Full Version: Can Politics Sabotage the WOT?
On Monday:
On Tuesday:
Other sources: Guardian, CSN
Rumsfeld’s view of Iraq seems to be increasingly more negative, which never happened before the Abu Ghraib scandal. In addition to his statement about there being no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he also said this:
There was a time not so long ago when he would never have given anything but the rosiest possible picture of the war in Iraq. What’s going on here?
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
QUOTE
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
When asked about any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." CNN-Bremer/Rumsfeld
Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know." CNN-Rumsfeld/Iraq
When asked about any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." CNN-Bremer/Rumsfeld
Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know." CNN-Rumsfeld/Iraq
On Tuesday:
QUOTE
Bremer attempted to clarify his comments in a statement released Tuesday, saying his remarks referred only to "the situation as I found it on the ground, when I arrived in Baghdad in May 2003, and when I believed we needed either more Coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."
and...QUOTE
But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) regarding ties between al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood. CNN-Bremer/Rumsfeld
Other sources: Guardian, CSN
Rumsfeld’s view of Iraq seems to be increasingly more negative, which never happened before the Abu Ghraib scandal. In addition to his statement about there being no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he also said this:
QUOTE
Mr Rumsfeld has raised the possibility that only a limited vote might take place in Iraq in January 2005, excluding those areas worst hit by violence. BBC
There was a time not so long ago when he would never have given anything but the rosiest possible picture of the war in Iraq. What’s going on here?
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
Of course there is but one cannot blame this administration. Every administration has had dissention within its ranks. To think that the current administration would be immune to it would be wishful thinking. All in all, Bush is doing a great job is this regard.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
I think all administrations are or can be hypocritical at times. "Flip-flopping" reminds me of how we would get to the beach as children. I don't think that the Bush administration means anything bad by it.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
Well we continue to be triumphant in the war on terror, so I would have to think not.
Great topic Daffy. I enjoyed responding.
Of course there is but one cannot blame this administration. Every administration has had dissention within its ranks. To think that the current administration would be immune to it would be wishful thinking. All in all, Bush is doing a great job is this regard.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
I think all administrations are or can be hypocritical at times. "Flip-flopping" reminds me of how we would get to the beach as children. I don't think that the Bush administration means anything bad by it.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
Well we continue to be triumphant in the war on terror, so I would have to think not.
Great topic Daffy. I enjoyed responding.
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
There is always dissention in the ranks. I am not sure how this particular set of circumstances illustrates that, however.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Individuals have opinions. Different opinions between different people is not a "flip flop". Differing opinions from the same guy depending upon who he is talking to is a flip flop.
Honestly, I see no flip flop here.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
Thank you for equating the war in Iraq with the War on Terror. Sometimes such small gestures make all the difference.
I will restate: I don't see a flip flop on what Rumsfeld said (that in light of new evidence, he sees no concrete evidence of a Saddam Al Qaeda link). His clarification the next day probably alludes to the assumption that he was referring to 9/11. The 9/11 commission has stated that Iraq and Al Qaeda had connections. Those connections did not qualify as a "collaborative relationship" however. A fancy way of saying that there is no evidence that Iraq was linked specifically to 9/11. Iraq WAS linked to Al Qaeda.
I have always felt that Rumsfeld gave a "no nonsense" view of Iraq. This isn't anything new.
There is always dissention in the ranks. I am not sure how this particular set of circumstances illustrates that, however.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Individuals have opinions. Different opinions between different people is not a "flip flop". Differing opinions from the same guy depending upon who he is talking to is a flip flop.
Honestly, I see no flip flop here.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
Thank you for equating the war in Iraq with the War on Terror. Sometimes such small gestures make all the difference.
I will restate: I don't see a flip flop on what Rumsfeld said (that in light of new evidence, he sees no concrete evidence of a Saddam Al Qaeda link). His clarification the next day probably alludes to the assumption that he was referring to 9/11. The 9/11 commission has stated that Iraq and Al Qaeda had connections. Those connections did not qualify as a "collaborative relationship" however. A fancy way of saying that there is no evidence that Iraq was linked specifically to 9/11. Iraq WAS linked to Al Qaeda.
