Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I couldn’t disagree more, Stephen. Tenet forgot who he works for. He fell prey to the mistaken notion that many presidential appointees succumb to, the notion that they work for the President. They don’t. They work for the American people and to the American people they are responsible.

Tenet had a choice, he could press the President and his cabinet to respond to the needs of the people dictated by the intel, or, he can yield to the administration’s wish to cherry pick intel in support of an independent strategy and set of goals having little relationship to intel. Tenet chose the latter route, unlike a number of others who, instead of succumbing to White House pressure chose to resign rather than fail to respond appropriately to America’s need for responsible action.

Tenet stated both before and after the invasion that he did not believe Iraq posed an imminent threat. Yet, he chose to keep his job rather than do whatever was in his power to bring the false premises of the Iraq invasion to light and defend the lives lost by American troops in Iraq. He forgot that he works for those troops and the public at large as much or more than he works for the President. He swore to uphold and DEFEND the Constitution of the U.S. Allowing our nation to go to war based on the President’s premises he believed were false and which he heard the President deliver to both Congress and the American people, is nothing short of a breach of his sworn duty to the Constitution and the people of America including our troops.

P.S. We agree on many things, Stephen, this was a rare opportunity to engage you in debate on some real differences of perspective.

I’m with David here. As fine as Tenet may have been, and as much as his influence may have tempered the neocons from launching an outright classic medieval Crusade (only this time with tactical nukes!), he still ultimately “sold his soul” so to speak and helped the Administration perpetuate the series of lies that brought us to war. I often wonder how he and Colin Powell are able to sleep at night (the rest of the lot probably sleep quite soundly).

But his soul can still be saved! It is my hope (and the righties on this list will no doubt excoriate me as partisan scum for saying so) that Mr. Tenet joins with almost every other Bush Administration refugee and starts singing like a canary. Hopefully, for the sake of America’s future, he’s already finished his book.

-Cf

I suppose I have to say that Tenet kept good faith with the American people where many other administration figures have not. He seems to me to be one of the few people in this administration who actually were out there looking at the evidence. His mistake could be described as one of not wanting to rule anything out, rather than ruling too much of everything else out. He, like many, did not want to be the person to rule out the evidence that would put them in front of the next big terrorist attack.

Intelligence is not a game of certainties. it is a game of working theories, with limited information. While it seems more than obvious to me that this administration actively sought war with reckless disregard for the facts, that’s not the impression I get from what Clarke or Woodward say about him. He was the one on the ball about the terrorists when the rest of the administration (Pentagon included) was screwing around. He was the one who came up with a relatively good case that Bush and his people felt it necessary to improve upon. Tenet was confident about his case, I believe, but the Bush administration wasn’t looking for a solid basis in solid intelligence. They were willing to go for any piece of raw intelligence that backed them up.

That’s the crucial difference in my book.

David: “Tenet stated both before and after the invasion that he did not believe Iraq posed an imminent threat.” Yep, just like everybody else in the administration. Once again, the administration’s position was that the Iraq war was to prevent an immiment threat from arising—at which point action would be too late.

Disagree with the idea of preemptive war if you like—that’s your right—but you have to choose your gripe and can’t have it both ways. If the threat was “immiment,” meaning 100 percent certain and immediatly about to occur, then the war was not premeptive but defensive. This “imminent threat” straw-man you guys love goring is looking more than a little ragged. But arguing against nonexistent positions is what’s neccessary to throw mud at Bush I suppose.

Christopher: “His influence may have tempered the neocons from launching an outright classic medieval Crusade.” Another over-the-top smear. A medieval Crusade? Come on.

This echo chamber of opinion you have going on here, which holds that Tenet—responsible for the accuracy of intelligence to a greater extent than ANYBODY else in the administration—must be a good guy led astray is fairly outrageous.

You’re sure Rumsfeld is guilty of all manner of acts committed by underlings many tiers below him, but Tenet? Not responsible, apparently, for even his own actions. Could it just be that he was a Democratic appointee, and therefore automatically on the side of the angels?

The fact is that Tenet did his job—to supply and interpret the best intelligence available. It’s the same evidence he gave Clinton. The same he gave Congress. When Bush had reservations about the intelligence, Tenet told him Iraqi WMD’s were a “slam dunk.” You want to believe he was wrong about that—I’m not convinced he was. But he WAS doing his job on behalf of the American people, just like the President is doing.

What he hasn’t done, what he still isn’t doing—much to your dissaproval I gather—is the duty you think he owes George Soros, Michael Moore, the Kerry campaign and the entire I-hate-Bush-and-don’t-what-the-facts-are-anymore crowd.

“Once again, the administration’s position was that the Iraq war was to prevent an immiment threat from arising”

Actually, there are whole reams of quotes where they call it an imminent threat - literally hundreds of quotes in which they mislead the American people about the intelligence they had concerning Iraq’s level of threat to the nation. Someone has compiled a handy list somewhere… lemme see, a congressman, I think? I can find it if you’re interested.

As for Tenet - he definitely deserved the firing he got. But what is the direct response to the points raised in the original post - not the subsequent comments - that Tenet wasn’t the direct cause of the majority of the failures this Administration has had to deal with. He can’t be the scapegoat for everything, right?

It’s not clear, Gaelen, that he was fired. Possibly, but Bush seems to have been taken by surprise. Tenet actually served far longer in that post than most of his predecessors.

