This happens frequently:

A poster says that GWB is being inconsistent because he opposed nation building during his election campaign. Now, he goes into Iraq, making him a hypocrite.

The most recent occurence was quark in the Howie Dean thread about being a hypocrite.

Let's explore this:

Bush's 2000 Platform



The reality is quite the opposite of what is painted. Bush stated in his platform that the removal of Saddam Hussein is a Republican goal.

If you read through the platform (old news, I know), you will see that Bush opposed the fact that Clinton deployed troops to so many countries, but never with enough commitment to accomplish the goals. THAT is what he opposed.

Question for debate: Is GWB a hypocrite for his stance on Iraq from his campaign vs. what he actually did?

Amlord, I was referring to Bush's comments in, I believe, his first debate with Mr. Gore:

"the vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."

Jim Lehrer, the monitor, asked "how would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally."

Bush responded with four points:

•if it's in our vital national interests
•whether or not the mission was clear
•whether we were prepared to win
•whether there was an exit strategy.

He must have forgotten the last one... and well, the first one it seems is quite debatable!

Now, if you parse that first response, about nation building - he said he would be careful about it, so I suppose one could interpret that to mean that he was not absolutely against it, but that it should be done carefully. Granting him that interpretation, my point about Dean still stands - because parsing Dean's statements, you can get a very similarly ambiguous meaning.

On the other hand, if I were so inclined, I could say that given the debate statement, and the fact that the platform you quoted only mentions regime change - not nation-building, my point stands to point out Bush's hypocrisy.

Does not show evidence of hypocrisy. This does show that the Democratic Party failed to expose a dangerous platform of the Republican Party. (No surprise there, the Dems almost never successfully criticize a Republican policy)

As for nation building, I would think that because of his comments about not getting involved in nation building the American public would take that to mean that we would not take on the responsibility of occupying Iraq and committing ourselves to remake Iraq and the Middle East in our image.

A main problem with Bush and hypocrisy and Iraq is the administration's flagrant disregard for the Geneva Convention and basic human rights in general compared to their rhetoric of freedom, peace and justice.

Thousands of people have been arrested and held without any charge or legal recourse in Iraq for months at a time. Their relatives have never known where they were and no decent records are being kept. Similarly, the coalition does not count (or at least certainly does not release) official civilian death numbers in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Guantanamo bay is not related to Iraq as the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism (lest we forget that there was no evidence of any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda). But it is another severe example of hypocrisy. Not just Guantanamo but the US citizens held in the US where the US government is campaigning not to allow these citizens their constitutional right to trial in a court of law.

May I remind everyone that terrorism, by definition, is not a military act. It is a criminal act. Politically motivated murder by a non-governmental organisation. Criminal, not military. Hence, all prisoners suspected of al Qaeda membership or conspiring to commit a terrorist act should only be tried against the standard criminal law of the country. Anything else flies in the face of the constitution and, indeed, human rights conventions.

Schooly

No I don't believe he was.



Since the regime change was accomplished by US force then doesn't it seem reasonable that nation building would follow?

I don't know if this is getting off the topic. If it is I am sure someone will let me know.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colum...13-raasch_x.htm


The term he used "you are either for us or against us" or something similar to that was used after 9/11. Now if that is being HUMBLE I will buy you lunch.

That is one example of Bush's hypocrisy.

Here is Bush's entire statement with regard to nation building.



Is GWB a hypocrite for his stance on Iraq from his campaign vs. what he actually did?

The answer is simple. No.

The UN passed numerous resolutions regarding Iraq's disarmament. The US passed the Iraq Liberation Act under Clinton, but never acted on it. Then came 9/11 opening the eyes of many here in the US to the fact that there are people out there who are not for us but instead vehemently against us. Their base desire is to see us and one of our strongest allies destroyed. These are people who have the funds and in one particular case, is a head of state.

You have choices. You can negotiate, you can cut off trade and money and watch as this head of state builds himself palaces and funds terrorism in the palestinian territories while his people starve. You can listen as other coutries begin to talk about removing 12 year-old sanctions so that this head of state can being to trade freely again.

Or

You implement the policy, the will of the US and end the 12-year old negotiations of the UN. You fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

One of the points you forgot to mention which is hypocritical in your quote is being well housed and well equipped. Have you not seen on the news were alot of the military personnel have to buy their own Kevlar jackets and they giving them to some of the personnel when there tour is done. That sounds very hypocritical saying your going to make sure they are well equipped. And this is just for starters.

Edited:

I did find this story:

The Pentagon confirms that at least 40,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq don't have basic Kevlar Interceptor vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection.

The story goes on to say:

... the military had decided to slowly phase out the old flak jackets in a one-for-one exchange program over 10 years. We invaded Iraq in the fifth year.

Pentagon officials...hope to have all of our troops in Iraq equipped with vests and plates in January.

The hypocritical thing about President Bush is that he tried to paint Gore as arrogant and himself as humble in the last presidential campaign. That is undeniable. Judging by the popular vote count, the tactic did not work.

President Bush has proven himself to be quite arrogant. Eh, I saw that before he got elected. Apparently, a lot of others did too.

So, we can conclude that President Bush is arrogant, always has been and always will be. Four more years of Bush means four more years of arrogance.

Good or bad for the country? Or neutral?

AM,

Painting Gore or Bush as arrogant is subjective. Some people see Gore as arrogant. I personally can't stand to hear him talk; it's a complete turn off.

Others see Bush as using a lot of self-deprecating humor and find him to be very humble.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing hypocritical about that, in my opinion.

this quote from bush:

"you are either with us or against us".

There are no if and buts about that statement. If that statement is humble,then you would believe anything,subjective or not.

Those that close their eyes and ears will never know the truth.

Bush's statement of 'You are either with us or against us' was not arrogant at all.
It's called taking a stand. It's called delineating right and wrong.

It's a statement that says we will not, as a nation, abide by the ever increasing globalist, moral relativist, touchy feely, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter crap.

Humble, no.
The right stand to take, yes.

He actually said, "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists". A big difference from "with us or against us".

A few sentences prior to that he said they would treat terrorists and those countries that support or harbor them as one and the same.

So he lumps anyone at all who opposes Bush's policies as "with the terrorists". That statement is very arrogant. It implies if you don't think I'm doing the right thing at any point in my "war" on terrorism then you are a terrorist in my eyes (or at least as good as a terrorist).

Schooly

What Bush spewed, with the help the media, was a
false dichotomy, "You are either with us or
you're with the terrorists."

As if there are no other alternatives, such as, "You're
against terrorism, but you are also against giving me and
my administration free reign to do as we please, with little
or no consent from anyone else." (for example)

You may take that one sentence and interpret it to be arrogant, or believe it to be some cowboy jargon, or a challenge made while drawing a line in the sand, or a false dichotomy, if you chose.

