GOP Hopefuls Fault Bush on Iraq, Style
I do agree with much of the criticism of President Bush on spending,Iraq, immigration and in competency. Yet for Lawmakers like McCain, Brownback, Clinton and Edwards to all blame President Bush and not even read the National Intelligence Estimate, report which warned about all the problems and vote for the war is hypocritical! Also the same lawmakers keep blaming the war on bad intelligence when the CIA had it right while they did not even study the report!
I still cannot believe anyone would vote for Rudy after last night he made it clear that the cornerstone of our foreign policy is “NATION BUILDING”. Does anyone agree with Rudy on “NATION BUILDING”? Also could you vote for a candidate that sent soldiers to war without reading the INTELLIGENCE REPORT?
BTW Ron Paul was my hero for pointing out that “the strategy of preemptive war is our biggest moral dilemma” If lawmakers read the INTELLIGENCE REPORT they would understand the issue!
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) – President Bush drew sporadic, startling criticism Tuesday night from Republican White House hopefuls unhappy with his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.
“I would certainly not send him to the United Nations” to represent the United States, said Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and one-time member of Bush’s Cabinet, midway through a spirited campaign debate.
Arizona Sen. John McCain criticized the administration for its handling of the Iraq War, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein.”
Rudy and McCain dominated the debate with Fred Thompson a close third (his interview with Sean Hannity provides the basis for this ranking). Ron Paul saying Iran is no threat reiterates the fact that he does not have a clue about foreign policy or the threat terrorism poses over the next few decades. And Tancredo calling on suspension of ALL immigration casts him as a pure Buchananite protectionist with undertones of xenophobia.
Define preemptive war John. Iraq was a response war after over 12 years of BS with Saddam refusing to adhere to treaties signed at the end of the first gulf war. He needed to be taken out and it fell upon the last remaining world super power to accomplish the task.
Under this circumstance, recovery had to be addressed. Rudy was right; sometimes we must be involved in setting up a government after removing a long term dictator. It is not easy, inexpensive or a short term endeavor, but circumstances dictate policy on occasion.
Bart,
Under your foreign policy we should attack anyone who violates UN treaties and is a possible threat?
That would be a long list!!!!!!!!
North Korea, China, Syria, Iran…….
I do give you NEOCONS credit for being honest about your agenda of “NATION BUILDING”.
But please do not tell me that is a conservative plank!
No John, not everyone. But if a country announces its intent to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and kill all infidels (Americans), then response is required.
You with RuPaul as your hero would ignore the inevitable until you see on CNN that we have been directly attacked.
Call me a neocon, paleocon, psuedocon, whatever, but I consider myself to be an American who addresses known threats before they become actual death causing incidents.
Bart
The reality is the leader of Iran is very unpopular. And if we attacked every Country based a statements like that we would of never won the cold war!
Bart
Could you vote for a candidate that sent soldiers to war without reading the INTELLIGENCE REPORT?
John, what if Iran attacks Israel, our ally, with less than nuclear (funding terrorist attacks with non-nuclear rockets) and it can be proved.
Or, what if he is determined to be mounting nuclear warheads on the missiles he has? Would you authorize a preemptive strike.
This is my big hang up with Ron Paul. Not that we are where we are because of bad foreign policy for decades, but that we are here and have to deal with now.
That said, in another thread, I mentioned that Russia and China both have deals with Iran. They hold massive amounts of our dollars and have the power to collapse the dollar and money they lose collapsing it might be less than what they would lose in military operations or supporting Iran.
Russia, actually would be in better shape than China since China needs oil and the high price after an Iranian preemptive strike would hurt China but Russia would have billions flowing in as their oil supplies would be intact. And, if they had switched to the euro, wouldn’t nearly suffer as much as China might.
There are other ways that could play out that would also hurt Russia more, but, all scenarios have to be prepared for before we do a preemptive strike.
Also, if the U.N. didn’t authorize it, should we strike and risk sanctions?
This isn’t as much about what we should do given the current state of affairs and Ahmadinejad’s open threats Israel will be destroyed, but what our nation can do and still survive as an economic power.
Standing on principle and by our allies may cause us to collapse and have to rebuild our economy and power. I think we can do that. But, what will the voters do if they believe standing on principle caused it? Do the majority of voters believe in principled stands against nations like Iran?