Gealen, there are whole “reams of quotes” lifted out of context that talk about Iraq being a threat—but the word “imminent” was never used. I’ve been showed many so-called smoking guns which have all turned out to be blown smoke. I think there might have been one time—by Wolfowitz I think, in a single interview—but the repeated, often repeated, official line of the administration was that the threat must not be allowed to BECOME imminent. I do hope that you’ll look at those supposed reams again and reavaluate your position to bring it closer to the truth. And that once you have that Eureka moment, realizing the error of your ways, you’ll join me if voting for Bush in November. :)

Martin, first you should learn to distinguish between hyperbole and misleading exaggeration. I mean, of course the Crusade wouldn’t be medeival. Not with tactical nukes it wouldn’t.

Second, I don’t think Tenet is a great guy. It’s just that he was almost only the one in the whole administration who’d ever been quoted as saying anything at all which indicated that there might have been doubts about some of our Iraq intelligence. Every other member of the Administration somehow never rasied, expressed, asked about, or cared about the possibility of doubt. Somehow Tenet and Powell managed to seem a little more rational and a little less inclined to stray from the actual truth.

That’s why many of us see these two as somehow better than the rest of the Bush Administration’s motley crew, but it doesn’t mean that we think they are angels. They still played along with the Bush plan, knowing how dumb and risky it was. Unless they come out with seriously convincing mea culpas for their complicitness in perpetuating the Bush Administration’s various incompetent agendas, I hope neither of them ever works for President Kerry.

It’s my prediction that we will see an anti-Tenet smear campaign begin right away, led by non-Administration Republicans. Tenet will be the fall guy, and I think he has just now come to realize it.

-Cf

Stephen your reply makes a good case for mitigating circumstances regarding Tenet. Since he did express reservations about the threat after the invasion, and a journalist on Hardball this evening made reference to his making the same claim prior to invasion, he is certainly not the sole responsible person for the Iraq invasion. We can disagree about whether he should have resigned.

I gotta say, however, if I were in his shoes, and after all that has come to light as having been intel failures, I would be embarrassed and humbled and would resign myself. If that was part of his motivation, then I salute his personal integrity.

Martin, there appears to be some projecting of one’s own hate onto others going on here. No one responding to this article has spewed remarks of hate toward Bush nor used Bush as a premise for supporting their view that Tenet’s resignation was called for. It would be helpful if you would respond to other’s actual words instead of your own projections of what you think is in their minds and hearts - which is more revealing than one might realize.

I refer you to your quote: “What he hasn’t done, what he still isn’t doing—much to your dissaproval I gather—is the duty you think he owes George Soros, Michael Moore, the Kerry campaign and the entire I-hate-Bush-and-don’t-what-the-facts-are-anymore crowd.”

Kind of gives smoke and ‘mirrors’ a whole new meaning.

David:

I think the following quote, supplied by Christopher, might count as a rmeark full of hate for Bush, though perhaps we should call it intense disdain rather than hate.

Tenet “still ultimately “sold his soul” so to speak and helped the Administration perpetuate the series of lies that brought us to war. I often wonder how he and Colin Powell are able to sleep at night (the rest of the lot probably sleep quite soundly).”

Regarding Tenet as a fall guy though—I have not yet seen that happen. Christopher says “Tenet will be the fall guy, and I think he has just now come to realize it”. If Tenet is just now realizing this possibility, then he is entirely unsuited for ANY job in Washington. But so far Bush has praised Tenet’s service.

The practical matters are these: 1)If Tenet is to blame, there would certainly still be a variety of viewpoints. Were Bush to lambaste him, Tenet would only need to turn on Bush, which would hurt Bush far more than Bush could hurt Tenet. 2) Tenet appears to be partially to blame for the lack of intelligence, or even the incorrect intelligence, but again, there are many viewpoints on this. Government cuts in intelligence funding, legal wrangling over how to access information, restrictions on access to information, inter agency distrust etc all play a role.

At this point, I think Tenet is not going to turn on Bush, as Christopher seems to hope. Anything is possible, but I dont see it.

Joe & David: I do hate the Bush Administration and I’m pretty sure it shows in my writing.

Regarding Tenet “turning on” Bush, well, I’m not holding my breath for it, but if I am right and non-Administration Republicans are right now gearing up for making Tenet the fall guy (this upcoming Senate report is rumored to pin it all on the CIA and Tenet) for our Iraq intelligence failures, I’m not sure a guy like Tenet wouldn’t defend himself.

Whether such a defense automatically includes “turning on” Bush isn’t the point. All he has to do to redeem himself in my book is start telling the truth about what goes on inside the Bush Administration, something he was unable to do while serving as DCI. I’m not really expecting this “truth” to be a shocking smoking gun, but it seems to me that any time anyone reveals the internal workings of the Bush Administration it ends up making them look at least a little bad.

For example, I’d love to hear anecdotes from Tenet about what it was like to give an intelligence briefing to President Bush. How long did they last? Did the President ask questions or seem attentive? How often did he give such briefings? I’ll freely confess that I am seething with excitement over the prospect of hearing Tenet’s side of the story, even though I am fairly sure Tenet wouldn’t be anything like Richard Clarke in his level of animosity, nor will he betray his colleagues’ trust too radically.

-Cf

Bush did look surprised. My first thought was, “When is the book coming out?”

Clarke, Beers, Pavitt, now Tenet. Coincidence? :)

Martin, A war is not defensive untill some kind of offensive attack has been made. Preemptive attacks are defined as a first strike attack aimed at preventing an intended attack on one’s interests or territory. If we were at war, and a battle group was heading towards a major port of ours, we wouldn’t wait for the attack to justify our self defense, we would strike then and there and preempt them.

