The debate going on in this thread about the threat Iran poses generated a few questions in my mind that I think are worthy for debate.

We have debated at length here on AD the causes of the Iraq war. However, one thing I don't think is debatable is that the stated reason for going in was to disarm Saddam because he had WMD. There may have been other reasons as well, but this was the reason sold to the American people, the world and the UN. After we went in we quickly found out that there was no WMD and the whole thing kind of fell apart. Everything after that -- the terrorism, abu gharib, etc were just more nails in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Recently people have started to blame the CIA for this intelligence failure, and again we have debated this at length here on AD. Regardless of who is responsible, I think the important thing to remember is that the buck stops at the top, and the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of our country.

Finally, fully a majority of Americans believe we were in Iraq on false pretenses. Some of our major allies have experienced the same thing at home (maybe even worse than in the US) such as the UK.

Given all of these things, it seems to me that President Bush has a serious credibility problem. If a threat were to surface and it were legitimate, how would our country, the world, and our allies ever believe it was a real threat and action should be taken? Would Bush ever be able to build an alliance for another conflict if he were elected for 4 more years? I would tend to think that the UK wouldn't go along quite so willingly for round 2 no matter what the circumstances, and lets face it, they are the only real meat we had in this "coalition of the willing".

Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree that Bush has a credibility problem?

2. Assuming Bush were elected for another 4 years, how could he possibly regain credibility and effectively do his job (i.e. protecting the US from terrorism)? Would perceived threats be written off as Bush crying wolf or warmongering?

3. More in general, how would electing a president we know would likely have problems doing a major part of his job effectively be in the best interest of the country even if he was strong in other areas? (This doesn't necessarily have to be about Bush)

1) I think the Bush 'Administration' has a credibility problem. Not necessarily Bush. Our president is only as good as the people who advise him and give him info. If he cannot get the right intelligence, how can we expect him to make the right decisions?

2) This question relies on how things go in iraq. If it turns out to be a success...his credibility is back. If it goes to hell, then he will never have any credibility. Right now our intelligence is in a bind. The people do not trust the CIA or FBI any more. Even if credible intelligence is gathered of a possible threat the people will see it as warmongering. Thats a serious problem. But again, it all depends on Iraq and if we can successfully set up a satble gov't and bring our troops home.

3) I dont really understand what you are asking. I guess you mean if Bush is weak in domestic policy is it ok to still elect him for being strong in foreign policy. I dont know, i think te country elects the president that it needs at the time. If in November, the country desides it needs Bush, he will be elected. If the country decides we need Kerry, he will be elected.

1. Do you agree or disagree that Bush has a credibility problem?

Darn! lederuvdapac beat me to it, well almost......The administration has the problem not just Bush. However, Bush leads this administration, he appointed the cabinet, and he is ultimately responsible for the entire administration. That is why he is called the President. Therefore, the credibility problem rests on his shoulders.

2. Assuming Bush were elected for another 4 years, how could he possibly regain credibility and effectively do his job (i.e. protecting the US from terrorism)? Would perceived threats be written off as Bush crying wolf or warmongering?

I do not think that he can, thus I am voting for someone else.

I think that the citizens of the United States should start taking some responsibility for how our last 3 years of existence have been portrayed around the world. Everyone should ask themselves, "Is this the way America should be represented? Is this the way I want to be perceived around the world?"

Our election results will go along way towards establishing credibility for America, I don't care what they think of our President.

3. More in general, how would electing a president we know would likely have problems doing a major part of his job effectively be in the best interest of the country even if he was strong in other areas? (This doesn't necessarily have to be about Bush)

Whoops, jumped the gun on this one a bit.

We are going to tell the world a great deal on November 2nd. What we tell them, the world that is, will most definitely determine the timeline on how quickly we are able to re-establish ourselves as "the good guys". It might determine if that is even possible. Time will tell......I hope it tells a happy story.



(You know it helps if you sing the signature. I can't get it out of my head.......You say you want a Revolution..........)

Honestly I think this administration does have credibility problems. The Dems will have to fight him over any future pronouncements. Even were the proof to be Very credible the amount of hatred for Bush might bring about a bit of cutting of noses to spite the face.
Second Spain supported Bush those who did are done politically, Blair won't survive this, I really believe he's done.
What politician is going to put it on the line for a man whose allies have crashed and burned.
Bush has pushed things to a point where even if the world really knows we're doing the right thing some seem more than willing to snub us in some nasty bit of "lets put them in their place"
That leaves who? Austrailia? Maybe some of the former soviet occupied states?
No offense to them but that aint much.
I know we could stand on our own but could we survive it?
I'm not worried about military might, but economically yes I'm a bit worried.

