What's new

Memo Questioned U.s. Postwar Planning

Managing to bring Clinton back into the debate and imply that if you don't agree with Bush you might agree with Saddam! Double score!

With all due respect, the original post of this thread was more or less an attack at the Bush administration. It is difficult to wage a logical defense to the actions of the current president without so much as mentioning his predecessor of 8 years. My response post was more or less in jest, because I know President Clinton did not only spend his time in the way I suggested, but in my opinion fumbled the ball beyond recovery and the lives of 3,000+ Americans were lost as a result of it. And that's going to make some people's blood boil, but deep in your hearts, you know it's true. Clinton's appointees to FBI and CIA were oblivious to terrorist threats... in fact, Clinton didn't even get a daily security briefing outside of his first six months in office.

Since Congress is the only entity with the constitutional ability to declare war, in which both houses of the legislative branch direct the executive branch to take military action, "voting for war" would be a joint resolution of both houses to go to war, while "giving authorization to go to war" is a joint resolution of both houses giving the president the authority to decide on his own whether to make war.

Thank you for the clarification. I still have reason to believe either action taken by congress, whether "voting for war" or "voting to give authorization for war", is an action of major consequence, and nobody in their elected office would hapazardly vote for either of these options. The administration correctly and constitutionally progressed our nation to where we stand today.

The fact that the WMDs which we were told were the reason we needed to invade Iraq did not even exist has been proven. If making bellicose statements and making a "total game of the weapons inspections" is justification for invasion, why are we not invading Pakistan and North Korea? If "mocking the U.S." is such a crime, why have we not invaded Cuba and China?

You know very well why we're not at war with Pakistan and/or North Korea. We've covered this at length.

"Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... the kind of threat Iraq poses... a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists... who travel the world among us unnoticed." - President William Jefferson Clinton, February 1998.
 
USAir757 said:
With all due respect, the original post of this thread was more or less an attack at the Bush administration. It is difficult to wage a logical defense to the actions of the current president without so much as mentioning his predecessor of 8 years. My response post was more or less in jest, because I know President Clinton did not only spend his time in the way I suggested, but in my opinion fumbled the ball beyond recovery and the lives of 3,000+ Americans were lost as a result of it. And that's going to make some people's blood boil, but deep in your hearts, you know it's true. Clinton's appointees to FBI and CIA were oblivious to terrorist threats... in fact, Clinton didn't even get a daily security briefing outside of his first six months in office.

Or the 12 years prevouse to Clinton, how far back do you go? If Iraq is the problem why dont you blame Bush I for not "finishing" the job there? Or Reagan for training and arming the bastards in Al queeda? It is a documented Fact that Clinton did plenty to fight terrorism, And I kknow this is going to make your blood boil, but deep in your heart, you know it's true, in FACT more than any presdent before him.(remember back then? wag the dog? theres no way Clinton could really have been trying to kill terrorists, na ). In fact he made a point to tell his succesor that Al-queeda was the biggest threat the US was facing, and Bush did what about it till after 911? Nothing. Who cares how many briefings you get if you do nothing about them (Bin Laden determined to strike in US ring a bell?) Tax cuts were more important I guess.

Any whoo, I'd love to see your source on the fequency and type of Clinton's security breifings. Since it is sooo important to you case the Clinton caused 911. Maybe that stupid fact will make me blame Clinton for everything too. I would also like to know how you define "daily security breifing"? Does that include just "reading" a memo like Bush prefered before 911?

The only people responsible for 911 are the terrorists, Not Bush, Not Clinton, not the CIA, Not the FBI.
 
Any whoo, I'd love to see your source on the fequency and type of Clinton's security breifings. Since it is sooo important to you case the Clinton caused 911. Maybe that stupid fact will make me blame Clinton for everything too. I would also like to know how you define "daily security breifing"? Does that include just "reading" a memo like Bush prefered before 911?

Did I hit a nerve?

Sorry, but the source is from George S. Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, appointed by President Clinton himself. According to Mr. Tenet, in an interview with Ronald Kessler (reporter for the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal)... "while he read the President's Daily Brief, Clinton stopped the CIA's morning briefings six months after he became president."