What makes the Iraq war worse was that it can’t really be defined as pre-emptive. Without an imminent threat, it would only be definable as preventative. And that’s if you could prove there was something to prevent.

This is why many Democrats aren’t even satisfied with the fact that we found one WMD. The issue for them is not an abstract one of “Were they right about this point?”, but rather “Did this nation just fight it’s first war of aggression?” We pride ourselves on being a people who finish battles rather than starting them, and we don’t like the idea that we may have been manipulated into betraying our ideals on this matter. As a nation we don’t want to be forced to accept a queasy moral rationalization and losing our reputations as a people of peace, tolerance, and freedom.

America does not need to start taking on the characteristics of an empire. We should not build our country around the idea of elective, hostile political takeovers. We distract ourselves every time we use Saddam’s cruel, murderous nature to justify our invasion. We distract ourselves from what we do as individuals and as a nation.

In the end, what we do cannot be justified on lofty principle alone and excused by claims of good intentions when the worst comes to pass. If we cannot see the flaws in our judgement, if we refuse to see them, we lock ourselves into a vicious cycle of justification which will lead us to empire abroad, and if worst comes to worst, fascism at home. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Question is, do we want to be the ones it happens to? Do we want to be the new Rome, where a temporary yielding of principle to counter a threat turned permanent?

I praise Tenet, because for all his flaws, he maintained the standard of evidence. He can be said to have done the best he could. Others, though, didn’t choose to honor that principle. They chose to take an weak case for war based on fact, and turn it into a strong case for war based on speculation, unchecked information, and preconcieved notions. They did not let the evidence guide them. If you and your people aren’t careful, your tolerance for bad information gathering practices could make this only the first in a long line of poorly justified and chosen conflicts we become involved in.

An article in the Washington Post ends with this ominous portent:

Still, Tenet’s resignation signals the beginning of the breakup of a foreign policy team that has taken the country through the Sept. 11 crisis and two wars over the past 3 1/2 years. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice have made it clear they will depart at the end of the current term, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld appears unlikely to remain in the wake of the prison scandal in Iraq and the many calls for his resignation.

Thus, even if Bush wins reelection, the foreign policy slate largely could be wiped clean in six months.

If true (the Rice part is surprising news to me), or even if only partially true, this means that voters who are considering voting for Bush should take a good look at who is poised to replace these characters. Frighteningly, the first name that jumps to mind for any number of these positions is Paul Wolfowitz. Who else is lurking in the shadows and awaiting their tap on the shoulder? I’d like the press to start looking into this now, looking more closely at the rumors reported above, and examining the crop of potential replacements for these key positions so voters can know what they’re potentially getting into.

It’s funny how Bush supporters often qualify their support of him saying “Well, even if he doesn’t deeply understand policy details he’s surrounded by a great team.” Now that that “great team” is disintegrating, what’s left … and what will replace it?

-Cf

Stephen:

You mention Iraq as America’s “first war of aggression”, as opposed to defensive or even pre-emptive. But it seems to me that Viet Nam, Korea and Kosovo could qualify as wars of aggression, since there was no threat to America in any of those circumstances. I’m not clear on how you differentiate those wars, the first two of which were fought to prevent communism from spreading through the domino theory. That justification seems pretty close to the reason for the Iraq war—-to stop something in its infancy before it gets a foothold. Perhaps you could explain your thoughts for me.

Christopher: I have no problem with you hating Bush—-I was just pointing out to David that there ARE people in these blogs who write that way. He seemed to have missed it. I must admit a concern at seeing you so full of hate, but that is for you to work out. I doubt I have the capability to counsel you through it, especially only through the written word.

My point about Tenet is that he could turn on Bush if Bush were to turn on him. Which may be part of the reason Bush has been so complimentary of Tenet. Sometimes neither party can actually win the fight, but both can simply bloody the other one up.

I hate the Bush Administration, not George W. Bush. I rarely even refer to Mr. Bush personally at all, especially on this blog. I am very careful to always use the expression “Bush Adminstration” when referring to the things the White House does. I do not attribute hardly anything to the man personally as I do not think him individually competant enough to think of the kinds of leadership ideas and plans which I genuinely hate the Administration for. The Bush Administration is a dysfunctional family composed of some genuinely rotten apples (Ashcroft, Cheney) some ideological wackos (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) some generally good people trapped in a machine not of their making (Powell) and some folks just along for the ride (Bush). I don’t think I hate any of them individually per se, but I hate what they do as a collective system.

-Cf

It seems like every single time I post to Watchblog these days I get an error the first time. Weird.

-Cf

Joe, Vietnam was a colonial war handed over to us by the French. We didn’t start it. The Gulf of Tonkin, fraudulent or not, only escalated it. Korea was a UN mandated war, and we were intervening on behalf of a friendly government. Kosovo was an egregious human right’s violation, and there are a number of treaties that exist justifying military action against those who instigate acts of Genocide.

Iraq was not an escalated colonial war, nor was it UN mandated. We were not going in to end an ongoing genocide. We went in to prevent Iraq from becoming a threat, only to find out it wasn’t that much of a threat to us.

