Cheney Response on the War.

[Arc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoey This fast one...Theft of the Presidency Day 369 (4): Gore Wins, Media Lies (Yet Again) You don't believe that I actually believe my own post. What? That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course, I believe my own post. What has 9/11 or Hussein got to do with why Bush really invaded Iraq. Nothing whatsoever. It's about oil and money. Let's not forget how much Haliburton makes off this invasion/occupation and the Cheney's connection to Haliburton. Not to mention Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family. Hussein was no real threat to the world. He was controllable and in fact had been controlled for quite some time. This isn't about Hussein. The general world consensus was that they didn't want the US to invade Iraq, so I don't believe that the world conensus was that Hussein was a threat to the world. The world seems far more outraged about Bush and his war.

Zoey - you got to do better than a left wing article from Democrats.com. I may be reading this wrong but if part of the premise is that the there was a media bias - in favor of Bush - in 2000, then the author loses credibility out of the shoot.
Try something that just may be a little more comprehensive (CNN.com In-Depth Specials).


Didn't mean to offend you on the (don't believe your own post thing). My point is that it just isn't that simple. At any given time (and especially after 9/11) there are a lot of complicated matters facing the president. To imply that - in the midst of the chaos - that the backroom decision-making boiled down to "hey how can we make more money for our friends." is ridiculous. My guess - and it's just a guess - is that any President has available more information on world affairs than you and I can get our hands on. As such we have no choice but to trust that they will do the right thing (doesn't mean we will always agree) - and that is why I believe that personal character and integrity is so important in the President.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground.

When the treaty signed stated you will do x, y, and z and in exchange we will stop pummeling you, then it is exactly a justified reason to put boots on the ground when you don't do x, y, or z. In this case Hussein did not do x, y, and most of z. Iraq lost the war they said they would comply with the terms they signed to in order to have us stop beating them, and if I recall correctly their terms were rather simple, "If you stop beating us we will do what you want." They violated that agreement from the start, so what do you do? You go back to the status quo before the treaty was signed and resume the beating. Diplomacy was tried for 12 years without success, further diplomacy would not have done anything.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire When the treaty signed stated you will do x, y, and z and in exchange we will stop pummeling you, then it is exactly a justified reason to put boots on the ground when you don't do x, y, or z. In this case Hussein did not do x, y, and most of z. Iraq lost the war they said they would comply with the terms they signed to in order to have us stop beating them, and if I recall correctly their terms were rather simple, "If you stop beating us we will do what you want." They violated that agreement from the start, so what do you do? You go back to the status quo before the treaty was signed and resume the beating. Diplomacy was tried for 12 years without success, further diplomacy would not have done anything.

It is not a matter of what we might be able to do or think we have the right to do. It is about what makes sense. Does it seem to make sense now?

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Does it seem to make sense now?

It doesn't matter if it makes sense now, unless you have a time machine. All one can do it take decisions based on the knowledge at hand. The knowledge at hand was, Hussein failed to voluntarily abide by the treaty he signed begging us to stop beating him. The executive office, back to and including Reagan "knew" Hussein had WMD. Hussein failed to abide by the treaty he signed after extensive negotiations granting him certain reprieves from some sanctions included in the treaty (oil for food ring any bells). With that knowledge what was the likely future events if we did exactly what France wanted us to do? Hussein would most likely continue to buck the international community and be an even more destabilizing influence in the area. The war would go down as a victory for Iraq and, embolden, he would be back in Kuwait, as soon as we left, because the only hurt he received was during the two months of war 15 years ago. He was hurt more during the Iran-Iraq war and they were best buddies before the end of our beating of them in 1991.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire It doesn't matter if it makes sense now, unless you have a time machine. All one can do it take decisions based on the knowledge at hand. The knowledge at hand was, Hussein failed to voluntarily abide by the treaty he signed begging us to stop beating him. The executive office, back to and including Reagan "knew" Hussein had WMD. Hussein failed to abide by the treaty he signed after extensive negotiations granting him certain reprieves from some sanctions included in the treaty (oil for food ring any bells). With that knowledge what was the likely future events if we did exactly what France wanted us to do? Hussein would most likely continue to buck the international community and be an even more destabilizing influence in the area. The war would go down as a victory for Iraq and, embolden, he would be back in Kuwait, as soon as we left, because the only hurt he received was during the two months of war 15 years ago. He was hurt more during the Iran-Iraq war and they were best buddies before the end of our beating of them in 1991.