What do we do if nations say we cannot use their airspace or waterways?
We need to stage troops for anything someplace, Just how good are our options?
Bush has already shown he has no diplomatic ability whatsoever so how would he handle something like that? Threats?
Just how long can our military stand the strain? many of them face economic ruin if they cannot get home soon. Military pay just don't cut it.
How sharp can they stay if they begin to really worry about back home? What happens to morale as a result. Short tempered people make bad mistakes.
Its also one thing to say I'll hold your job till you get back but completely another when it begins to hurt your business. Patriotism fades when what you have spent your life working on is in danger.

1. Do you agree or disagree that Bush has a credibility problem?

I agree he has a credibility problem. He has flip flopped on some major issues. He has stated he would support the assualt weapons ban being renewed but now when the issue comes up he will not take a stand on it and urge his own republican congressmen and women to vote for it. Plus when he had a chance to let the inspectors back into Iraq one last time he didn't. Had he, would we have had to invade Iraq? We will never know.

2. Assuming Bush were elected for another 4 years, how could he possibly regain credibility and effectively do his job (i.e. protecting the US from terrorism)? Would perceived threats be written off as Bush crying wolf or warmongering?

He has destroyed the United States repuatation world wide in so many ways I can't see how he could effectively do his job. I have almost begin to write off some of these threats. It's convient that he tells Americans to go out and travel and spend money to generate the economy yet he is always talking about the threats.



3. More in general, how would electing a president we know would likely have problems doing a major part of his job effectively be in the best interest of the country even if he was strong in other areas? (This doesn't necessarily have to be about Bush)


That question pretty much sums up the importance of the election coming up. Much of Europe is following the election and is hoping for a new president. I question strongly how we can still be respected in the international community if we re-elect President Bush.

First, I have to question the premise of the thread: "I don't think is debatable is that the stated reason for going in was to disarm Saddam because he had WMD." The stated reason was that he was trying to get them, not that he had them. That said:

1. Do you agree or disagree that Bush has a credibility problem?
Not on the basis of WMD's, since Iraq did turn out to have them. OTOH they weren't discovered till April of this year, and the press downplayed them, and it's quite possible that many never heard about them. On the basis of Iraq being dangerous: it hasn't been shown that it wasn't, and a sensible voter would have to ask, "When almost every pol, including the Democratic challenger, agreed that Hussein was a danger, how does it damage Bush's credibility to be wrong (or right) like everyone else?"

2. Assuming Bush were elected for another 4 years, how could he possibly regain credibility and effectively do his job (i.e. protecting the US from terrorism)? Would perceived threats be written off as Bush crying wolf or warmongering? He's been doing a fair job with Iraq reconstruction while people say bad things about him. Being criticized comes with the job.

3. More in general, how would electing a president we know would likely have problems doing a major part of his job effectively be in the best interest of the country even if he was strong in other areas? I guess it would depend on the areas he was no good at and the areas he was good at; can't answer this generally.

1. Do you agree or disagree that Bush has a credibility problem?
Credibility is all about perception. The perception is that Bush has a credibility problem, therefore he does. No use denying the obvious.

However...

2. Assuming Bush were elected for another 4 years, how could he possibly regain credibility and effectively do his job (i.e. protecting the US from terrorism)? Would perceived threats be written off as Bush crying wolf or warmongering?
The Presidency is not subject to the whims of international opinion. In order to restore credibility, Bush would need to be able to act decisively when the needs arises. He has shown that he will not back down from critics, so I don't feel this is going to be a problem. Also, if the Congress is retained in Republican hands (which it looks like it will be), Bush will have an easier job of it. I sometimes feel that Bush has not acted decisively enough with Congress (over filibusters, particularly).

The US still has good cooperation from the international community on terrorism. I don't think there is any evidence that other countries are withholding support there. Militarily, they may be averse to lending support to Bush, but military support from these other countries is nominal at best anyway. It doesn't really affect our operational effectiveness in the short term.