Pre-emptive warfare is not smacking down some rogue nation that looks at you funny, that plans crap against you. It’s taking out an imminent threat to you or your interests. If somebody had shot an RPG at the boat that rammed the Cole and blown it up, that would be a pre-emptive shot. But invading Iraq because they thought of resuming their WMD program? That’s thin. That’s letting our paranoia get the better of our good sense. We should not be be mounting any campaign of this size without some seriously good reasons. Those were lacking here, and with out them, our attack had little justification other than we didn’t like Saddam.

Ours should not be a country that goes to war, straining resources and budgets, simply to wipe the smiles off of the face of tyrants who oppose us.

Stephen:

Thanks for your clarification, though I find some of it a bit thin. For example, you say VietNam was “handed to us by the French”, as if that absolves us of our involvement in it. I dont think we were taking marching orders from the French then, or ever have. We chose to escalate our involvement, which makes that a war of “choice” in a sense.

Kosovo was a genocidal situation, as are other areas of the world. So too was there much death caused in Iraq, though that isnt the major reason we have gone into Iraq. This idea of pre-emption as a new policy, though, is fallacious.

Lets not forget that Bill Clinton felt strong enough to wage a pre emptive country wide bombing of Iraq back in 1998. There was no threat to the US, there was no aggression from Iraq…..and I consider a massive bombing of a country to be an act of war (though of course not a war itself).

Its easy to put the policy of pre-emption at the feet of George Bush, but to do so would be naive and simply wrong. And history proves it.

Joe, I would further clarify that we justified Vietnam and Korea in terms of the Cold War containment policy. You could claim the same about terrorists, but those terrorists did not hold and maintain territory like the Soviets and Red Chinese.

Additionally, Bill Clinton’s attack on Iraq in ‘98 was not pre-emptive. It was justified as retribution for the regime breaking the terms of the cease fire that Saddam signed to end the Gulf War. Bush tried and failed to justify his campaign in those terms. Failed, and went ahead with the attack regardless of legitimizing authority.

Did he not say at almost every opportunity that America reserved the right to defend itself against potential threats regardless of the presence of international support? Did he not say that America wasn’t going to ask for a permission slip to defend itself? Bush demonstrated how little legitimacy in the eyes of the international community meant to him quite clearly. It’s only now as the consequences of the war being fought that way unfold that Bush’s supporters try and legitimize the invasion according to UN mandates and the like. Bush and your people got what they wanted. They should have been more careful what they wished for.

Joe wrote:
> Lets not forget that Bill Clinton felt strong
> enough to wage a pre emptive country wide
> bombing of Iraq back in 1998.

Invading Iraq is a thousand times bigger a deal than even the extensive bombings Clinton ordered in 1998. Your logic is baffling: Clinton’s 1998 bombings were often used as an example of the kind of “weak” action we needed to discard in favor of more radical actions such as invading. There’s a huge number of possible military options between Clinton-style bombings and Bush Administration’s invasion. Within that range there are dozens of vastly superior alternative plans to the hamfisted full-on invasion plan the Bush Administration finally chose.

(Also, as Stephen points out, Clinton’s bombings weren’t considered a stab in the eye of the rest of the world insofar as he easily justified them as simple enforcement of UN sanctions. And the world accepted that justification, too. The only folks who didn’t accept the attacks were those GOP congress members screaming “wag the dog!”. Oh, also the neocons who thought that anything short of ordering an invasion was cowardly.)

Your statements do, however, reveal what I think to be one of the original (and sadly ongoing) problems with the invasion: many who supported the invasion figured that invading another country isn’t such a big deal: that we go in, whoop some ass, and then leave. If in 2002 Bush had simply told the American people that the price for the invasion was going to be a significant percentage of our national budget for many many years to come, the diplomatic alienation of most of the world including many of our closest allies, and hundreds of American lives, I think support for the war would have dropped so significantly that it wouldn’t have happened. It was the Administration’s (and the American people’s) stupid misperception of the true cost of invasion that led us into this mess. I still wonder whether the Adminsistration even understood what the costs would be, or if they really did believe that it would be no big deal.

I agree with you that Vietnam was a war of choice (so was WWI and in some ways also WWII), but it certainly wasn’t pre-emptive. Neither was Korea. In both cases we were rushing to the defense of (and at the request of) governments we supported. Nobody asked us to go to Iraq. Well, wait, Chalabi did I guess.

Iraq is a totally unique and groundbreaking situation in American foreign policy: we marched into a sovereign nation (a pretty powerful one), toppled their government, destroyed their civil institutions, dismantled their entire political system, and killed thousands of their people. The sanctity of the national borders of countries and the sovereignty of their governments is the cement of international stability and of the national pride and identity of peoples of the world (protecting this sanctity was, ironically, the core logic behind the first Persian Gulf war). Your contention that “pre-emption” is not new is unconvincing. Sure, it’s an age-old doctrine among the tyrants and imperial dreamers throughout world history, but it’s an entirely brand new trick for the United States of America. They don’t call it the “Bush doctrine” for nothing!

-Cf

Stephen:

You justify Operation Desert Fox as retribution for the breaking of sanctions, and thereby not pre-emptive. You characterize Vietnam and Korea as containment, though you make the distinction that containment was in some ways a geographic or territorial goal.

That logic can be used just as easily to support the Iraq war. We know that Saddam continued to fail in his compliance with his cease fire promises—-Ritter, Butler and even Blix all agreed on that. Yet some were unwilling to hold Saddam’s feet to the fire. Bill Clinton said Saddam would never act unless forced by military means: he was right then and his comments are right now.

Christopher:

Im not surprised that “logic is baffling” to you. After reading your post, I see that logic is not in danger of being overused.