Iran isn’t a threat against us militarily any more than al-Qaeda. They both could use terrorism and dirty bombs whether we knock out their nuclear facilities or not. But, they are a threat to stability in the Middle-East and Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia and other Middle-East nations.
Their Persian background means they have no real love for any Arab nation. This issue wouldn’t be nearly so complex if we were strong economically and didn’t owe so much to Russia, China and OPEC.
Quote: (From the Gov. Accounting Office)
…the federal government’s current fiscal policy is unsustainable. Continuing on this imprudent and unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our domestic tranquility and national security.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07362sp.pdf
===================
“Sudden damage to our standard of living and national security.” Not something to be taken lightly.
Sounds to me like no matter what we do, strike or not strike, bad things are coming sooner or later.
Jan,
Yes I would attack. With that said we are playing into their hands. Our policy now is shoot first and ask question latter. Also not to take in consideration civilian causalities and culture clashes in our foreign policy is short sided. BTW if lawmakers read the NEI report and talk to the CIA that is what they said!
John read this story and then decide if Turkey would not exterminate the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq if we pull out.Turkey would finish what Saddam started.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19070463/
John said: With that said we are playing into their hands.
============================
That is what I am afraid is the case. No matter which way we go, we are in deep trouble.
In a newsletter today, I read how the Fed is no longer in a position to control both the economic growth and inflation. A move in either direction will hurt one or the other.
Quote:
The Fed is unable to defend our dollar against the rising interest rates of other nations. If Bernanke and the Fed raise rates, the U.S. economy moves quickly into recession.
The bond markets appear to be indicating a 40 percent chance of a Fed rate increase in June, up from zero percent in the last quarter of 2006. Perhaps the markets recognize the Fed will have to raise rates to keep the dollar from collapsing.
Financial Intelligence with John Browne – email alert.
The site with past alerts is here
http://www.newsmax.com/money/topics/john_browne.cfm
==============================
Only Congress can fix this mess and then even if a President vetoed their work, they could override it but, that can’t be done with a split Congress nor a socialist one.
If the Kurds are attacking the Turkey military, aren’t they justified in retaliating?
This is the trouble in trying to do good things in an area, where thousand year old hate still drives lives down to the lowest level in a nation. Children are raised to hate and that dieing is good when it happens while killing your ancient enemy. Parents grieve just like any other parent and yet, speak with pride at the number of people their child killed while dieing in some of these cultures of war.
How do you build a nation that only wants it so they have the power to destroy another group of people. Dubai is the best example of how to change things but it is happening from within through a totalitarian leader who is the total opposite of Saddam.
Is democracy or even a republic feasible if there is no desire for peace among the members of that democracy or republic? The majority do want peace, don’t get me wrong. But, without a government that will take the harsh measures to protect the people, the minority who don’t want peace rise constantly to destroy the chance for peace.
If the U.S. takes those steps to ensure peace, they are then viewed as oppressors, tyrants, and empire builders. Should we have seen this going in, after we overthrew Saddam? Should we have just pulled out and offered monetary and technical support if they sold their oil in dollars like the agreement we have with other OPEC nation?
How could we have known? Is the history of the area revealing enough to have had that kind of foresight? Would we have been criticized for abandoning the new government or for not creating a new government? Does a nation have an obligation to rebuild a nation it defeats that committed violations of a cease fire?
John asked: “Could you vote for a candidate that sent soldiers to war without reading the INTELLIGENCE REPORT?”
It would seem appropriate for elected officials if they have access to read the report, but it is not the only documentation to be considered prior to a major decision like war. According to McCain who I trust has as much interest as anybody with regard to putting troops in harms way, he read numerous reports before voting. Based on my reading of the NIE, it would have supported the cause to immediately attack Saddam.
Bart
You know more than experts from the CIA?
BART
The NEW NEI REPORT!
AFTER THE FIRST ONE WARNED US THIS WOULD HAPPEN! WHAT PART OF THIS WRONG?
FROM WASHINTON POST
The U.S. intelligence community yesterday released a starkly pessimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq, warning that even if security improves, deepening sectarian divisions threaten to destroy the government and ultimately could lead to anarchy, partition or the emergence of a new dictatorship.
Citing “the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene,” declassified judgments of a new National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iraqi leaders will be “hard pressed” to reconcile over the next 18 months.
BTW BART YOU CAN PULL UP THE PDF TO READ THE LETTER FROM THE CIA!