Now, I wasn't in the oval office for these meetings (or non-meetings), and neither was the source of this quote from the former director of the CIA, and neither were you for that matter, but so long as we're hearing everybody else's version of "the truth" here in this forum, it may as well be said.

If Iraq is the problem why dont you blame Bush I for not "finishing" the job there?

I'm glad that you asked that, because I do. I really think this should have been taken care of a decade ago. And, unfortunately, this country didn't re-elect the administration of GB-1, and perhaps if that had happened, we may have "nipped this in the bud" back then. Hard to say at this point.

In fact he made a point to tell his succesor that Al-queeda was the biggest threat the US was facing, and Bush did what about it till after 911? Nothing. Who cares how many briefings you get if you do nothing about them

Wow, somebody get that guy a cookie! Because, supposing that I'm wrong, and Clinton did get briefings everyday, then he had 2,920 briefings versus President Bush's [approximately] 240 briefings before 9/11. 8 years versus 0 years. 96 months versus 8 months. 2,880 days versus 240 days. That's like blaming a buyer of a used car for all the abuse of the previous owner.

The only people responsible for 911 are the terrorists, Not Bush, Not Clinton, not the CIA, Not the FBI.

You know what... to a certain degree I will agree with you there. Because, as I've always tried to maintain, in the end we're all on the same team here. But there were serious kinks in our system that lagged over from the previous adminstrations (PLURAL)... to say the least, the FBI and CIA were a collective disaster. If things were operating correctly, then 9/11 would have never happened. But, like my previous analogy, you can't expect the owner of a new car to fix all the problems immediately after he takes ownership... these things take time.

It is a documented Fact that Clinton did plenty to fight terrorism

That's almost laughable... but I'd love to see your stats on that. And random missle launches into various mountainous ranges in the middle east don't count.
 
USAir757 said:
Did I hit a nerve?

Sorry, but the source is from George S. Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, appointed by President Clinton himself. According to Mr. Tenet, in an interview with Ronald Kessler (reporter for the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal)... "while he read the President's Daily Brief, Clinton stopped the CIA's morning briefings six months after he became president."
[post="277415"][/post]​

No, you didn't.

I googled the quote and cant find the source. I would liike to read it in context. Can you provide a link please? Also, im glad to learn that "didn't even get a daily security briefing outside of his first six months in office" became "while he read the President's Daily Brief, Clinton stopped the CIA's morning briefings six months after he became president." The first implies the subject IGNORED SECURITY. While the second clarifies that he was inteligent enough to read it for himself (The PDB would obviously contain any relavant information).


Speaking of reading, did you read any of the documents yet? You might even be surprised to find some things that support your points of view. Have you read any of the varouse reports and investigations regarding 911? You might be surprised to find out how active the previouse administration was.

As for the Iraq issue, It seems thatthe only thing that would have satisfied you is if Clinton had invaded. I respect your opinion, but at the time the American people just didnt support that. In fact they dont even think it was worth it now that the cloud of deceit has been lifted. Which bring me to this point, Do you beileve the American people where given the best information available before Iraq war? How many leaks, and memos and intelgients reports have come out with the word "weak" in them? I dont remember anybody in the Admin saying we "THINK" he has wmd, but the intelgients is weak, do you?

And not that I give a crap about Saddam,the fact that he is out of power is a good thing, I just dont think it was worth any American lives, but Ironocally he did comply with the UN resolutions. He had no WMD and he did let the inspectors in. That whole going to the UN thing was a sham, and these documents prove it.
 
USAir757 said:
With all due respect, the original post of this thread was more or less an attack at the Bush administration.
[post="277339"][/post]​

It was an attempt to hold the current administration to account for it's own policies, policies put in place well AFTER Bill Clinton left office. Yet your first response, indeed, your initial sentence, attempted to deflect the blame to Clinton.

Incidentally, if you think of an attempt to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, rather than their sexual pecadillos, as an "attack", perhaps democracy is in more danger than I thought.

It is difficult to wage a logical defense to the actions of the current president without so much as mentioning his predecessor of 8 years.