3. More in general, how would electing a president we know would likely have problems doing a major part of his job effectively be in the best interest of the country even if he was strong in other areas?
Bush is still effective at protecting us from terrorists here at home. I don't see why anything would change about that next year. It isn't as if we rely on France and Germany to keep us safe . If he has prevented attacks for the last 3 years, I see no reason why he couldn't for another 4.

The President's number one job is the safety of the American people. I feel more safe with Bush in office than I would if Kerry were elected (not that I think Kerry would be soft, I simply think he would not be decisive enough). Seeking international support for every foreign policy decision is a position of weakness, in my opinion. That's where I think Kerry would be: gridlocked by international opinion.

I've always had a problem believing anything he says. Now I do believe more people feel this way, and that's a definate problem. Trust is easy to lose and near impossible to regain.



I seriously doubt that the Bush administration could sell another invasion. But then, I also doubt that invasion is the best answer to anything.

Could distrust stop the Bush administration from taking needed steps that fall short of invasion but involve actions that require cooperation both domestically and internationally?

And involve putting full trust in the Bush administration's ability to discern fact from fiction? If we have Bush for another four years, I do believe there will be a lot more demanded of the administration to prove whatever case it tries to sell.



Let's see, how would electing a President weak in one area but strong in others help the country? I don't see this as a problem if we elect Kerry. He's strong in all areas. With Bush, I'd expect his willingness to go along with PNAC-inspired international adventures is pretty low. So I guess electing Bush wouldn't necessarily help the country, but it might not do any further harm.

I'm generously thinking that a second Bush term would not grow the deficit, would address the problems of the middle class, would not continue overstretching the armed forces, would seek bipartisan compromises . . . however, I have no basis for my generosity. It's hopeful thinking should Bush be reelected.

Iraq has WMD? Hmm, must have missed that one, and it is generally accepted as fact right now that they don't. If this is your assertion, you should probably back that up with evidence of some kind so we can all examine it for ourselves.


Really Amlord? I hardly think so, there is one area that is semi-protected from terrorists based on the presidents myopic view of what homeland security should be.

There are scores of areas that remain completely unprotected. There is absolutely nothing protecting major subways, ports, sporting events or large public areas. Maybe some of these areas cannot be protected, but I would think that at the very least the government would start looking into increasing security in subways after what happened in Spain, particularly in New York. Right now a terrorist could stroll into the subway in midtown manhattan and detonate a bomb or release some kind of biological or chemical agent and no one would see it coming. If you think Bush has been effective at protecting us from terrorists you really need to take off your rose-colored glasses.

Hmm...No attacks on US soil in 3 years. I think the evidence is on my side.

Bush, agree with Iraq or not, has distracted the terrorists into attacking there instead of here.

Meanwhile, scores of areas remain completely unprotected...

What would the guy who says:

want us to do if we can't search people? Metal detectors everywhere so that we can prove "probable cause"? Link to post.

If you really don't give a second thought about terrorism, why raise the specter that Bush isn't doing enough about it? You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Nice try Amlord, but you didn't trip me up there. Subways and Ball Parks are generally private or government owned property -- the same as airports. The government or the private company could require people to be screened by metal detectors if they chose to do so. This is completely different than having people submit to blanket searches in the middle of the street.

Secondly, I never said I didn't give a second thought to terrorism, that is a faulty assumption on your part. What I said is I don't let it consume my consciousness every day and play into every single decision I make. In other words I don't walk around in fear that we are going to get attacked by terrorists at any minute, even if I'm in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma or something.

I am however a realist and I know that the so called "protection" the Bush administration has put in place is far from adequate and there is much more they could do. Many things they have done have also been counterproductive.

That's pretty weak, Amlord. Prior to 9/11, we had one other on our soil by AQ... in 1993. Not like it happens often. So using that as the basis for your argument is weak, especially since you banged on Clinton's lack of effort on the security front in other postings. He could have used the same argument... and you would have called it weak as well.

If Bush has distracted the terrorists so much, then why do we keep getting security warnings from Ashcroft and Ridge about an impending attack? Doesn't sound like they've been too distracted.

I think it's a poor measure of "effectiveness" against terrorism by looking at attacks on American soil by foreign terrorists. Using that logic, you should be thanking Bill Clinton. When was the last time the country was successfully hit by foreign terrorists? That was in 1993. You're making an argument that I think is rather provincial in thought.