Bush said more than that, though. He elaborated in the next sentence and made very clear what he meant.



If you take those sentence in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph you get an even clearer understanding of the president’s message.



Just two simple questions you all need to ask yourself.

Are countries that harbor and/or support terrorists with us or are they with the terrorist?

Are countries that harbor and/or support terrorists our friends or should they be considered a hostile regime?

Ah, now there you ask a very good question. Pakistan is not a democracy and it is strongly suspected to have many members of the government passing funds to the Taleban and al Qaeda.

Similarly, 15 of the 19 supposed hijackers were Saudi and the Saudi royals and powerful families are strongly suspected (witness the blank 9/11 report chapter on them) to support terrorism.

Who do we attack? Afghanistan, after refusing to follow basic extradition procedures for Bin Laden, and Iraq which did not harbor terrorists any more than any other nation. There is certainly no proof of an al Qaeda connection (as Colin Powell said in the last few days, despite telling the UN before the war that Iraq's denials of links were "simply not credible").

So what Bush has done is not "chased" terrorists from country to country but run into an empty room and invited them in (in Iraq). So, in this sense, Iraq shows him to be a hypocrite.

He's spent in 9 months almost as much as the entire Vietnam war (even allowing for inflation). He's killed more than double the number of civilians than died on 9/11 and he has acheived a reduction in stability in both countries he's invaded. Afghanistan is once more the number one poppy grower (so more of our kids can die from heroin sourced from Afghanistan). Iraq has 60% unemployment and Afghanistan even higher. 2 years after the invasion and the installation of an former Unocal executive to power (while the US ambassador is an ex-Unocal director) there are still no foreseeable election dates. So it is still not a democratic country, it still oppresses women by refering to Islamic law, it is still the poorest country on earth and part of the country is still in the hands of the Taleban (and if not them most of the country is run by warlords).

Iraq has all this to look forward to I fear.

Schooly

Who said the country had to be a democracy? Nothing in his speech said the country had to be a democracy.

Strongly suspected? OK, I guess some people would take that as proof the government of Pakistan is harboring and supporting terror. I don’t.

Here are three headlines currently available through a google search using the word “Pakistan”.

Pakistan quizzes nuclear bomb suspect - Al-Jazeera - 1 hour ago
Pakistan president calls for holy war against extremism - New Zealand Herald - 4 hours ago
Pakistan Questions Nuclear Scientists - Miami Herald - 5 hours ago

Here’s a quote from one of the articles:



General Musharraf has been working WITH US against terrorism. Terrorist maybe living in his country, just as they are, more than likely, living in the U.S., but it doesn’t appear that he is harboring or supporting them.



You have a very valid point with regard to Saudi Arabia and I cannot and will not even attempt to refute said point, except to say, we don’t know what is going on behind the scenes with regard to SA. I know the Bush administration is working to lessen our dependency on their oil. Whether that has to be done prior to our cutting ties is beyond me. But I can see how the need for it (oil) might prevent us from cutting all ties. Either way, there is no doubt that SA is a hostile regime and in my opinion, I don't think the President is turning a blind eye to that common knowledge.

It also doesn't take away from the full context of the President's speech.

To answer the two recent questions raised here by Beladonna first:

Are countries that harbor and/or support terrorists with us or are they with the terrorist? Are countries that harbor and/or support terrorists our friends or should they be considered a hostile regime?

As a Schoolboy has pointed out, that very much depends on which country is doing the harboring and supporting. Never mind our recent terrorist allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (both of which were far more involved in the September 11 attack than Afghanistan or - it should go entirely without saying - Iraq), what of some of the traditional terrorist states which the US has aided and supported?

What of Operation Condor and the six National Security States of Latin America - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay - which entered into a system for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in member countries - with US backing. What of our support for South African transnational terrorism for over two decades? What of our support for Indonesia as it attempted to practice genocide in East Timor for over thirty years? What of the "torture regime" of George Papadopoulolis, ex-Nazi and CIA employee, in Greece? What of our endorsement of known terrorists (however "reformed" in their later years) like Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon? What of our support for Chiang Kai-Shek and Fulgencio Batista and Idi Amin and Ngo Dinh Diem and Pinochet and the Duvaliers' Tonton Macoutes and Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos and the Peacock Throne and Suharto and Pol Pot and the Somozas and Salazar and on and on and on and on?

What of our own terrorist attacks on Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict - in which as many as three million people may have been slaughtered? What of our linking the "war on terror" to the "war on drugs" - when we exploited the opium trade in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict, had the CIA run drugs for the Hmong tribesmen of Laos, funded the Contras with cocaine-running operations, including the use of CIA assets in Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama as well as customs-free supply flights into the US, and the financing of the Afghan rebels and their Pakistani allies through the heroin trade - much of which ended up in the veins of American addicts? And what of Henry Kissinger, one of the most ardent supporters of terrorism in world history who has not only gone unpunished, but was once our Secretary of State??

Clearly "with us or with the terrorists" means vastly different things in slightly different circumstances - unless we are willing to consider our own government a "hostile regime". I'm so willing, but I somehow doubt Beladonna is. "With us or with the terrorists" is a political expedient and a meaningless, jingoistic catch-phrase - even given its full context. Or maybe the pro-Bush camp will soon adopt Walt Kelly's famous sentiment from the comic strip, Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

If we are going to indulge in nation-building, should we not (as with regime change), perhaps start with our own nation?


Oh, and Beladonna, Pervez Musharraf is no more representative of Pakistan and its role in supporting terror than Saddam Hussein was representative of Iraq and its lack of a role in supporting terror. (And "I don't think the President is turning a blind eye..." is no more compelling an argument than "Pakistan is strongly suspected..." For what it's worth, there is more than a strong suspicion that many in Pakistan's government are supporters of terror, but that is definitely the stuff of another thread.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Before responding directly to the question posed here by Amlord at the top of the thread, I think it is important to return to the opening salvo in detail. First, let's look at the platform which Amlord is touting - and the lines he has chosen to highlight:[quote]Because of the administration's failures there is no coalition, no peace, and no effective inspection regime to prevent Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction...[/quote]
No campaign plank regarding nation-building either. Regardless, I don't see this administration cobbling together much of a coalition, I don't see it bringing peace anywhere, and I don't see any effective inspections - at least not if those inspections are actually meant to turn up evidence of WMDs...

[quote]We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction...[/quote]
Okay, still no plank regarding nation-building, but we do have the campaign itself admitting that it would require "evidence" of Iraq's weapons capabilities. That evidence has not yet been forthcoming - though it clearly didn't stop the rush to react "forcefully and unequivocally" - and, I might add, illegally - in mounting a war of aggression.