Despite the fact that the subject under discussion, the Iraq war, did not exist during those 8 years?

Consider your initial reply: "You're probably right, the Clinton administration would have probably done a much better job with this war. ". How does that address the original issue? If the best defense you can come up with for the Bush Administration policies in Iraq is that "he isn't Clinton", our nation is in deeper trouble than I thought. Not much of a "logical defense" either.

My response post was more or less in jest, because I know President Clinton did not only spend his time in the way I suggested, but in my opinion fumbled the ball beyond recovery and the lives of 3,000+ Americans were lost as a result of it.

Yet, once again back to the actual subject, the Clinton Administration policy of isolating Iraq and working through the UN apparently worked, as the WMDs didn't exist and Iraq remained unable to attack it's neighbors, let alone the US.

If we are looking for people to blame, you will certainly admit that the actions of the Reagan Administration, in training and arming Osama Bin Laden in the first place, and those of the G.H.W. Bush Administration in abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets/Russians pulled out and allowing the Taliban to come to power there had a far more direct effect on making 9/11 happen than anything Clinton did, or did not, do.

Consider the fact the the current Bush Administration paid over $60 million to the Taliban in May of 2001 in an attempt to reduce opium poppy production in Afghanistan, an attempt that failed as they took the money and planted the opium anyway. How much of that money subsequently found its way to Al Qaeda?

And that's going to make some people's blood boil, but deep in your hearts, you know it's true. Clinton's appointees to FBI and CIA were oblivious to terrorist threats...

Yet, Bush thought enough of one of those appointees, George Tenet, to keep him in the job for his entire first term.

... in fact, Clinton didn't even get a daily security briefing outside of his first six months in office.

Yet again, I'm unclear what this has to do with the Iraq war. Since we're bringing up people who had nothing to do with the current war in Iraq, when you consider that by all reports Reagan slept through most of his security briefings and had a flawed grasp of basic post-WWII geography, what's your point? Neither one of them, Reagan or Clinton, sat idle for over 7 minutes while our nation was under attack and neither one of them led us into the current quagmire in Iraq.

I still have reason to believe either action taken by congress, whether "voting for war" or "voting to give authorization for war", is an action of major consequence, and nobody in their elected office would hapazardly vote for either of these options. The administration correctly and constitutionally progressed our nation to where we stand today.

Actually, no, as there is no Constitutional precedent for Congress to delegate it's authority to declare, or wage, war. Just keep in mind, when a similar act known as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution turned sour, Conservatives were among the first to take the Liberal President Johnson to task for abusing powers that rightfully belonged to Congress.

You know very well why we're not at war with Pakistan and/or North Korea. We've covered this at length.

Yet, if you apply the same standards that the Bush Administration has, (on a often-rotational basis), used to justify the invasion of Iraq, both nations rank higher than Iraq did. WMD posession and proliferation, direct rather than indirect support of terrorists, supression of liberties, etc., both Pakistan and North Korea are more direct and imminent threats to the US and its interests than Iraq.

Pakistan continues to harbor Al Qaeda forces that venture across the Afghan border to kill Americans on a frequest basis, and was the first nation to recognize the Taliban as the 'legitimate rulers of Iraq' and provided them direct support and aid while the Taliban were allowing Afghanistan to be used as an Al Qaeda training ground, a training ground that served for the majority of the 9/11 terrorists.

Rather than remaining the pariah of the muslim world that it was under Saddam, the Iraq that Bush has created will serve as yet another hotbed of Islamic radicalism, a flash point for both the Sunnis and the Shiites, and a training ground for terrorists for generations to come. No amount of "Mission Accomplished" banners or defiant sound bites will change that, nor will they bring back the troops we've lost there - troops we could have used in the REAL war on Al Qaeda. When the men and women of our armed forces put their lives on the line for our nation, we owe it to them not to waste their sacrifice to advance ANY President's political agenda. We certainly owe it to them to hold the leaders that made their sacrifice necessary accountable for their actions, rather trying to deflect the blame for those decisions.
 