Yes Hussein was an @$$h0l3. He was defiant. And yes we backed him because of Iran. He was the Reagan administration's bully in the region.

Yes it does matter. GWB pushed a bad decision. Of course we have the benefit of hind sight.

He does not win a prize or even get a sympathetic pass for making a wrong decision of this magnitude.

Of course, if you believe it was the right move... we can agree to disagree.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet With all respect, I don't think that is true, although it might be hard to define "public opinion" since I don't think they were doing many polls then. If there had been polls run as we run them today, I think we'd learn that people supported the abolition of slavery, the continuation of the Union and the well being of the troops, but they were against the war. Can you point me to anything supporting your contention? Especially "at every point of the War."

I'll dust off my old copy of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which I believe is one of the most incisive historical accounts of the Civil War, to see if it supports my view. But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery? There was, quite obviously, disenchantment and perhaps even major disapproval over the War effort, but I don't think there was ever majority public opinion disapproval over continuing the War. We didn't have public opinion polls back then, but Lincoln did have his pulse on public opinion during the War effort in the only way back then by reading the newspaper editorials and meeting with citizens at the White House.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery?

That is an easy one to answer. See any of the sociological research that shows people will express diametrically opposed and totally inconsistent opinions, depending on how the poll questions are phrased. It is called "framing", and it is probably one of the most powerful ideas to come along in social science in the last 50 years. Of course, it was well understand by practical people-- artists, politicians, skillful parents and others long before this.

Ha

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Bush had the intel and appoints (or maintains) the people who head up the agencies that produces the intel. They put spin on it. And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground. Let's assume that they did not lie about it. Perhaps they were so eager to settle an old score they were not objective. Not good considering what was at stake.

Lets be fair, there was no substaintive difference between the Clinton and Bush 43 adminstration about the threats Saddam posed.

George Tenet was first appointed to the head CIA by President Clinton, not Bush.

If you go back to the justification that President Clinton used for Operation Desert Fox it was the same thing as Bush 43 used for Iraqi Freedom; Developing WMD, violating UN resolutions, supporting terrorism, and being a murderous dictator. You even had Senator John Kerry, sound more hawkish than John McCain in urging US ground troops to be used to get rid of Saddam around the same time as Clinton was bombing the crap out of Baghdad.

Is Bush 43 guilty of exaggerating the threat in order to sell the war? probably yes. But if he was settling old scores, it wasn't his Dads old scores he was trying to settle, it was the country's old score. Bush 41 did not lose the election because of unfinished business in Iraq. Bush 41s handling of the first Gulf War was his crowning achievement for most people. Come on a failed assaination attempt on his dad is reason to try to continue to kill Saddam not invade the country.

Quote:

As it turns out we got rid of one secular @$$h0!3 and will replace him with either another secular @ssh0!3 or a fundamentalist one.

Before Saddam went to his well deserved death he was responsible for more violent deaths than anybody walking the planet. Your spinning worse than the Bush adminstration when you suggest that Saddam was just another @assho!3. Even if the ultimate ruler of Iraq is Ahmadinejad he will be an improvement (albeit a small one) over Saddam for the people of Iraq.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC I'll dust off my old copy of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which I believe is one of the most incisive historical accounts of the Civil War, to see if it supports my view. But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery? .

Ha Ha has it exactly right.

We can see it today in many public opinion polls

Example
Do you support increase federal spending for developing alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 80% YES

Do you support a $1/gallon tax increase on gasoline with money being used to develop alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 70% No

In the abstract of course most Northerns supported preserving the Union and abolishing (or at least containing) slavery.

If you asked them is preserving the Union and abolishing slavery worth taking ~10,000 killed and wounded in battle after battle the answer changes dramatically.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Ha Ha has it exactly right. We can see it today in many public opinion polls Example Do you support increase federal spending for developing alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 80% YES Do you support a $1/gallon tax increase on gasoline with money being used to develop alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 70% No In the abstract of course most Northerns supported preserving the Union and abolishing (or at least containing) slavery. If you asked them is preserving the Union and abolishing slavery worth taking ~10,000 killed and wounded in battle after battle the answer changes dramatically.