[quote]We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein...[/quote]
Still waiting on that nation-building plank, but never mind. Ah, the Iraq Liberation Act! Yes, that would have been a good starting point. What is the last thing that Act states? This:[quote]Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.[/quote]
What was that again? "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces." Oh - except as provided by this section:[quote]SEC. 4. (a) (2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

A. The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

B. The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.[/quote]
And, even at that, this section was only devoted to assisting designated "democratic opposition organizations". The Iraqi Liberation Act can in no way be construed as support for the invasion of Iraq - never mind nation-building in the wake of such an invasion.

[quote]Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq.[/quote]
Aaand this says what about nation-building?

[quote=Amlord,Jan 16 2004, 01:17 PM]The reality is quite the opposite of what is painted. Bush stated in his platform that the removal of Saddam Hussein is a Republican goal.[/quote]
Yeah - and consistently derided nation-building.

[quote]If you read through the platform (old news, I know), you will see that Bush opposed the fact that Clinton deployed troops to so many countries, but never with enough commitment to accomplish the goals. THAT is what he opposed.[/quote]
Well, that and nation-building. And here I thought Amlord was about to make a point...


Next, let's look at Quarkhead's response to the opening post:[quote=quarkhead,Jan 16 2004, 01:52 PM]Amlord, I was referring to Bush's comments in, I believe, his first debate with Mr. Gore [October 3, 2000]:

"The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."[/quote]
It seems clear to me - as it did to most of America (or those who were paying attention, anyway) - that Bush, in his response, was creating a contrast between himself and Gore. "He believes in nation-building." On the other hand, "I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders." This "disagreement" sounds like a general opposition to nation-building to me. More on this later, but even given Bush's slight qualifier, what on earth has been "very cautious" about the rush to invade Iraq, oust its leader, and set up the Governing Council?

[quote=quarkhead,Jan 16 2004, 01:52 PM]Jim Lehrer, the monitor, asked "How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally."

Bush responded with four points:

• if it's in our vital national interests
• whether or not the mission was clear
• whether we were prepared to win
• whether there was an exit strategy.

He must have forgotten the last one... and well, the first one it seems is quite debatable![/quote]
And the second point? Were you able to discern a clear mission in the invasion of Iraq - apart from finding all those WMDs and making the world safe from terror? By the second debate, Bush wasn't even concerned about winning:[quote]GOV. BUSH It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.[/quote]
No mention this time of "whether or not we were prepared and trained to -- to -- win". Looks to me like he's zero for three.

[quote=quarkhead,Jan 16 2004, 01:52 PM]On the other hand, if I were so inclined, I could say that given the debate statement, and the fact that the platform you quoted only mentions regime change - not nation-building, my point stands to point out Bush's hypocrisy.[/quote]
I've seen no counter-argument yet, Quarkie.


The Bush position on nation-building was even clearer in the second debate (October 11, 2000) than in the first. From the transcript of that debate:[quote]GOV. BUSH Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission and then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong.  The mission was changed and, as a result, our nation paid a price.  And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.[/quote]
[quote]GOV. BUSH You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti.  I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile.  It was a nation-building mission, and it was not very successful.[/quote]
[quote]GOV. BUSH I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.[/quote]
The Bush campaign may not have addressed nation-building in their platform, but Candidate Bush certainly did so in two debates. Um, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building" and "Absolutely not" don't strike me as allowing much wiggle room. Maybe, to quote our illustrious Commander-in-Chief, I'm missing something here.


[quote]Question for debate: Is GWB a hypocrite for his stance on Iraq from his campaign vs. what he actually did?[/quote]
As Amlord raised the question of Iraq in the context of nation-building rather than regime change (which was on the Bush administration's agenda since - well, before Bush himself was even a candidate), there is only one answer to this question: Well, duh.

Having said that, though, there is a case to be made for the supporters of this administration. It could easily be argued that Bush's contempt for nation-building is one of the least hypocritical things he has expressed - and one of the very few campaign promises which he has not yet broken. The Bush administration, it could be argued, is clearly not engaged in a policy of nation-building. It is engaged in a policy of nation-destroying - at least, if Afghanistan (and Iraq so far) is anything to go by. Hardly a triumphant vindication of the lofty goals of the Bush White House...

SchoolBoy says....

Well what do you say to this....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq....inks/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/13/...rror/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/13/...rror/index.html

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Not to mention that you couldn't install a toilet seat let alone a terror camp in Iraq without the regime knowing.

SchoolBoy says....

So in essence, you are dismissing OBL's "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" as what, venting?

Here are some other quotes by OBL on his 'jihad' against the US....



Look at this...



I wonder if the same can be said about Al-Qaeda, Im waiting on input from a fellow member on such.

In any case. They declared their war. They can be treated as such.

So Bush is not a hypocrite. He has made the right decisions and at the same is learning what it will take to stick by them.

Titus,

I've already referred to Colin Powell recently saying that there is no concrete evidence of any links. Then you have the fact that the whole northern part of Iraq was run not by Saddam but by the Kurds and this is predominantly where any al Qaeda people resided.

Re: terrorism. Look at the IRA. They called themselves, by name, an army. They considered themselves in a war against the British nation to pull Ulster away from the union and put it back into Eire. They were at all times treated by the British government (apart from some abortive internment policies) as criminals. As were the opposing loyalist terrorists (UVF, UDA etc). They were not held has PoWs or "enemy combatants". They were tried and convicted of belonging to outlawed organizations (under a terrorist Act) or convicted of murder and related offences.

ETA terrorists are treated similarly in Spain. It is the convention. Terrorists always try to legitimize their illegal actions as acts of war. But we know different. They are simply politically motivate criminals.

Indeed, treating them as soldiers is a political and propaganda coup for these groups. It makes them look important.

Also, if we are treating this al Qaeda situation as a war then why aren't these captives being treated as PoWs and being held in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Why are they assiduously trying to avoid treating them as proper PoWs? Why are they holding 13 year old boys in Guantanamo? It stinks.

Al Qaeda is not a country. Indeed, it is barely an organization. It is just a brand name for various islamic groups with vaguely similar ideological goals. They sometimes pass funds amongst themselves but they rarely act together.

First of all, Tikrit is in the north, and it looks as if the Kurds controled that area, huh. Even so, that's not my point. My point is (and by your own admission) that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq which Saddam denied and that if there was, Saddam would know, whether it be north, south, east, or west.



Well, most of those in Gitmo were caught fighting against the US in Afghanistan. And even 13 year olds would fight in Afghanistan... but I do suppose you're right as far as POW status is concerned.

Beladonna,



I agree, painting is a subjective thing that Bush tried to pull on Gore during the last presidential election campaign. However, actions speak to the truth of the situation, and objectively judging by the Bush administration's policies in action, the term "arrogance" does fit. Need I list the undeniable truths?