My reasoning for including the Clinton administration in this conversation was simply to make reference to the fact that as President, he also believed in the threat that Iraq posed. It wasn't an untruth pulled out of thin air by Bush, Rove, and Rumsfeld to get us into a war. That's all. I'm not suggesting that President Bush is not accountable for his administration's actions.

If we are looking for people to blame, you will certainly admit that the actions of the Reagan Administration, in training and arming Osama Bin Laden in the first place, and those of the G.H.W. Bush Administration in abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets/Russians pulled out and allowing the Taliban to come to power there had a far more direct effect on making 9/11 happen than anything Clinton did, or did not, do.

I'm certainly not saying it helped. But in fact, we arm people and nations in this world with frightening regularity, so who is to say that it won't be used against us tomorrow or further down the road? That's always a possibility. It would have been extremely helpful if we got UBL while we had the chance, but we didn't. Would 9/11 have happened if we had caught him then?

Yet, Bush thought enough of one of those appointees, George Tenet, to keep him in the job for his entire first term.

He believed that Tenet had the ability, once furnished with the right resources and funding, to turn the agency around, and create a functioning organization that could begin to identify, intercept and defuse threats like the World Trade Center bombing and 9/11.

Yet, if you apply the same standards that the Bush Administration has, (on a often-rotational basis), used to justify the invasion of Iraq, both nations rank higher than Iraq did. WMD posession and proliferation, direct rather than indirect support of terrorists, supression of liberties, etc., both Pakistan and North Korea are more direct and imminent threats to the US and its interests than Iraq....... When the men and women of our armed forces put their lives on the line for our nation, we owe it to them not to waste their sacrifice to advance ANY President's political agenda.

I don't know, you tell me why. Because to me, it certainly doesn't seem like any political agenda has been advanced here. GWB's approval ratings are as low as they've ever been, several years after having the highest approval ratings ever recorded. People are miserable over what's happening in Iraq, and they have every right to be. It's hard to even turn on the news without seeing yet another incident where American lives are being lost over there. That's why it is so hard for me to accept the concept that President Bush, a strong, compassionate and caring American, would recommend this course of action two years ago above any other option without the total, unquestionable absolute need for it.

We certainly owe it to them to hold the leaders that made their sacrifice necessary accountable for their actions, rather trying to deflect the blame for those decisions.

Who is questioning accountability? In fact, we were talking before about what the administration is and isn't currently doing to equip our forces in Iraq to transition the Iraqi government as quickly and safely as possible, then get them home. I want them back home as much as anyone out there, nobody enjoys seeing this. Absolutely hold them accountable. Let's get this done.
 
USAir757 said:
My reasoning for including the Clinton administration in this conversation was simply to make reference to the fact that as President, he also believed in the threat that Iraq posed.
[post="277448"][/post]​

That Clinton took Iraq seriously is a matter of historical record. That he felt it was serious enough to maintain the sanctions and even maintain the 'no-fly' zones, for many years after the UN resolution that established them had expired and they had legally ceased to exist, shows that he considered Iraq a serious issue.

What he did not do was manufacture a reason to invade Iraq, selectively accepting only that intelligence info that supported that agenda.

It wasn't an untruth pulled out of thin air by Bush, Rove, and Rumsfeld to get us into a war. That's all.

Considering the mounting evidence regarding the Bush administration's fixation with Iraq, a fixation that predated 9/11, and their disregard for any policy or intelligence data promulgated under the previous administration, I find it fascinating that Clinton's statements are now held up as supposed supporting evidence by the Bush administration.

I'm not suggesting that President Bush is not accountable for his administration's actions.

Yet just in the last 24 hours, the Vice President did just that, attempting to dismiss those who have questioned or were critical of the Bush administration's actions with the novel, if rather questionable, argument that they should not be taken seriously because they were questioning the administrations actions.

I'm certainly not saying it helped. But in fact, we arm people and nations in this world with frightening regularity, so who is to say that it won't be used against us tomorrow or further down the road? That's always a possibility.

Considering that those we are at war with were our allies of convenience against the Soviets in Afghanistan, one can only cringe at the thought of what our present allies of convenience have in store for us in the future, particularly nuclear powers like Pakistan.