I have always felt that Rumsfeld gave a "no nonsense" view of Iraq. This isn't anything new.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Thank you for equating the war in Iraq with the War on Terror. Sometimes such small gestures make all the difference.
And I'm certain that you know that is not how I intended it to read.
In fact, there is nothing in the question that implies that. Maybe I should have added "true" before "war on terror"? Would that clarify it better?I was not comparing Bremer's statements with Rumsfeld's. I was comparing Bremer/Bremer and Rumsfeld/Rumsfeld, Monday/Tuesday. And I'm sure you knew that too.
It's not a flip-flop when one day Rumsfeld states there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and the very next day retracts it and says he was "misunderstood"?? You don't think there was something said to Bremer to make him come out on Tuesday to water down the assertions he made on Monday?
Just FYI, it's the lead story on the network news tonight. I just saw tape of Rumsfeld's (Monday) statement, and he most certainly said it, and it didn't look like he was stumbling over the words.
I didn't catch this news story, I am tickled. 
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
Yes, and by saying so I mean that the Bush people don't seem to be perfectly parroting the same message as they have done amazingly effectively so far. As our conservative friends have said I doubt that this is unusual or special, but certainly Rumsfeld's depiction of the war differs from Bush's and I guess we can call that dissention.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Definitely, but I don't say so with the intention of giving the "flip-flopping" concept validity. As has been discussed in the "Is Bush a strong leader" thread, consistency is not necessarily an admiral trait. One who refuses to metabolize new information or question ones previous positions in favor of better or more productive ones is not a "strong leader" or a wise person. Ignorance is just ignorance. I actually admire Rumsfeld for being objective, even if he only was capable of it for only a day before retracting it.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
I think election year politics ahave rendered the electorate body incapable of being generally objective with their vote and opinions... but as for our ability to wage the "War On Terror" I still disagree that such a thing exists. I iterate again that there can be no war on abstract nouns such as "Terror," and since terrorist tactics are nothing but the last resort of desperate or immoral peoples in an unbalanced conflict, trying to wage a war on those prone to terrorist tactics is like trying to extinguish a barbicue pit with gasoline.
Now obviously we are waging a war on something. I have no intention of debating over the specifics of whom we are fighting since I believe there is a thread on that already. How effective we are at the war we are waging isn't affected much by electioral politics because I doubt that electoral politics are the most important thing on the troops mind. The troops are the logical extension of our ability to wage this war, and so I could be mistaken by my assertion that electoral politics don't affect their fighting ability. Feel free to disprove me.
Is there some dissention in the Bush ranks?
Yes, and by saying so I mean that the Bush people don't seem to be perfectly parroting the same message as they have done amazingly effectively so far. As our conservative friends have said I doubt that this is unusual or special, but certainly Rumsfeld's depiction of the war differs from Bush's and I guess we can call that dissention.
With all the accusations of “flip-flopping” coming from the Bush camp, isn’t this hypocritical on their part?
Definitely, but I don't say so with the intention of giving the "flip-flopping" concept validity. As has been discussed in the "Is Bush a strong leader" thread, consistency is not necessarily an admiral trait. One who refuses to metabolize new information or question ones previous positions in favor of better or more productive ones is not a "strong leader" or a wise person. Ignorance is just ignorance. I actually admire Rumsfeld for being objective, even if he only was capable of it for only a day before retracting it.
Are election year politics, with their constant backpedaling and “flip-flopping” hampering our ability to wage the war on terror?
I think election year politics ahave rendered the electorate body incapable of being generally objective with their vote and opinions... but as for our ability to wage the "War On Terror" I still disagree that such a thing exists. I iterate again that there can be no war on abstract nouns such as "Terror," and since terrorist tactics are nothing but the last resort of desperate or immoral peoples in an unbalanced conflict, trying to wage a war on those prone to terrorist tactics is like trying to extinguish a barbicue pit with gasoline.
Now obviously we are waging a war on something. I have no intention of debating over the specifics of whom we are fighting since I believe there is a thread on that already. How effective we are at the war we are waging isn't affected much by electioral politics because I doubt that electoral politics are the most important thing on the troops mind. The troops are the logical extension of our ability to wage this war, and so I could be mistaken by my assertion that electoral politics don't affect their fighting ability. Feel free to disprove me.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.