Some here have tried to argue that arrogance is actually a positive trait. I beg to differ, and so do most people. Arrogance might get your way by force, but this is no way to make friends and influence people. Try to sell a car using arrogance: It doesn't work. Try to woe a lover using arrogance. Good luck.

Try to win an election . . . get my drift? Even the firebrand Dean has learned to tone it down. There is a time and a place for everything.

Get along in a diverse world . . .

Try to build a nation . . .

Yep. It took months for this administration to figure out what everyone else already knew. Then it was too late. But cheer up, we'll be outta there by June 30th, regardless if Iraq has been nation-built or not.

On the personal side, would you like it if someone gave you a pet name like "Pablo" or "Sparky"? What if someone called Bush "Alfred E."? Would he like that? Or how about "Newman" and say it as if you were a cast member of Seinfeld. The pet-name habit is arrogance in action. It also shows a level of fear in that the pet name diminishes a person, thus diminishing the threat to a weak ego.

I agree that the gosh-shucks good-old-boy thing with Bush appeals to a minority of voters in this country, as shown in the last presidential election. But it's a fake persona to the majority of voters. Gore's intellectual arrogance is genuine, and I might add, probably deserved since he is a thinking person who writes books and reads newspapers. That doesn't appeal to a minority of voters in this country.

Consider this: GWB tries to disarm people in several ways. He's a trickey guy who uses tactics like a poker face and deceptive bidding in Texas Hold'em. Once he was called on the deception and you know what? It didn't matter to a minority of voters! Huh. Oh well, give him all your chips.

And so, I still maintain that the hypocricy of the painting attempt holds up under scrutiny. This is not a subjective observation, nor is the tactic a winner, and GWB's White House is anything but humble as witnessed by its policies in action.

Saddam had no control over the north at all. How on earth would he be able to track a single Arab in a part of the country he had no hold over? That's an absolute assumption you're making. If Saddam didn't want him there he couldn't have gotten rid of him as he was in a place his own troops and jurisdiction weren't.

Ultimately, British intelligence said that al Qaeda and Iraq were never gonna be bedfellows. Bin Laden blamed Iraq for invading Kuwait as the reason why Saudi got flooded with US soldiers. Bin Laden's rage was fueled largely by the US presence. Bin Laden hates Saddam and vice versa. Iraq is a secular state (how long that will last now is another matter) with a Christian (the deputy president) at the top of government. It was the opposite of what Bin Laden wanted in an arab country.

Let's get this straight. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al Qaeda, had no WMDs, was no more authoritarian than any other middle eastern leader (like Musharaf - not Middle Eastern, I know -, or the Sauds) and had fewer, older conventional weapons than any other nation in the region. He had no usable planes, unlike most of the other local countries.

Just a little note on truth here. Remember the Patriot missiles being used to protect Israel during the first gulf war when Iraq started throwing Scuds all over the place? Bush 1 said, in front of troops and a TV audience, that 9 out of 10 Scuds were being knocked out before they landed. The former foreign minister of Israel (who was in government at the time) said in a retrospective TV interview I saw that he believes not a single Scud was shot down by a Patriot missile. That this 9 out of 10 baloney was just a ploy to keep Israel out of the war.

So the truth really is brittle int he hands of a government at war. And let us not forget this when we think of the utter garbage coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very subtle insult, Wertz. Some members may even believe the “a” was inserted there by mistake. Of course, I see right through it and recognize your intent.



I am willing to admit we have made mistakes along the way, done some things that we shouldn't have, some with terrible consequences, but I will never be so willing to espouse such a negative view of the U.S.



One thing that has been consistent through this entire episode is your continued defense of Saddam Hussein. Oh I know, you will say you aren’t defending Saddam, you are just spreading the truth or playing devil's advocate, right? I see you’ve even created your own avatar to promulgate this “truth”. Let’s look at one of your “truths” as it relates to this sub-discussion.



Saddam was a contributor to terrorism:

Checks stop coming for Palestinians on Saddam's payroll

Saddam Hussein also funds a one-time $25,000 payment for the families

Iraq pays suicide bonus to entice new bombers

Should I consider this funding charitable contributions? Is that the spin I’ll be reading next? Will you continue to deny that Saddam Hussein funded terrorism? A simple yes or no will suffice. You don’t have to feed me the “well other countries are doing it too and we aren’t invading them” mantra.



It wasn’t meant to be a compelling argument. It was my OPINION, thus the words, “in my opinion, I don't think the President is turning a blind eye to that common knowledge.”

“Pakistan is strongly suspected” reads like a statement of facts with, of course, no backup. But as you stated, that is fodder for another thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AM,

Again, totally subjective. You interpret Bush policies to be arrogant. It’s your perception. Perceptions are subjective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Schoolboy,

You need to start backing up your “statements of truth” of which you’ve inserted many throughout this thread, with links if you want them taken seriously.

I haven't stated anything that is not widely known and reported.

If there's something I've said that's new to you, by all means say what it is and I'll gladly provide links. I can assure you, I'm not making any of this up. I have nothing to gain by doing so.

Incidentally, I have a lot of material linked to on this forum (now locked): http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/forumd...&daysprune=1000

How about just following the guidelines from the onset.

That's a difficult one. As I don't believe I've stated anything that is not public knowledge. I can't pre-empt people's level of awareness. What statements do I have to get a link for? Every statement? My IRA statements? "al Qaeda is not a country"? How far do I go? Surely everyone knows Powell's statement that there's no concrete evidence of Iraq/al Qaeda links?

I do generally link to something I believe is a little esoteric or underreported. I just don't want to treble the tiem it takes to post by having to find ten or fifteen links per post.

Can you be more specific as to what I've said that needs linking (just as a rule of thumb)?

Thanks.

Well, um yes, Hussein is known to have supported anti-Israeli terrorism, and yes there is some proof that members of Al-Qaeda were inside the nation of Iraq.

However be careful of the standards that you try to manufacture for Bush's platform on Iraq.

Under these standards the United States could be considered a state sponsor of terror. We have harbored some unsavory characters and we have sponsored some organizations that fit the definition of terrorism. (Central American freedom fighters for one)

Heck we even help funnel weapons to Iran, our enemy and a state sponsor of anti-American terror, in order to fund these organizations against the will of Congress.

And yes, we have the most dangerous stockpile of WMDs in the world.


We did not go to war because of Hussein's support of terrorism against Israel. Our war on terror has not extended to a crackdown on the Palestinian terror because it is not anti-US terror. Right or wrong that is our position.

Pointing out the fallacies in the arguments used to take out Saddam Hussein does not make one a supporter of Hussein.

The world is not so simple as either believing in Bush's our way or the highway approach to the war on terror. It is not a bold stand it is a simplistic jingo. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.

In this case you are either with us or you are with Hussein.

Regime change was a good idea with Iraq. Nation-building was not. We have had some version of an official policy of regime change in Cuba since 1959, but we have refrained from sending in an invading army to make it happen.