The fact is that we choose to "arm people and nations in this world with frightening regularity" would certainly beg the question that isn't it then our responsibility to be more certain of those we choose to arm and consider the consequences beforehand?

It would have been extremely helpful if we got UBL while we had the chance, but we didn't. Would 9/11 have happened if we had caught him then?

It would have been far more helpful if we had never created him in the first place. He was veiwed as an rich arab dilettante by the majority of the Islamic world, at least that small portion who had even heard of him, prior to our evolution of him into a leader of the Mujahadeen. Would 9/11 have even happened if we had not created that monster?

He believed that Tenet had the ability, once furnished with the right resources and funding, to turn the agency around, and create a functioning organization that could begin to identify, intercept and defuse threats like the World Trade Center bombing and 9/11.

Yet he chose to ignore the far-more-credible voices of those like Richard Clark, who tried to warn him of the Al Qaeda threat long before 9/11, focusing instead on his Iraq agenda.

I don't know, you tell me why.

Perhaps because Pakistan and North Korea do not have the mineral resources of Iraq nor are they situated in a region that has been at the center of his family's business for three generations? Or it could be precisely because they are far more credible, and dangerous, threats but present far too great a military and political risk.

Because to me, it certainly doesn't seem like any political agenda has been advanced here. GWB's approval ratings are as low as they've ever been, several years after having the highest approval ratings ever recorded.

And that is because his administration has lost a large portion of it's cerdibility directly because of it's conduct leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and it's performance there since. Unintended consequences are still consequences, and you can't disown them just because you don't like them.

People are miserable over what's happening in Iraq, and they have every right to be. It's hard to even turn on the news without seeing yet another incident where American lives are being lost over there. That's why it is so hard for me to accept the concept that President Bush, a strong, compassionate and caring American, would recommend this course of action two years ago above any other option without the total, unquestionable absolute need for it.

That argument is only valid if you are willing to ignore the Bush administration's single-minded focus on Iraq from the moment they came in office, it's disregard of any intelligence data that did not support their intent to do exactly what they did, and their failure to create detailed plans for what to do after the invasion.

Going into Iraq, there was no question in military circles that we would defeat Iraq militarily, but those who questioned the Bush administration's assumption that we would be universally hailed as liberators and that Jeffersonian Democracy would spring whole from the rocky, blood-stained soil of Iraq were pushed aside or silenced. Despite the numerous historical examples regarding our previous attempts to create nations from whole cloth, it appears that the universal assumption in the administration was that the quagmire in which we currently find ourselves would be the easy part. This failure has kept our troops in harms way long after the cessation of direct hostilities, and will continue to do so for many years.

Not the act of a "strong, compassionate and caring American", nor of a Commander-In-Chief who has great and abiding concern for those who serve our nation.

Who is questioning accountability?

When your initial response to those who question the Bush administration's performance is to attempt to deflect that criticism to his predecessor, you are.
 
In fact, we were talking before about what the administration is and isn't currently doing to equip our forces in Iraq to transition the Iraqi government as quickly and safely as possible, then get them home. I want them back home as much as anyone out there, nobody enjoys seeing this. Absolutely hold them accountable. Let's get this done.

Sadly, it's not that easy. The problem with nation-building is that it takes time and committment. That is one of the many points about this issue that the Bush administration chose to disregard before the invasion. Vietnam showed us what happens when we attempt to throw together a government and extricate ourselves as quickly as possible, and the US experience in nations such as the Phillippines in the 20th Century shows how long a process it can be. Even in the Phillippines, a relative sucess, there was a period from 1900 to 1904, commonly known as the Phillippine Insurrection, in which we were forced to use the most draconian methods to overcome the opposition, methods that would not play out well on television today.

Having destabilized Iraq, regardless how noble the intent, we must now stabilize it in a manner that will create a lasting entity, one that will prevent the losses we have suffered from being wasted. With great power comes great responsibility, and "we gave it a shot" is not an acceptable epitaph for those we have lost.
 
Back
Top