You seem to argue that military action of lesser extent would have been acceptable to you——therefore, its not the military action that you disagree with but rather the level of it. You approve of Clinton’s level (which in my opinion was a good start and solved some symptoms of the problem, but not the problem itself.) Perhaps you would like to share some of the military options available, but also be sure to include in you analysis how they would have worked. Personally, I think Clinton’s—and later Bush’s—idea of regime change was the only true solution to the Iraq problem. We negotiated with Saddam for 12 years to no avail—he never kept his cease-fire promises. And remember, you have used that non-compliance to approve military action.

Lastly, Christopher, I can see you dont really understand the concept of pre-emption. You’ve fallen (and quite easily, it appears) into believing the media when it shriekly shrills the phrase “Bush doctrine”. Your attempt at logic falls flat on its face for two possible reasons:
1) If Desert Fox under Clinton was NOT pre-emptive (and you said it was enforcement), then neither is the current war. The only difference is in the magnitude of the military attack, and while that magnitude is huge, the logic of the two attacks remains very similar.

2) If Desert Fox WAS pre-emptive, then pre-emption simply cannot be an entirely brand new trick, as you so blithely put it.

So, Christopher, the question to you now is this: On which sword of logic do you want to impale your statements?

> You seem to argue that military action of lesser
> extent would have been acceptable to you——
> therefore, its not the military action that you
> disagree with but rather the level of it.

Sort of, but not quite. I’ll explain. First, I think that the Bush Administration didn’t consider or seiously attempt any non-military options beyond those that would buy them time to prepare for the invasion. But let’s say that they did in good faith try to get Saddam to cooperate fully with UN demands, but that Saddam still balked and that he ejected the inspectors who were increasingly scouring Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. It’s likely that at that point military actions would need to be taken (and, if diplomatic options were seriously explored, we would have had significant international help, too). What are those options? Well, I’m not a military expert by any means, but… Maybe we could have bombed the shit out of *all* of Iraq’s military installations and all of Saddam’s palaces to disrupt his ability to lead and to foment resistance among his generals. Maybe we could have bribed his generals and aided them militarily. Maybe we could have invaded parts of the country, those that would accept American occupation more readily, such as the Kurdish region.

So, yes, I think that military action itself isn’t inherently wrong. What is wrong is (a) the premature use of military action, and (b) the disproportional use of military action.

(Maybe you, like many conservatives, have some kind of intuition that liberals are secretly pacifists, and that all of our arguments rest on a belief that the military is immoral. That is a misperception that perhaps we liberals need to correct.)

Joe, I’m not sure how to argue with you here. You seem to see no qualitative difference between bombings and invasion. You see them as simply matters of degree. Remember, the point was to render Saddam incapable of WMD or nuclear attack, right? Not to adopt 25 million new American dependents and to establish a democratic regime. Right?

> You’ve fallen (and quite easily, it appears)
> into believing the media when it shriekly
> shrills the phrase “Bush doctrine”.

What the heck? The term “Bush Doctrine” is an invention of the Bush Administration and it is “shreiked” incessantly and almost exclusively by Bush Administration supporters. This is why I claimed to not understand your logic: You are claiming the non-existence of a doctrine that the Bush Administration itself claims is the foundation of their whole foreign policy.

Believe it or not, but I never beleived that there was or is a “Bush Doctrine”. My opinion, and I’ve said it here before, is that the Bush Administration doesn’t have any clear “doctrines” at all, and they simply made up the “Bush Doctrine” to make their Iraq invasion plans sound more like a philosophical approach to foreign affiars rather than the haphazard power grab it really was (and to make people forget about the “Powell Doctrine”, which this Administration has completely torn to shreds).

Please note that my contention that there is no “Bush Doctrine” doesn’t contradict my contention that invading Iraq was a qualitatively different kind of military action from any action the USA has ever taken before.


> 1) If Desert Fox under Clinton was NOT pre-
> emptive (and you said it was enforcement),
> then neither is the current war. The only
> difference is in the magnitude of the
> military attack, and while that magnitude
> is huge, the logic of the two attacks
> remains very similar.
>
> 2) If Desert Fox WAS pre-emptive, then pre-
> emption simply cannot be an entirely brand
> new trick, as you so blithely put it.

Pre-emption isn’t the brand-new trick. Pre-emptive invasion is the brand new trick. I was focusing on the magnitude of what an invasion means (your use of the term “huge” still seems to underestimate the scope).

I’m sorry if I wasn’t crystal clear about that, but I figured that it was pretty obvious that non-invasion pre-emptive military actions are common and acceptable instruments of emergency foreign policy against potential threats, particularly when conducted through international coalitions and bodies. Pre-emptive invasion is new (even the invasion of Panama was in part triggered by Noriega’s declaration of war with the USA). I apologize for using shorthand terminology that left room for pedantic debate. I didn’t mean to.

-Cf

Christopher:

I do so enjoy the verbal risposte. Let me now clarify.

First, many “liberals” (I’m speaking generically here) have said that we should never have attacked Iraq in such a pre-emptive manner. They do NOT make a distinction of the magnitude of the attack—-simply that since the US was not threatened directly, we should not have proceeded with the military use of force.