CNN-In a letter written
Saturday to former CIA Director George Tenet, six former CIA officers described their former boss as “the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community,” and called his book “an admission of failed leadership.”
The writers said Tenet has “a moral obligation” to return the Medal of Freedom he received from President Bush.
The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration’s buildup to the war. (Read the full letter)
Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. McGovern is a former CIA analyst.
Cannistraro is former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism division and was head of intelligence for the National Security Council in the late 1980s.
The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war “for flimsy reasons,” and that it has proved “ill-advised and wrong-headed.”
The writers accused Tenet of having helped send “very mixed signals” to Americans and their legislators prior to the war.
“CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq.
“This intelligence was ignored and later misused.”
The letter said CIA officers learned later that month Iraq had no contact with Osama bin Laden and that then-President Saddam Hussein considered the al Qaeda leader to be an enemy. Still, Tenet “went before
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/former-cia-agents-rip-bush-cheney-tenet-on-iraq
John
The only problem I have with this it that it was the smoke screen for the real reasons we resumed the war. I imagine some in Congress that voted for the authorization knew this was a smoke screen and were told there were other, very good reasons and supported it. Maybe they just took somebody’s word there were other “good reason” or maybe they actually knew but, I doubt they believed that WMD was the reason. But, having used WMD as their own justification, they now just have to say “we were lied to.” Maybe that is why they never bothered to read the full report. They didn’t care what it said because they had other reasons for support it.
How many of those that voted for it were coached by party leaders in both parties to do so?
I could very easily be wrong that it was the declining dollar that Saddam caused by selling oil in euros but, there was a belief by many that there was a very good reason we resumed the war, but, we will probably never know what it was or who exactly thought it was a good reason that had the ear of the President and members of Congress.
Jan
We need leadership in congress with courage!
We need voters that will elect leaders instead of Congressmen who are tied to special interests or voters in some districts who only ask what Congress will give them. Campaigns are now run on “what I will do for you” instead of what I will do for the nation.
I am going to attempt to post good news out of Iraq…I know this goes against the control congress doom and gloom philosophy, but let’s give it a try anyway:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/petraeus.iraq/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — A new approach by American-led forces in Iraq is producing “breathtaking” improvements in security in some areas, says Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the country, but al Qaeda in Iraq remains well-entrenched in some Baghdad neighborhoods.
The majority of people in Iraq want peace. This can be won. The socialists started undermining this from the get-go and some of us told the GOP they would. We warned the GOP as soon as the first “questions” by the dems started after the new government was formed and terrorist acts started to osculate that if the GOP didn’t take steps they would move from questions, to doubt, to attacks on the war in Iraq and yet, the GOP did nothing to stop it from being effective. This was the same game plan they used during Vietnam and we told the GOP it would work again if not nipped in the bud and yet, they did nothing to stop it.
However, I do believe the biggest problem in Vietnam and in Iraq is that we listen too much to the U.N. and the “we have to be careful” crowd and don’t turn our military lose to do the job it can do.
Every “forceful action” was critiqued by “innocent people died” when there wasn’t even any evidence sometimes the people killed were innocent. You can’t have a “war” where there aren’t innocent people killed and still protect the soldiers own lives. It is too late when somebody runs at you if they have a bomb strapped to themselves, once you wait to “make sure.” When somebody doesn’t vacate an area that they warn is going to be attacked or don’t stop when ordered, they may be innocent but, delaying to see if the are means your own soldiers lives are at risk.
We need good news if we are going to make this less of an issue by 2008. We have to get tough with securing the borders of Iraq and if that means we kill some Iranians or Syrians bringing weapons or funds into Iraq, so be it.
Again, I disagree with those who say pull out. What was done in the past may have been bad policy but we have to deal with the fact that leaving will make things worse and even more unstable in the Middle East and could even invite more attacks here, on what will be viewed as a “weak nation.”
We are making changes in strategy and yet, I know that what the majority believe doesn’t support staying. I am so mad with this President on so many things, including how this war was fought or rather limited for the U.N. and others to be viewed as “fair.” But, his staying the course, making changes in how the war is fought is the right thing. Will his choices be the right ones? Is it too late? I don’t know but we have to try.
I think, or rather hope, that we HAVE reached a point where Iraq’s forces are ready to start taking over more of the fight. As this surge of U.S. forces, clears the way, they should be able to move in and maintain the ground gained.
There is a possibility this can still work.