We are holding the bag in two countries and our armed forces are spread too thin and are being asked to do too much. Bush's Iraq policies might be able to be construed as having been clearly laid out in his presidential campaign. But I bet if he ran on a campaign to invade Iraq based on existing intelligence, he would have received even fewer votes in the 2000 election.

Firstly, this was clearly just a propaganda coup to make himself popular amongst arabs.

Secondly, this particular offer does not benefit terrorists or their organisation as it is their widows and families than benefitted.

Thirdly, do we have any evidence at all that these payments were made (surely more important)?

Fourthly, this offer by Saddam is laughably missing the point of why suicide bombers do what they do. They don't do it for money, they do it for their hatred of Israel and to do God's will and go to heaven.

So this point is minor in the extreme, especially when weighed against the $30m fortune bin Laden's family have not blocked him off from. Or the massive amounts of money BCCI laundered for the CIA and terrorist groups. Or the hundreds of millions given to the Taleban by Bush or the tens of millions given to the evil Uzbekistanian government last year. A government who's policies help drive persecuted muslims towards underground organisations, according to US officials and human rights organisations. http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/08/uzbekistan0820.htm

OK,

Let's get back to the original debate on this thread:

Question for debate: Is GWB a hypocrite for his stance on Iraq from his campaign vs. what he actually did?

What I was getting at was whether or not GWB intending to settle the Iraq situation while still a candidate.

I really am not interested in whether he denounces gum chewers while chewing gum.

Let's address "nation building" as Wertz brought it up.

As I see it, Bush was against invading a country simply for nation building. Examples of this could include Somalia and Haiti.

He never said he would invade a country and leave it to fend for itself in the wake of destruction. THAT is not a very compassionate position.

And let's refrain from blaming Bush for the mistakes of the past (ie. Vietnam, the Contras, WW2, or whatever).

Did Bush intend to finish the Iraq situation in a way that Clinton never intended on doing?

Regardless of your position on the Iraq-terrorist connection, I think we can see from his statements that YES, he intended on removing Saddam from power, even as a candidate.

So, does it come as a surprise that Bush asked the Pentagon to explore invasion plans BEFORE 9/11? It shouldn't. Bush stated that it was a goal. He was following through on his platform.

Now, after 9/11, the removal of Saddam became an even greater priority.

Why, you ask?

Saddam backed Palestinian terrorists. Saddam could not (or would not, no difference in my eyes) account for his WMDs. Saddam resisted the newest round of "inspectors". Inspectors, not investigators. The inspectors job was to verify Saddam's compliance. Since Saddam never had any intention of complying (or at least, no intention of provided evidence of compliance), the inspectors were never necessary. The inspectors' job was never to search out WMDs. The onus was on Saddam to prove that he had disarmed. He failed to meet that burden (as evidenced by the 1441 Resolution which unanimously stated that Iraq had failed to comply with previous SC Resolutions...)

Saddam's Iraq was the epitome of the Rogue Nation. A nation willing to thumb its nose at the world. A nation willing to use WMDs to further its ends.

Before 9/11, Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with. GWB promised that he would do so.

After 9/11, the Iraq threat was magnified, making it the nation's top security priority.

The evidence and reasoning is there for those who are willing to consider it.

[quote=Beladonna,Jan 19 2004, 07:50 AM][quote]…unless we are willing to consider our own government a "hostile regime"… I'm so willing…"We have met the enemy, and they are us."[/quote]
I am willing to admit we have made mistakes along the way, done some things that we shouldn't have, some with terrible consequences, but I will never be so willing to espouse such a negative view of the U.S.[/quote]
Hmmn. I call it a realistic view of the US. But then, I'm more of a "my country, the good with the bad" type of person than a "my country, right or wrong" type of person. In any event, my statement above was in the context of your definition: we are a country which "harbors and/or supports terrorists". By your definition, that makes us a "hostile regime". If you want to modify your definition - "countries that harbor and/or support terrorists, but which are not the United States", for example, or "countries that harbor and/or support terrorists, which are also desirable territories for extending and establishing global hegemony and which pose a threat to the interests of American business" - I'm willing to reconsider whether or not the US should be included in your definition.

[quote][quote]Pervez Musharraf is no more representative of Pakistan and its role in supporting terror than Saddam Hussein was representative of Iraq and its lack of a role in supporting terror. [/quote]
One thing that has been consistent through this entire episode is your continued defense of Saddam Hussein. Oh I know, you will say you aren’t defending Saddam, you are just spreading the truth or playing devil's advocate, right?[/quote]
Well, not quite. I have never "defended" Saddam Hussein - unless you do, in fact, accept "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" at face value, without the fuller context which you previously provided. In mounting an illegal, unprovoked, aggressive war against another sovereign state, I was not "with us" ("us", of course, being the Bush administration as opposed to the United States). So I guess that makes me "with Saddam Hussein".

As a matter of pure fact, I am actually "with" a good deal of the Bush campaign platform as quoted by Amlord and discussed during the campaign debates. I do think Hussein should have been prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction (as it appears he was - being prevented, that is). I do think we should have had "evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities" before acting "forcefully and unequivocally". I do "support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act". I do think that any use of our military should be "judicious" - it should need to be "in our vital interest", the mission should be "clear", and the exit strategy should be "obvious". I don't think our troops ought to be used "for what's called nation-building".

It is not my positions which have changed, Bela, it is those of the Bush administration - and its supporters. And, yes, that is "spreading the truth".

[quote]I see you’ve even created your own avatar to promulgate this “truth”. Let’s look at one of your “truths” as it relates to this sub-discussion.

[quote]Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorist, including members of Al-Qaeda. FALSE you proclaim.[/quote]
Saddam was a contributor to terrorism...

Should I consider this funding charitable contributions? Is that the spin I’ll be reading next? Will you continue to deny that Saddam Hussein funded terrorism? A simple yes or no will suffice.[/quote]
Hussein made one-time donations to the surviving family members of a small percentage of dead suicide bombers. Do I defend this? No. Absolutely not. Do I consider this a funding of terrorism which poses an immediate threat to the United States and justifies a war of aggression? No. Absolutely not.

[quote]You don’t have to feed me the “well other countries are doing it too and we aren’t invading them” mantra.[/quote]
Why not? Maybe it's a mantra to which a few more people should actually start listening. It is a key issue - perhaps the key issue - in assessing our current regime. It proves that the Bush administration is not at all serious about the so-called "war on terror" - and that they are, therefore, very serious about something else. So serious, in fact, that they are willing to virtually abandon any salient effort to reverse the tide of international terror at the mortal peril of every citizen of this country.