A better measure is to look at al Qaeda's proliferation around the world. Last I checked, they had attacks in the Middle East outside of Iraq, they've hit Spain, and they just hit Israeli and U.S. embassies as of yesterday. The number of attacks seems to be status quo looking at the attacks on the U.S. I would cite the number of attacks coming in Iraq, but a lot of that comes from the Iraqi insurgency, and some of you would delude these attacks as being some sort of "taking the fight to the terrorists." There is absolutely nothing on your side with the argument you've created. Ten years between an attack still doesn't mean you're doing a good job. Ten years and perhaps several arrests mean something. You have to remember another thing, we're now going to live an age where terrorism arrests are widely publicized, whereas before they weren't. I believe the reports are correct in saying that al Qaeda has grown bigger since the war in Iraq (something Osama bin Laden wanted, you rid one of his enemies). The country is a lot less safe.

al Qaeda still operates in Pakistan/Afghanistan border (e.g. they just captured an operative) and they've successfully carried out attacks there, don't for one minute think the terrorist network is distracted in Iraq.

George W. Bush has a big credibility issue, I never considered him to be credible in the first place. I lost faith in his ability to step up to the plate when he made the claim that you're with the terrorists, or you're with us. He has mishandled his alliances, which is not just France and Germany, but many countries around the world and that will hurt the US because the amount of intelligence sharing could maybe have stopped attacks in Spain and the recent embassy bombings. He went to Iraq on a claim that could have been easily proven wrong had they let Hans Blix finish the inspections. Instead they railroaded him out, bombed the country, and then proved what was already apparent. The weapons they claimed were there were not there at all.

I often hear people try to bring up the other points of the humanitarian effort to free Iraq, but that's afterthought; when he went to the UN Security council, he didn't present that information. This is another credibility problem. Bush does something wrong and then just changes his reason, ignoring the others, but keeps those reasons just in case something comes up.

Credibility is definitely about perception and if no one trusts you, then you aren't fit to lead the country. Fighting terrorists networks (not a War on an undefinable Terror) requires international cooperation because you're dealing with international networks. Claiming you have Afghanistan and all the smaller nations that aren't true targets helping you in a war will not help you better fight terrorist networks. Information sharing is important, and I don't think George W. Bush can achieve that cooperation because his attitutde seems to be one of this is the first time the US has gotten hit and they are the only country (besides Israel) that has gotten hit by terrorists.

I could honestly say I wouldn't work with the United States in fighting terrorist networks because their current approach creates more danger for me, a danger I may never have been in before.

Don't use no attack for three years as any measure, I hear that one on Fox News a lot. It's not a real argument

Does that mean in your book Clinton gets credit for the 6 years of no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (8 if you discount OKC, given it was internal terrorists, vs. foreign) including the plots foiled during the Milennium celebration? Oh that's right, Clinton was soft on terrorism, how could he possibly get credit?


Hmmm, and the warnings from Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft about an imminent attack on U.S. soil are just paranoia? They aren't distracted Amlord, don't buy that line, it isn't selling. Its a diffuse network not a scout troop. Afghanistan stuck a stick in the hive and knocked it from the trees. That doesn't mean the bees stayed there.

And the terrorists fighting there are probably mostly composed of a percentage 400,000 former Iraqi army soldiers who were told to take hike once Saddam was toppled. Your argument assumes there is a finite supply of those who hate us enough to committ such acts. Iraq helped create a whole new breeding ground, leaving the original stock mostly intact.

Bush has a credibility problem because he refuses to educate himself about such topics and instead relies on idealogues like Cheney (who wasn't always one), Rumsfeld, Rove, and Wolfowitz. There were voices of reason in the room that he appointed (Powell, O'Neill, Clarke, Armitage) that he chose to ignore. Powell in particular.

Bush has little to no chance of regaining credibility in the international community as long as the big 4 (mentioned above) are still running the show on foreign policy. Losing Powell for the next term will hurt him even more. The fact that he *still* hasn't appointed a replacement for Tenet doesn't help.

Doc

The only truly effective way of fighting terrorism would be to set up a police state, ala Iraq. Since no one advocates that, there will always remain opportunities for terrorists to hit us.

My last post was meant to demonstrate that you can not say one one hand that Bush has not done enough and on the other claim that he is trampling on our civil rights while simultaneously not protecting us. Either he is doing something at the cost of some liberty (my position) or he is doing too little (or nothing). In the second case, increased security would necessitate an additional loss of certain liberties beyond what is going on now.