Well, no one really questions that "framing" a question a certain way will yield answers a certain way. Of course, we see this with polling of racial issues where the manner in which you frame an affirmative action or racial preference or scoring proposition affects the answer you get from the public. But the "framing" here is not that complicated: do you support the withdrawal of the Union troops from the South (which was the original point you made about popular opinion being contrary to Lincoln continuing the War) or the withdrawal of the American troops in Iraq, that's a simple question where I believe the "evidence" would suggest that for Lincoln he had a majority of the nation behind him to continue the War whereas for Bush he does not appear to have a majority of the population to continue the War.

I'm not suggesting that public opinion should always dictate foreign policy; however, I do believe that in matters of War, if public opinion is not followed, then there should be strong, compelling reasons to continue a War, especially a War waged initially as a so-called "preemptive war." Whether you support the troops or approve of current military tactics or strategy has, in my mind, nothing to do with the basic question of whether we should continue this War. So, if you frame the issues as support for the troops or the surge, I do think this is irrelevant to the polling issue of whether the War should be continued, an issue the President should periodically question in light of public opinion on that score.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC . . .But the "framing" here is not that complicated: . . . . do you support the . . . withdrawal of the American troops in Iraq.

I would stipulate that the proposed question is likely not phrased correctly. Virtually everybody in the US favors withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. We differ in terms of when we believe such a withdrawal should occur:
- - on a calendar-driven timetable or
- - when it appears prudent based on the situation in Iraq

Similarly, if the question is "Do you oppose the war in Iraq?" I would have to know what the proposed alternative is. Every thinking person opposes war in the abstract, but in the real world it is often preferable to the alternative.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem IEvery thinking person opposes war in the abstract, but in the real world it is often preferable to the alternative.

If Iraq was not attacked by the US - what was the terrible thing that would have happened to the US - the worse alternative? it wasn't like the cold war when russia had weapons that were pointing at us.

I guess that was where the fear campaign came in - with colin powell going to the UN with those vials of powdered sugar and diagrams of mobile weapons trucks?

The danger is that when we are so ready to use War - versus pursue alternatives - when we were wrong (as we were with Iraq) human lives and billions in infrastructure was/is lost (both bombed in Iraq and dilapidated in the US cuz we have no more money).

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC;632939. But the "framing" here is not that complicated: do you support the withdrawal of the Union troops from the South (which was the original point you made about popular opinion being contrary to Lincoln continuing the War) or the withdrawal of the American troops in Iraq, that's a simple question where I believe the "evidence" would suggest that for Lincoln he had a majority of the nation behind him to continue the War whereas for Bush he does not appear to have a majority of the population to continue the War.

Very nicely explained, but I disagree with you about the evidence.
I doubt there is conclusive evidence either way, but to me the election 1862 suggested the Peace Democrats i.e. Copperheads were near a majority in 1862 and 1863. Especially when you couple that with Lincoln being such an unpopular President until after his death.

Have you read Team of Rivals, by Doris Goodwin? It is all about Lincoln as political genius. I have to confess I started reading but stopped after 100 odd pages into the 800 page book, it is supposed to be the best description of the politics of the civil war. One of these days I'll finish it, if you've read it I'd be interested in your opinion..

The Peace Democrats platform of 1864 was strongly in favor of immediate negotiations with the South. "The Democrats, were energized by what they saw as the morass of a stagnant Union war effort: death, debt, and destruction with no end in sight" None other than the editor of the NY Times Horace Greeley wrote an open letter to Lincoln urge peace negotiations with the South.
Given the parallels am I really stretching that much in my comparison?
Lincoln was ruthless about shutting down the the worst of the Copperhead newspaper and even in some case tossing the editors and leaders in prison.. (And people think the Patriot Act is bad...)
In 1864, McClellan got 45% of the vote despite a lousy record as a general, a string of recent Union victories, and running against a political genius and gifted orator by the name of Abe Lincoln.

So you can read this as Northerner's were strongly supportive of staying the course. Or you can interpret the results as do, which is if Grant, and Sherman didn't come along and starting winning, Lincoln was toast in 1864, cause the average American didn't believe that abstract causes like the Union, and abolishing slavery were worth the butcher bill.

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that public opinion should always dictate foreign policy; however, I do believe that in matters of War, if public opinion is not followed, then there should be strong, compelling reasons to continue a War, especially a War waged initially as a so-called "preemptive war." Whether you support the troops or approve of current military tactics or strategy has, in my mind, nothing to do with the basic question of whether we should continue this War. So, if you frame the issues as support for the troops or the surge, I do think this is irrelevant to the polling issue of whether the War should be continued, an issue the President should periodically question in light of public opinion on that score.