You now have made that distinction—-yet I still disagree with it for the following reasons:
1) You admit to not knowing the military options available, nor do you know whether we tried any of them (for instance, perhaps we did try to covertly bribe people etc). My take is that over 12 years ,we tried many different avenues, none of which met with full success. It was time to take a more dramatic position.
2)In Desert Storm, we removed Saddam from Kuwait, and achieved our objective. But it did not deter him from his ultimate plans, nor did he comply with his cease fire promises. So I dont see that attacking certain parts of the country, as you suggested, would accomplish any of our current goals.
3) Desert Fox did slow Saddam up (though even according to Clinton, we never fully knew to what degree we were successful). But it too did not achieve its intended goal, which was full and complete compliance with UN resolutions.

So over 12 years we learned that attacking parts of the country and bombing major facilities did NOT work. They were successful in degrees but not wholly successful. Yet you seem to want to revisit those strategies once again….Why??

I think a “Bush Doctrine” would state that we are going to learn from history what works and what doesnt. And we are not going to go down paths that dont work simply for the sake of political expediency. We will take bold steps that have a chance of working, whether they be hard or not.

I know people in Iraq and have a son who may attend a military academy—I am not for unbridled use of military because people die when that happens. But I AM for taking steps that ultimately work. Were I a parent of a D-Day fatality, I would have been proud of my son’s efforts, despite the fact that the planners knew the first on the beaches were going to be sitting ducks. They knew the casualty estimates were going to be huge, but they also knew it was necessary.

I think history over time will judge this war in the same general light. There are many who are looking for ANY thing to complain about (the supply line was too long—its terrible/they didnt protect the museums and now artifacts are stolen/they only wanted the oil/ etc etc etc). Had these same people been around after D-Day, we would have heard the same shrill bleating about the poor planning, the improper attention to detail, the misinformation etc. Eisenhower would have been summarily canned, and well….you see the picture. At least one would hope you do.

First, your characterization of liberals is quite simply a terrible case of misunderstanding the views of your political opponents. You’re wrong about liberals. Very few liberals are against pre-emptive military action. Like I said, it’s fairly commonplace and lots of liberals have supported such things in the past. It is and always has been the invasion aspect of it that was what we disagree with. I would guess that this point of view is shared by 90% of self-professed “liberals”.

Second, I am fairly certain that neither Clinton nor Bush ever massively bombed Iraq’s military installations and Saddam’s palaces and managed to keep it secret from the American people.

Third, I do know that the US attempted to bribe Iraqi generals on the night of the invasion (that is, as an invasion tactic, not as an alternative to invasion). They used native Arabic speakers to call the generals, and the generals thought they were being set up by Saddam. Not one took the bait.

Finally, let’s just say that I think that comparing our invasion of Iraq to the liberation of Europe on D-Day is just plain outrageous.

-Cf

Christopher:

Did you even read my post? From reading yours, I can’t really tell.

First, I have talked with many liberals, both in person and in forums like this, who have decried ANY military action from a pre-emptive standpoint. I base my opinions on people I talk with—perhaps they are in the minority, but since I’m not (nor do I claim to be) a polling institution, I’m going with that—-and I did qualify my statement to that effect.

Secondly, did you forget about Operation Desert Fox, the 4 day intensive bombing campaign in 1998? True, it didnt specifically target palaces, but it did target military facilities all over Iraq. Perhaps you were not aware that happened.

Thirdly, you show the difficulty in the logistics of trying the bribery technique. Perhaps the Bush admin didnt do it right, or perhaps doing it right takes a lot more planning than you are considering. But it was tried and it failed.

Lastly, your outrage is plain silliness. If you actually read with cognition what I wrote, you would have grasped that I am not comparing the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Europe. I compared the ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE TODAY to the ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE in 1944. The invasions were for different reasons, with different challenges, different scopes, different tools etc. But so to were the attitudes of people different.

In 1944, people understood that a large scale plan is frought with possibilities for mistakes, and that there is a difference between mistakes and lies. People recognized that sacrifices will be made, and that sometimes the sacrifices are terrible. (Witness the planning phase of Operation Overlord in which 700+ soldiers died, in part because saving them might have thrown the operation into jeopardy…you can research these details yourself.)

Christopher, you took the easy route by not reading what i wrote, and by answering to what you thought I wrote. At least take the time to try to understand. Its much more befitting of a man of your intelligence to do so.

Christopher:

Did you actually read my post, or did you just skim it, make some general assumptions, and then rapidly type out your response?

First, I qualified my use of the word liberal, and if you have NOT seen many liberals complaining about military action in a pre-emptive condition, then I wonder where you have been. Whether it is the majority of liberals or not is up to organizations like Gallup, but to now act as if its the grand minority is silly.

Secondly, di you perhaps miss Operation Desert Fox in 1998? That was where US forces bombed Iraq for 4 days in a massive bombing raid. Below is an excerpt from part of the attack…yes, the one you seem to think was kept “secret from the American people”:

” Defense officials summarized the targets during the briefing: 27 surface-to-air missile sites, 18 command and control facilities, 19 sites housing security details for Hussein’s weapons of mass
destruction program, 11 weapons of mass destruction industrial and production facilities, eight Republican Guard facilities, and five airfields.”

Thirdly, you show the difficulty of carrying out a plan like bribery etc in a place like Iraq, where suspicions run deep. Now, its possible that those carrying out the operation just did a bad job of it, or its possible that its just plain hard to do, but nice to know you are now aware that it was attempted.

Lastly, your outrage is silly. If you had taken the time to read my post with cognition, you would understand that I did NOT compare D-Day with the invasion of Iraq. What I compared was the ATTITUDE of people back in 1944 to the ATTITUDE of people today, when looking at a military invasion. Of course there were different reasons for the two invasions, there were different challenges, different logistics etc.