There are far more serious and deadly targets in the world than Iraq was - who pose a far more "imminent threat" - if this administration were truly interested in combatting terrorism. It is clearly and demonstrably not. This administration has chosen not to go after the real threats in the least. It has chosen, instead, to go after someone with only marginal, tenuous links to terrorism at all - and whose targeting will only create more anti-American sentiment among those who are a real and present danger to this country. Even if one accepted the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive acts of aggression, Iraq simply did not qualify. If one were serious about preemption - and countries which really do harbor and support terror - one would be going after countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan - not Iraq, hardly Iran, and certainly not North Korea (which has as little to do with the sponsorship of "terror" as Iraq had).

The "axis of evil" is a joke. It is a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with combatting terrorism. It has to do with pursuing a hegemonic agenda totally unrelated to the immediate security of the United States of America.

If this adminstration had a shred of honesty, if they actually admitted that Iraq had been targeted for an aggressive invasion to oust Saddam Hussein since the day they took office, if they admitted that the Iraqi campaign had nothing whatsoever to do the the September 11 attack, but that they wanted to establish permanent military bases in Iraq for their own reasons of "national security", they would be no more worthy of our respect but at least they could not be accused of... well, dishonesty.

In fact, the conquest of Iraq is not an exercise in nation-building. It is an exercise in empire-building.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

THE PREMISE:[quote=Amlord,Jan 16 2004, 01:17 PM]A poster says that GWB is being inconsistent because he opposed nation building during his election campaign.  Now, he goes into Iraq, making him a hypocrite.

Question for debate:  Is GWB a hypocrite for his stance on Iraq from his campaign vs. what he actually did?[/quote]
THE CONCLUSION:[quote=Amlord,Jan 19 2004, 09:45 AM]Let's address "nation building" as Wertz brought it up.[/quote]

Um, you started this debate asking whether or not George W Bush was a hypocrite on the basis of his opposition to nation building, Amlord. To switch the debate topic midstream to "whether or not GWB intending to settle the Iraq situation while still a candidate" is a bit unfair. To claim that you are doing it in an effort to "get back to the original debate", a bit disingenuous.

[quote]As I see it, Bush was against invading a country simply for nation building. Examples of this could include Somalia and Haiti.[/quote]
And Iraq isn't an example? What do you mean by "simply" nation building? Intervention and reconstruction for humanitarian reasons? To spread freedom and democracy? To curb the activities of ruthless regimes? Which of these apply to Somalia or Haiti, but not Iraq? Which of these apply to Iraq, but not Somalia or Haiti? Did any of the three pose an immediate threat to the US? Did any of the three aid terrorism? Did any of the three have weapons of mass destruction? The pro-war wing has been reduced to using the same justification for nation building as might have been used in the Balkans.

[quote]He never said he would invade a country and leave it to fend for itself in the wake of destruction. THAT is not a very compassionate position.[/quote]
He never said that he would invade a country, period - unless it were in our vital interest with a clear mission and an obvious exit strategy. Considering what his administration has actually done, THAT is not a very honest position.

[quote]Did Bush intend to finish the Iraq situation in a way that Clinton never intended on doing?[/quote]
Wow. This thread is full of new questions. What fun! I think we can agree that that is an absolutely YES.

[quote]I think we can see from his statements that YES, he intended on removing Saddam from power, even as a candidate.[/quote]
Well, he did say he would "patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action" and he did say the Iraq Liberation Act - which specifically precludes military action - should be seen as "a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein" and, yes, he observed that "peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq". Well, "he" didn't actually say any of those things - whoever wrote his platform did. But neither he nor his policy-makers said that he was intent on removing Hussein during his first term - and certainly not through illegal military action. And neither he nor his policy-makers said that we would enforce "peace and stability in the Persian Gulf" by fiat.

[quote]So, does it come as a surprise that Bush asked the Pentagon to explore invasion plans BEFORE 9/11? It shouldn't.[/quote]
If one were familiar with the PNAC game plan, it shouldn't have come as a surprise, true, but if one goes by what Bush actually said and by what is written in the platform you so generously reproduced, then it is only a surprise if one considers complete reversals surprising.

[quote]Bush stated that it was a goal. He was following through on his platform.[/quote]
He stated that the invasion of Iraq was a goal? No, he did not. Nor did his platform. Invasion was never discussed with the American people prior to Bush's election. Not once. He spoke hypothetically about vital interests, clear missions, and obvious exit strategies, but unprovoked invasion? No. Military action at all in relation to Iraq specifically - as a goal?? No. No, he didn't.


[quote]Now, after 9/11, the removal of Saddam became an even greater priority.

Why, you ask?[/quote]
You can read me like a primer. Yeah - why?

[quote]Saddam backed Palestinian terrorists.[/quote]
This has been addressed above. And what has it got to do with the September 11 attack?

[quote]Saddam could not (or would not, no difference in my eyes) account for his WMDs.[/quote]
Well, he was certainly dragging his feet and being relatively uncooperative, but the accounts had been slowly coming in (until UNSCOM withdrew in 1998) and the Iraqi government had been cooperating since the passing of Resolution 1441. But what has it got to do with the September 11 attack?

[quote]Saddam resisted the newest round of "inspectors".[/quote]
Well, no he didn't actually. On November 4, 2002, Hussein said Iraq would comply with a new UN resolution as long as it did not serve as an excuse for US military action. On November 13, 2002, Iraq's Government accepted UN Resolution 1441. On November 18, 2002, Hans Blix lead the UNMOVIC inspection team back to Baghdad to start their mission. On February 14, 2002, Blix submitted a report stating that the results of the inspections had been "consistent with Iraqi declarations" and that Iraq had "decided in principle to provide cooperation" and that access to sites had been "without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected as well as two presidential sites and private residences" and that Iraq organized two commissions which "could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence" - and concluded that "the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short". It also found that, through "data provided by Iraq", two variants of their Al-Masoud missiles were capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in contravention of Resolution 687. On March 1, 2002, Iraq began to destroy those missiles.

On March 17, 2002, President Bush delivered an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within forty-eight hours - or else. On March 19, 2002 - else.

What has this got to do with the September 11 attack?

[quote]Saddam's Iraq was the epitome of the Rogue Nation. A nation willing to thumb its nose at the world. A nation willing to use WMDs to further its ends.[/quote]
The same could be said of a nation which seeks support from the UNSC for the "use of military force" against another country and, when it fails to get that support, decides - with no legal authority and no justification on the basis of the Geneva Conventions - to use military force anyway, to launch aggressive war without provocation, to mount an invasion in contravention of international law. At least, I suppose, that rogue nation didn't start with Poland.

And need I ask, at this stage, how this ties in to the September 11 attack? Are you still buying the Bush administration's lie that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorist, including members of Al-Qaeda"?

[quote]Before 9/11, Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with. GWB promised that he would do so.[/quote]
Maybe - but without any mention of invasion or aggressive warfare - or even use of the military.