I agree with you. I think we'd agree that with the benefit hindsight preserving the Union and abolishing the hideous evil of slavery was worth 620,000 dead out of 32 million Americans. Clearly Lincoln saw a compelling case to continue the war and his perseverance is now deified. However, as far as public opinion goes at a best case Northern's were fairly evenly divided about the wisdom of continuing the war and if you included Southerns the country vehemently opposed Lincoln. Now the reasons for continuing the war in Iraq don't raise to that of the Civil War, but thankfully neither do the costs. Frankly, I don't think the average Americans are particualarly good at balancing long range gain vs short term pain. American Presidents are typically wiser.

[Wags]

In Dick Cheney's case the response SO seems to be appropriate because it is coming from a man that when he had a chance to go serve and fight in the Vietnam War - he wined for and got mulitiple deferrments.

Just like Old George W - Cheney is quick to send our sons and daughters to go fight, to die and to be wounded but when the opportunity presented itself neither one of this so called men stepped up to the plate.

With that being said here is the GREAT Kenny Rogers and the First Edition

YouTube - Kenny Rogers and the First Edition - Ruby

GOD BLESS US ALL

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Lets be fair, there was no substaintive difference between the Clinton and Bush 43 adminstration about the threats Saddam posed. George Tenet was first appointed to the head CIA by President Clinton, not Bush.

Bush could have dumped Tenet... not much different keeping him than appointing him.

Look. All of the comparisons with Dems in the world does not change one fact. Bush pushed hard to invade and he was wrong. Even Colin Powell admits it. Powell views it as a blot on his career (as stated in an interview).

Bush was overzealous and made a bad decision. It has already come out that he would not listen to people that had points of view that did not conform to his desire to invade.

So... It is fair. He is getting the credit he deserves - and it is very negative.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Have you read Team of Rivals, by Doris Goodwin? It is all about Lincoln as political genius. I have to confess I started reading but stopped after 100 odd pages into the 800 page book, it is supposed to be the best description of the politics of the civil war. One of these days I'll finish it, if you've read it I'd be interested in your opinion..

No, I haven't read Goodwin's book on this score. I'll add it to my long list of Civil War/Reconstruction books that I plan to read in retirement. You raise some good points about public opinion regarding the Civil War; and your interpretation is not a far stretch; after all, the invasion by Lee into Pennsylvania in 1863 might have been premised on the idea that bringing the War on "Northern soil," if coupled with a Confederate battlefield victory, might have turned most public opinion against Lincoln and continuation of the War effort.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Jarhead*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Bush could have dumped Tenet... not much different keeping him than appointing him. Look. All of the comparisons with Dems in the world does not change one fact. Bush pushed hard to invade and he was wrong. Even Colin Powell admits it. Powell views it as a blot on his career (as stated in an interview). Bush was overzealous and made a bad decision. It has already come out that he would not listen to people that had points of view that did not conform to his desire to invade. So... It is fair. He is getting the credit he deserves - and it is very negative.

No doubt about it, you are a world class "armchair quarterback".

I'm sure that your employer, who is providing you with a handsome income would be thrilled to know that you spend a helluva lot of their time posting on an internet board in an effort to solve the worlds problems.

But my guess is that they would be even happier for you to spend a little more time solving the problelms that you can truly make a difference with from their point of view.

Get to work! (You'll feel better about yourself, and who knows, you may be in a postion to make a real difference).

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhead* No doubt about it, you are a world class "armchair quarterback". I'm sure that your employer, who is providing you with a handsome income would be thrilled to know that you spend a helluva lot of their time posting on an internet board in an effort to solve the worlds problems. But my guess is that they would be even happier for you to spend a little more time solving the problelms that you can truly make a difference with from their point of view. Get to work! (You'll feel better about yourself, and who knows, you may be in a postion to make a real difference).

ROTFLMAO...........

[Notmuchlonger]

Did someone post that Saddam was only an asshole? Geez gas and torture you own people only gets you an asshole label. Getting soft.

[Rustic23]

Chinaco
You and I must be reading about a different Colin Powell.

GQ ICON: COLIN POWELL: GQ Features on men.style.com