But, the American public in 1944 did not attempt to crucify the planners of D-Day for their mistakes…and there were many, as history has shown. We know that over 700+ soldiers died just in a planning exercise for D-day. People understood the difficulties involved and they accepted the sacrifice. They did not expect perfection, nor did they get it.

Only today do people expect perfect information, perfect execution, and perfect results. And if they dont get it, they try to tear down those who are imperfect.

You took the intellectually lazy way out, Christopher. You either purposely missed the thrust of my comments, or they simply evaded your perception. Either way, it results in you arguing a point that wasnt made.

Christopher:

I posted two separate posts, since my computer told me the first did not go through. I tried to recreate it, but you will certainly see differences. Perhaps having both versions will help you get a better understanding….:)

Joe, I apologize for lacking “cognition”.

-Cf

> First, I qualified my use of the word liberal,

I wasn’t even discussing your Iraq-focused use of the term liberal in your previous post. I was discussing the general manner in which you portray liberals in your rhetoric, implying that liberals oppose pre-emption across the board. I apologize if I am wrong in my assumption that that is your impression of liberals. I don’t think I’m wrong about that, however. I do think that your impression of liberals is, however, wrong.

Maybe your idea of what a liberal is is different than mine. Maybe it’s just that, to me, people who vote Democratic and have respect for Bill Clinton are usually some flavor of liberal (which, I’ll admit, is a ‘liberal’ definition of a liberal). You certainly couldn’t argue credibly that Clinton Democrats oppose pre-emption across the board, especially given that Clinton practiced pre-emption pretty regularly (with healthy backing from most of his liberal base, I might add).

> Secondly, did you perhaps miss Operation Desert
> Fox in 1998? That was where US forces bombed
> Iraq for 4 days in a massive bombing raid…
>
> the one you seem to think was kept “secret from
> the American people”:

It seems like you are the one who needs to actually read posts. I never said there were secret attacks. YOU suggested that perhaps the US had conducted secret attacks that I did not know about. That was you. My post said that I doubted that your possible scenario was likely. That’s all. I never even remotely claimed that there were secret attacks. You don’t need to be highly cognitive to understand my writing, I don’t think. I have no idea how you could have gotten that impression from a sentence in which I wrote the exact opposite of what you think I said:

Second, I am fairly certain that neither Clinton nor Bush ever massively bombed Iraq’s military installations and Saddam’s palaces and managed to keep it secret from the American people.

Nor did I forget the 1998 bombings by President Clinton. What the heck made you suggest that? The 1998 bombing campaign was the very core topic of our exchange. How could you read my post and forget that the 1998 bombings were in the forefront of my mind? It’s like you forgot what we were even talking about or something.

> Lastly, your outrage is silly. If you had taken
> the time to read my post with cognition, you
> would understand that I did NOT compare D-Day with
> the invasion of Iraq. What I compared was the
> ATTITUDE of people back in 1944 to the ATTITUDE of
> people today, when looking at a military invasion.

In other words you were comparing D-Day to the invasion of Iraq. The public’s attitude and the military objectives themselves are all part and parcel of each of the two historical events.

I’ll elaborate: The American people forgave the D-Day planners for their mistakes not because people in 1944 were made of better moral fiber than they are today, but because WWII was an entirely justified war that the American people not only backed with all their hearts, but they also understood the challenges inherent in our involvement. The invasion of Iraq doesn’t meet either test: the American people aren’t behind it and they don’t understand it. Thus, even comparing the publics’ attitudes towards the two conflicts is, to me, outrageous.

Your point that the casualties in Iraq need to be viewed with respect to the casualties of other wars is of course a good point, but you can rest assured that I have always kept that perspective in mind, and that, to me, the 700+ deaths aren’t the real issue anyway - they’re just the tip of the iceberg of what the Bush Administration has done wrong regarding Iraq.

> You took the intellectually lazy way out,
> Christopher. You either purposely missed the thrust
> of my comments, or they simply evaded your perception.

I understood you perfectly, I responded to you intelligently, and I addressed your points with gusto but still respectfully. You have responded not only with a barrage of personal insults, but also with comments that reflect in places an almost bizarre misreading of my comments - precisely what you are accusing me of.

-Cf

Christopher:
You wrote the following: ?”I am fairly certain that neither Clinton nor Bush ever massively bombed Iraq’s military installations and Saddam’s palaces and managed to keep it secret from the American people.”

I responded: “did you forget about Operation Desert Fox, the 4 day intensive bombing campaign in 1998? True, it didnt specifically target palaces, but it did target military facilities all over Iraq. Perhaps you were not aware that happened.”

You suggested that bombing Iraqi military facilities would have been an option available to the US. I showed that it had been tried and had met with limited success. While it hurt Iraqi capabilities, even Clinton went on record as saying he did not know how much. When you say that you are certain that Clinton did not massively bomb Iraq, it leads me to question whether you knew of Operation Desert Fox, because in that operation, Clinton DID massively bomb Iraqi military facilities. IF you knew of ODF, why would you be so certain that Clinton did not bomb Iraq, when its so obvious that he did?

As far as your misunderstanding of my point regarding D-Day, I’ve elaborated it to you at length and you still claim I’m comparing D-Day and Iraq, which I’ve repeatedly explained I’m not doing. What you seem to be saying is that since some feel this war is unjustified, then nothing about it can be acceptable.