[quote]After 9/11, the Iraq threat was magnified, making it the nation's top security priority.[/quote]
You have categorically failed to demonstrate this, Amlord. Magnified how? Top priority why? Because a bunch of Saudis based in Afghanistan and the United States and supported by Pakistan - all of whom hated Saddam Hussein - attacked US targets? Your "reasoning" eludes me.

[quote]The evidence and reasoning is there for those who are willing to consider it.[/quote]
Okay... when you're ready to share some of this evidence and reasoning, let us know. We'll consider it.

Wertz,

I know you fail to realize it, but the end of the First Gulf was not a peace treaty, but a cease fire.

As a condition to that cease fire, Iraq agreed to comply with all SC resolutions. Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed, indicating that Iraq had NOT complied with the applicable SC resolutions. Ergo, Iraq was in non-compliance with its cease fire agreement. Ergo, the resumption of hostilities was completely LEGAL.

That is not in dispute. Please stop acting like the UN is up in arms about some "illegal" action taken by the US. Some individual nations were upset at the course of events. None, to my knowledge, has asserted that the action taken by the US and the "coalition of the willing" was illegal.



Um, I started the post because people refer to Bush's opposition to nation building as if it is the end-all and be-all of policy decisions. Opposition to nation building is a general, guiding policy.

The problem is, Bush had a specific view on IRAQ, which differed from the anti-nation building one. When two policies differ, the one which is more specific applies.

[I know I don't need an explicity example here, but let me throw one out anyway:

Position 1: I oppose the death penalty.
Position 2: except in cases of people who are rude to old ladies.

Since I have a specific policy in regards to abusers of old ladies, my position is not inconsistent. It simply has a qualifier on it.]

In this case, GWB was for the removal of Saddam. He is also against the indiscriminate use of the military and its use in nation building. These positions are not inconsistent. The Iraq position is simply a specific, exclusionary one. The general rule of thumb does not apply.



Answered above.


See above. General vs. specific.


Saddam's patronage of the families of suicide bombers is well documented. He increased his donations over time. I know it might seem to be a stretch to some, but it never entered into anyone's mind that Saddam may have been recruiting Palestinians to do a few "missions" for him? That the sympathy towards Iraq from the desperate Palestinians may have led some to consider attacking the evil US, instead of the evil Israelis?

Will Iraq turn to suicide bombers? Hamas leader urges nation to defend itself from U.S. with martyrs



So says, Wertz. It must be true. No links, I suppose?

Bush's position on Iraq was fairly clear, even when we was a mere candidate.

Looking Back at the 2000 Campaign and Bush's Views on Iraq

No he was not hypocritical. In spite of his comments about nation building, he also has stated from the beginning that his policy on Iraq was, "regime change." In other words, he was simply inheriting a policy from the previous (Clinton)adminstration. All Presidents do this with regards to most policies. After September 11, President Bush decided that the passive attempts to change the regime were not working. Iraq was simply one of those 'qualifiers' that Amlord was talking about. Perhaps if Clinton had sent in the black ninjas like he wanted back in '98 we wouldn't be in this mess. Oh wait, that was Al Qaida.

Here is the Clinton Administration's policy on Iraq: Iraq Liberation Act

Amlord



Maybe you can help me out on something I don't understand . In this debate you are discussing Bush platform and your point is that Bush included taking out Saddam in his platform.

Am I correct in assuming this? If so then I have a question to ask. I may not be as intelligent as you but something is bugging me.

In his statement he said



In that quote Bush said ''my intent was the weapons--them, not him. Now how did we go from taking the weapons out ---to taking out Saddam.

Please explain this to this poor old dumb humble person, I beg

Also the comment,"if we find he is building weapons of mass destruction"

The only evidence presented by the Bush adminstration was from wmds from the 1980s and 1990s. If we define "building wmds", that is in the present tense and there have been NO EVIDENCE from 2000 that he was building wmds.

Unless you want to present that bogus claim from Niger that was was proven to be false.

Please enlighten me so I can see your point of view.

[quote=Amlord,Jan 20 2004, 12:22 PM]I know you fail to realize it, but the end of the First Gulf was not a peace treaty, but a cease fire.[/quote]
I know you fail to realize it - or have chosen to ignore the facts - but the cease fire was not between Iraq and the United States. The whole question of the legality of this war of aggression has been addressed in the Geneva Convention thread. The above issue was raised specifically in response to one of your posts in that thread - and the illegal status of this invasion further clarified here.

As I pointed out in that thread last August:[quote=Wertz,Aug 31 2003, 12:03 PM]The 1991 cease-fire agreement was between Iraq and the UN, not Iraq and the US. It is not our resolution to enforce.

There is no provision in UNSC Resolution 687 (or UNSC Resolution 1441, for that matter) which authorizes individual states to take military action for their enforcement. Such action, under the resolutions in question and the UN Charter, can only be sanctioned by the Security Council itself...

The invasion of Iraq had no justification on the basis of humanitarian intervention. The invasion of Iraq had no justification on the basis self-defense. The invasion of Iraq was outside US jurisdiction in relation to the UN resolutions relating to Iraq. Indeed, the United States and her allies, like Saddam Hussein, are in material breach of Resolution 687. The United States and her allies are in breach of the UN Charter. The United States and her allies are in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

The Iraqi campaign is illegal.

It is war crime.[/quote]
The breaches in the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are detailed in the thread cited above - as are our breaches of the Constitution of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, our breaches of the UN War Crimes Tribunal, and our breaches of the International Criminal Court (not that we care about the last, of course, as George Bush conveniently refuses to recognize it).

[quote]Please stop acting like the UN is up in arms about some "illegal" action taken by the US. Some individual nations were upset at the course of events.  None, to my knowledge, has asserted that the action taken by the US and the "coalition of the willing" was illegal.[/quote]
The Iraqi campaign remains illegal, Amlord - and those prosecuting it remain war criminals - whether the UN is too terrified of a rogue state like the US to mention it or not. Besides, what could they do? Take Cheney and Rumsfeld to the International Criminal Court? We are not only the world's vigilante, Amlord, we refuse to acknowledge the existence of any international law which could actually do anything about our criminal activity.

[quote]I started the post because people refer to Bush's opposition to nation building as if it is the end-all and be-all of policy decisions. Opposition to nation building is a general, guiding policy.

The problem is, Bush had a specific view on IRAQ, which differed from the anti-nation building one. When two policies differ, the one which is more specific applies.[/quote]
But it didn't. The invasion of Iraq was a totally new position. It was not part of his previously stated policy on IRAQ. And the US taking unilateral charge of, er, building the nation afterwards would have received a general, guiding sneer from Bush had Clinton or Gore attempted it.

