany at the end of WW-II

( Having fired all the military command, we failed to defend the arms depots - so these fired military left and took their weapons with them

© We failed to restore electricity, fuel, garbage collection, ...

(d) We failed to protect national treasures - huge looting resulted

(e) We backed loosing factions in the politics

(f) ...

/Bevin