I disagree with that premise. One can disagree with this war, and yet still agree with the tactics and strategies used. And one can also recognize the inherent impossibility of perfection in wartime. Had people in 1944 applied the cynicism of today’s people toward D-Day, it would have been deemed a failure for all the same reasons that some people want to claim Iraq is a failure. Those reasons dont have to do with WHY we went to war, but rather HOW.

Cynics are saying we have poor planning, we overreached supply lines, we have improper training, we have improper machinery etc etc. Those have NOTHING to do with the WHY, but have everything to do with the logistics of the war. And if you apply each of those issues to D-Day, a cynic could come up with the same conclusion of failure. Imagine that…..America’s greatest hour (or certainly one of them) reduced to being a failure that easily. Rather shameful, I’d say.

And lastly Christopher, there’s nothing personal in my comments about your cognition. I dont feel that I’ve engaged in a “barrage of personal insults”, as you suggest. I’ve questioned your cognitive abilities a bit, but then again, you’ve accused me of a “bizarre misunderstanding” of your comments.

Either way, I’ll apologize in advance for any insults. I often say things tongue in cheek that may not come off that way in print. No offense intended, and none taken from any of your comments either.

IF you knew of ODF, why would you be so certain that Clinton did not bomb Iraq, when its so obvious that he did?

I was merely certain that he didn’t keep it secret!!! You suggested that Clinton might have conducted secret bombing missions. I said that I thought that that was unlikely. Is it really that complicated?

> What you seem to be saying is that since some
> feel this war is unjustified, then nothing
> about it can be acceptable.

Nobody’s ever said that.

Yes, we still criticise the decision to go to war. We often use today’s war hardships as evidence to back up our contention that the war was a bad idea. This is only logical. The Bush Administration entered this war with an entirely unrealistic and utterly irresponsible lack of foresight, and we will make sure that Americans who supported the war based on the premise that it would be easy (i.e., the people you used to be allied with but who have jumped ship after realizing they were duped by Bush) don’t forget that the setbacks in Iraq were not unforseeable and that there were some people suggesting in 2002 that perhaps invading would be a little more difficult than the Bush Administration thought.

The critique of the conduct of the war is today being led by both Democrats and even many level-headed Republicans. This critique is generally separate from the critique of the decision to go to war.

The two critiques, however, do connect when it comes time to evaluate whether or not to re-elect our leadership. The military strategy decision to send 100,000 troops instead of 200,000-300,000 troops (as General Zinni recommended) was based on the Bush Administration’s ideologically-based premise that invading Iraq would be easy and that America could do it without upsetting the whole geopolitical climate. Also, the Bush Administration’s political idea that America can and should invade Iraq with hardly any international support led to the military decision to invade Iraq nearly alone, a decision that the Bush Administration is only now starting to slowly (and embarassingly) pull back from, practically begging NATO and the UN to help us.

You see, political ideology and military strategy come together in the Oval Office, and it seems often be to the detriment of the military strategy.

-Cf

Joe, I may have misread you about seven posts ago.

When you wrote “You admit to not knowing the military options available, nor do you know whether we tried any of them”, I assumed you were suggesting the possibility that the Clinton and Bush Administrations had tried all non-invasion options, and that I didn’t know about them because they were kept secret.

I didn’t realize that when you wrote “nor do you know whether we tried any of them” you were simply assuming that I was totally ignorant. My mistake.

-Cf

Christopher:

First of all, I’d never assume you to be “totally ignorant”……not totally at all :)

Second, I never never never said nor even suggested that Clinton conducted secret bombings. Nor did I ever even hint at that. I’d aske you to paste where you feel I said that. Perhaps that might clear up part of our misunderstandings.

I said that Clinton conducted a large scale bombing campaign against Iraqi military positions. YOU suggested such a campaign might have been an option for Bush to use instead of an invasion (along with bribing generals etc). I merely showed that it had been tried before with limited success, so I dont see how trying it again would have accomplished anything.

Lastly, there ARE those out there who are against the war, and therefore find not justification in ANY strategy about the war. One can be against the war, but still in favor of certain strategies. What I mean is that its okay for someone to wish that we had never gone into Iraq, but still recognize that certain strategies have worked or failed. But some out there will not justify any strategy since they dont agree with the war. Those are two different issues. For example, I can dislike a certain politician, yet still see the benefit of his/her campaign strategy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In any event, Christopher, I fear we have bludgeoned this topic to death. I appreciate your comments, even while I find much to disagree with. Should you care to reply, I’ll read your reply with much anticipation.

Joe, regarding the “secret bombings” issue, I indeed have nothing to cut-n-paste. My last post was meant to explain my mistake: I totally misinterpreted your comments many posts ago. It didn’t occur to me that you could possibly think that I wasn’t aware of Clinton’s bombings, so instead I assumed that you were suggesting that I didn’t know about them because they were secret. An innocent mistake, I hope you accept my apology.

Also, I agree that one can oppose the war itself while still supporting the strategies necessary to help the United States succeed. For example, I thought it was great that Bush went to Iraq on Thanksgiving because it would give so much morale support to the troops. I thought this even though I knew that it would also have a positive impact on his domestic political fortunes. Most Democrats applauded his visit as well, I might add. Like them, I am an good-hearted guy who puts the interests of our country first.

And, yeah, this thread is dead. Cheers!

-Cf

Christopher:

Was that a unique way to do “three cheers”? If so, I enjoyed the humour. If not, I enjoyed the humour. Thanks for the verbal jousting—-I’ll look forward to good hearted jousts.