[quote]In this case, GWB was for the removal of Saddam. He is also against the indiscriminate use of the military and its use in nation building.[/quote]
He was against the indiscriminate use of the military, period, Amlord - if you believe what he said during his campaign. He was against the use of the military except when all three of the following conditions were in place: A. the use of the military would be in our vital interest; B. the mission would be clear; C. the exit strategy would be obvious. In the case of Iraq, the invasion was not in our vital interest, the mission still isn't clear, and we may never have an exit strategy.

In terms of his "specific" policy on Iraq, his policy was one of patient cooperation with our allies, his policy was to start with the Iraq Liberation Act. In action, his policy was to rashly ignore our allies, his policy was to totally disregard the Iraq Liberation Act.

Granted, it could be argued that Bush may not have been a hypocrite in the context you originally framed. it could be argued that he may not have been a hypocrite in his attitude toward nation-building (at least as parsed by you). But he is clearly and obviously a hypocrite when it comes to his "use of the military" and his "specific" policies in relation to Iraq.

[quote]Answered above.[/quote]
Answered above.

[quote]See above.  General vs. specific.[/quote]
See above. Truth vs. lies.

[quote][quote]Hussein made one-time donations to the surviving family members of a small percentage of dead suicide bombers. Do I defend this? No. Absolutely not. Do I consider this a funding of terrorism which poses an immediate threat to the United States and justifies a war of aggression? No. Absolutely not.[/quote]
Saddam's patronage of the families of suicide bombers is well documented. Etc., etc., etc.[/quote]
This has already been addressed here with a bit more detail here. If you think it's worth pursuing further, start a thread.

[quote][quote=Wertz]The "axis of evil" is a joke. It is a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with combatting terrorism. It has to do with pursuing a hegemonic agenda totally unrelated to the immediate security of the United States of America.[/quote]
So says, Wertz. It must be true. No links, I suppose?[/quote]
So says Dick Cheney. So says Donald Rumsfeld. So says Paul Wolfowitz. So says Richard Perle. As you know, this has been covered extensively in these threads - starting with this one about a year ago. Follow some of the links posted in that thread, read some of the articles mentioned - hell, just look into the PNAC, for God's sake - do a modicum of research on the people who are running your country, Amlord - and you will hardly need to ask for more information.

[quote]Bush's position on Iraq was fairly clear, even when we was a mere candidate.

Looking Back at the 2000 Campaign and Bush's Views on Iraq

[/quote]
Thank you for posting that link, Amlord. Like Popeye, I have no idea why you posted it, as it delivers a rather damaging blow to your argument, but thanks!

Here you have Bush himself clearly articulating that he will not "take out" Saddam Hussein, that regime change is not a part of his agenda, that he is not even contemplating unprovoked, aggressive war. You have even given us a reference to Bush claiming that any "response" to Hussein would be contingent on the "discovery" that he was building WMDs - not the suspicion, not the lack of proof, not the faulty or invented intelligence reports, the actual "discovery". All of this, of course, has proved to have been lie upon lie upon lie. Lies made all the more unequivocal by the link you just provided. Thanks!

I'm going to be brief here.

When Bush said that if we discovered Iraq continuing its WMD programs that his response would be to take out the weapons, (and not Saddam), it was before 9/11.

I know you guys continue to act like 9/11 has no impact on how we view rogue states, but the fact of the matter is: after 9/11, threats that seemed distant and regional suddenly became close and much more global. Saddam is the most clear cut example.

If you want to sit there and say with a clear conscious that Saddam would not use WMDs in a terrorist type activity against the US: fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just glad that you aren't the POTUS.

Saddam was the very definition of rogue state: demonstrated will to use WMDs, demonstrated will to attack his neighbors, demonstrated animosity towards the US and its allies (of course, he never did anything to us... ), demonstrated support of terrorists, including Hamas.

I can forgive Bush for clarifying his position after 9/11. Saddam suddenly became the #1 threat to the US (as far as foreign states go). And it had nothing whatsoever to do with ICBMs or direct military threats.

Hide under your rock. Continue to believe that the US double crossed Saddam by duping him into believing we would not respond to an attack on Kuwait. Continue to fool yourself into believing that Saddam was a caged tiger (or worse, delude yourself into believing Saddam was a house cat).

The removal of Saddam remains, in hindsight, the right thing to do.

From Bush's campaign platform again:

This became even MORE true after 9/11.

Did Bush waffle when directly asked (in 1999) whether or not we would move towards regime change in Iraq? Yes, he did.

Did Bush make the right decision when push came to shove? Yes he did.

The aftermath of 9/11 was not entirely about terrorists. It was also about "unconventional threats" (such as Iraq), past grudges, and future catastophic attacks on US soil.

I agree with the above statement.



And I say that with the in depth investigations of numerous 'America's Debate'
contributors you can find ample grist for the mill that Cheney and Bush had designs on the overthrow of Iraq for reasons attributed to the oil supply of the U.S.
This is an abomination of my comprehension of U.S. self sufficiency and the departure from colonialism.



As to the above, my opinion is that Bush and Co. were salivating for a mind numbing tragedy, not nescessarily in the U.S.(we are so special, but take it as it comes ), to mold our minds toward their agenda.



Jewish question - I'll back away (in shame).



Hey, what about that North Korean guy that already has nukes (oh yeah, and no oil) and is selling his missles to countries that don't like the U.S..




Is this your opinion?



Every thing is debatable, thats why we're posting.


Peace

EDIT: fixed quotes.

Amlord

I had a hard time convincing myself to reply to your recent stabs at trying to justify Bushs platform on Iraq and his deviation from his originial words. It would appear you may have painted yourself and Bush both into a corner.



So now we have concluded in your quote from Bush that the intent was "the weapons not him"

Amlord



So now Amlord has said that Bush stated in his speech that he was going to take out Saddam.

Then Amlord changed his mind (since we used his own quotes) and agreed that Bush meant "weapons instead of Saddam". Amlord justified that by saying Bush has a right to clarify his position after 9/11.

Amlord



Am I right that Amlord is saying that 9/11 gives Bush a right to clarify his postion.

May I ask a question at this point. What does 9/11 have to do with the invasion of Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm



Since even Bush admits Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 why would 9/11 clarify or justify invading Iraq. Another lie.

It seems Amlord that your argument is a great big circle any you keep trying to prove a lie by a lie. It seems to be a big circle and perhaps you are lost inside the circle(or is it a web of deceit). Or maybe you have been listening to Fox News and you are putting a LITTLE SPIN on it.

I challenge you to dispute anything I have quoted from YOUR QUOTES. I have used no assumptions or guesses on my part. It is all facts from YOUR QUOTES.


And by the way you never did answer this: from a earlier post




Edited to add. Yes Bush is definitely a HYPOCRITE and a LIAR too.

Enough, prove Bush lied, Popeye.

Just because you say he lied, doesn't make it