It is difficult to make the case for more security AND greater civil liberties simultaneously. Obviously, a balance must be struck.

The terrorists have declared war on the US and its Zionist allies in 1998. Link Clinton did not do nothing, but he did too little in the face of rising attacks against the US.

Terrorists last struck the US in December 2000 before 9/11. That makes it 10 months between attacks. It has now been three years. I will allow that terrorists have struck in Iraq, however the targets in Iraq are not unsuspecting shoppers, businessmen or diplomats. They are soldiers who know the risks and accept them. There is a world of difference.

The warnings by Ridge and Ashcroft are to try and keep American awareness high. They certainly realize that a complacent public is the terrorists greatest friend. Alert citizens have much more chance of catching a terrorist than an air marshall or federal agent will ever have. Those alerts are designed to keep people's heads up and eyes open.

Bush's credibility is solely one of perception. The entire rest of the world, including Britain, Russia, France and Germany believed that Saddam had WMDs. They were of the opinion that it did not rise to the level of war. Fine, that's their opinion.

Bush, in reality, keeps his credibility because he acted on the available intelligence. There is no evidence that he skewed anything to pursue war (at least according to Congress and the British. Russia has recently confirmed that Saddam was planning an attack on the US. Bush did not lie, but he made a bad choice based upon bad information. No loss of credibility for that, in my book.

And once again I am saying that you are wrong Amlord, and you are taking my post out of context. In my post which you quoted we were talking about a very specific issue - namely allowing the police the ability to perform blanket searches on a public street. Allowing that to happen is a violation of everyone's civil rights.

In this post I said (emphasis added):

You pretty much completely ignored what I said and instantly went and dug up a post from another topic in an attempt to prove I had a contradictory position.

In fact, I did not say anything contradictory in my posts in this thread. The statement that the Bush administration has focused on airline security and completlely ignored some of the other soft targets I mentioned is a true statement. The suggestion that perhaps some attention should be given to subway security in the wake of Spain's attack is completely valid.

I also disagree with your supposition that the only way we can be safe is if we live in a police state. Your position sounds very much like the position of the Bush administration, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I could go on here, but this line of discussion is taking the thread off topic. The topic for discussion isn't what could be done about terrorism.

I guess he did about as much as Bush did in response to the 8/6 PDB. He tried to take the fight to them by attacking their camps in Afghanistan, but he was crucified by Republicans for "wagging the dog". Now he did too little.


I'm confused. Which attack are you referring to?



Just so that we're clear, you're saying that you find him credible based on those arguments. Or are you reversing the previous position admitting that he has a credibility issue currently (due to perception)? Or am I reading it wrong?

Btw, I'd LOVE to see the Russian intel on that pending attack. I wonder if it came from the Iraqi Information Minister.

The U.S.S. Cole. The one that Republicans love to mention that Clinton did NOTHING about (in his last month in office), but that the Bush team decided in March 2001 was "stale" (after only 4 months) and not worthy of following up on.

Go Bush!

As to credibility: I think the biggest lie wasn't about WMD or even letting his VP run around the country proclaiming "links" between AQ and Saddam. It was the statements he made in the campaign about how he would govern. The "uniter not a divider" and "a more humble foreign policy", neither of which Bush shows to have had in him. Both of which the country wanted to believe in.

Also, amf, don't forget the "no nation building" policy as well as the plank of smaller government. Both of which were reversed ostensibly because of 9/11. It makes me wonder if 9/11 was a reason or an excuse.

Well, not to be technical, but it hasn't even been 3 years since 9-11. But anyways, didn't Ashcroft try to prosecute the DC snipers as terrorists? And that was within the last three years, so I'll have to say no, the evidence is not on your side, entirely.

AML,



That's an interesting spin on the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Don't think Bush has used that one yet. If he or his campaign does, then that will simply serve to reduce credibility farther.

Let's say that the terrorists have indeed been distracted from attacking US soil. Isn't this like landing a pool shot without calling the pocket? In another word, slop.

Would anyone lay their money on such a pool player? Play with him in a tournament?

The credibility problem is a real one and possibly the losing trait of this administration. Trying to spin out of it simply drills the hole deeper. There's a greater lesson in politics here: When caught in a big mistake, don't deny it. Also, be careful what grand adventures are taken -- they are all gambles.