George W. Bush's unelectable foreign policy

[dross]

Oooooo . I love this game.

How about we invade a country that had taken zero American lives on Sept. 11. Go to war and have them take thousands. Oh wait, we did.

What game do you love? Ignoring my points?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Oooooo . I love this game.

How about we invade a country that had taken zero American lives on Sept. 11. Go to war and have them take thousands. Oh wait, we did.

I'm sure you do love that game. You think you're winning because you don't understand the rules - or history, ancient or, apparently, recent. (bin Laden was in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. He was in Pakistan when we tracked him down and killed him.) But thanks for playing.

 

[88GT]

Already adjusted my caveat above...

I don't want to belabor the issue unnecessarily, but I still don't see any evidence for the 72 hour rule. Was your War Powers comment correcting it, or adding to it?

I'm not trying to be dense, I jus want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[langb29]

Perhaps you missed the part where Dross (and others) have noted that Sadaam's internal security forces were meeting with senior Al Qaeda personnel? Or the fact that his internal security forces were funding and assisting terror training camps inside Iraq? Or did you just willfully ignore those facts because they don't fit your prejudices?

I'm not ignoring anything, I never denied anything you claim. I was simply pointing out the over-generalization of terrorist groups and their links to governments.

 

[langb29]

You show that you really do not understand the Political Reality of the Middle East...

I'm still looking for some intelligent contribution to this conversation from you other than "you're wrong"

 

[jeremy]

I don't want to belabor the issue unnecessarily, but I still don't see any evidence for the 72 hour rule. Was your War Powers comment correcting it, or adding to it?

I'm not trying to be dense, I jus want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I have a couple of Emails out to some JAG Contacts that I have for the exact clarifications. The War Powers was the best my Google-fu could manage on my own. As soon as I get the answers I will post up the answers I received and the Links to back them.

Best I can do on a Sunday Night...

 

[jeremy]

I'm still looking for some intelligent contribution to this conversation from you other than "you're wrong"

What a coincidence...

I am waiting for the same from you as well...

 

[steveh_131]

At no time in our history has Congress taken the initiative to declare war without first receiving a request from the sitting president. The question is not what would Paul do. The question is would Paul make the request. And I find it interesting that every single response given in terms of the Constitutional mandate for a declaration of war has Paul waiting for Congressional action. Not asking for it. Not seeking it. Not making a case. But waiting.

I'd like to clear up a few things regarding Ron Paul's beliefs on this issue. Here is an article written by him: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War by Rep. Ron Paul

First of all, contrary to many claims, he does point out a few instances of war declarations that he thought were handled properly:

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

And here is his explanation of why he believes this is superior:

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

I think he makes some pretty good points. This process helps to create real, tangible goals and assigns accountability and responsibility where they belong.

 

[88GT]

I have a couple of Emails out to some JAG Contacts that I have for the exact clarifications. The War Powers was the best my Google-fu could manage on my own. As soon as I get the answers I will post up the answers I received and the Links to back them.

Best I can do on a Sunday Night...

That's great. I eagerly await the responses. Just so you know, I'm not being snarky. I really am curious. The best info I have is the War Powers Act, and I've never heard of a 72 hour rule, so I'd like more information, if it becomes available.

I'd like to clear up a few things regarding Ron Paul's beliefs on this issue. Here is an article written by him: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War by Rep. Ron Paul

First of all, contrary to many claims, he does point out a few instances of war declarations that he thought were handled properly:

And here is his explanation of why he believes this is superior:

I think he makes some pretty good points. This process helps to create real, tangible goals and assigns accountability and responsibility where they belong.

There's nothing to clarify. I'm well aware of Paul's position on the use of military force. He hides behind the declaration of war clause, and by all accounts would fail to take the initiative in asking for it. I don't consider either of those characteristics positive.

Let's see how many of you can avoid throwing me a straw man with that one.

 

[steveh_131]

There's nothing to clarify. I'm well aware of Paul's position on the use of military force. He hides behind the declaration of war clause, and by all accounts would fail to take the initiative in asking for it. I don't consider either of those characteristics positive.

Why do you say he would fail to take the initiative in asking for it? Has he stated that?

And do you disagree with his points that this creates more tangible goals and accountability, instead of never-ending conflict?

 

[88GT]

Why do you say he would fail to take the initiative in asking for it? Has he stated that?

He has never committed to leading in that role.

And do you disagree with his points that this creates more tangible goals and accountability, instead of never-ending conflict?

Yes. Do you think a declaration of war against Afghanistan or Iraq would have changed the way we prosecuted it?

 

[steveh_131]

He has never committed to leading in that role.

That doesn't mean he won't. Looking at his record, I don't agree that he will be completely passive.

Here he voted to authorize military force against those responsible for the September 11th attacks: Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And in 2007 he introduced a bill to authorize the president to

issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

H.R. 3216 [110th]: Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

Yes. Do you think a declaration of war against Afghanistan or Iraq would have changed the way we prosecuted it?

Yes, I think that someone being accountable for the costs (both in lives and dollars) and the results of these wars would have made a big difference. Why wouldn't it?

 

[88GT]

That doesn't mean he won't. Looking at his record, I don't agree that he will be completely passive.

Here he voted to authorize military force against those responsible for the September 11th attacks: Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And in 2007 he introduced a bill to authorize the president to

H.R. 3216 [110th]: Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

Then he's not as concerned about the declaration of war as he wants everyone to believe.

Yes, I think that someone being accountable for the costs (both in lives and dollars) and the results of these wars would have made a big difference. Why wouldn't it?

Congress didn't declare war for Afghanistan or Iraq and Bush was held plenty accountable.

Or were you trying to say that you actually think it would reduce cost? Because that won't happen.

 

[KG1]

Yes, I think that someone being accountable for the costs (both in lives and dollars) and the results of these wars would have made a big difference. Why wouldn't it?

Congress can hold anyone accountable. They have the ability cut funding for anything at any time. Don't need a declaration of war for that.

 

[steveh_131]

Then he's not as concerned about the declaration of war as he wants everyone to believe.

So do you still take issue with his stance?

Congress didn't declare war for Afghanistan or Iraq and Bush was held plenty accountable.

Or were you trying to say that you actually think it would reduce cost? Because that won't happen.

How could he be held accountable when there was no specific goal or plan laid out to begin with? What was he held accountable to? I think that's the real issue. And it absolutely would reduce cost if it reduces duration.

 

[dross]

I think a short, precise, detailed declaration that lays out the objectives and the end game is a good idea.

It's just not required by the Constitution.

I see nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to authorize war in a particular way, or to use particular language.

As far as I can see, as long as they have a majority vote, they could just say:

"Sure, Prezzy baby. Go kick some butt."

 

[dross]

In Iraq, it read in part:

"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

That's reasonably clear. May not have been the best way to do it, but I don't see how the wording would have changed the outcome much.

Just a side note about fiscal accountability.

There are two extremes of the spectrum. On one end, you operate like the government normally does. It's extremely hard to allocate resources, everything must be documented and signed and reviewed in triplicate, and by the time you get what you need, you don't need it anymore because you've already fabricated something to get you by and the situation has changed.

There's another way to do it, say a small or medium business type model. With this model you allocate cash, you empower your leaders to spend it within certain bounds, and you hold an accounting after the need for immediate decisions have passed.

Like all things in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. The first way is not immediate or effective, but it does minimize fraud and lower level irresponsibility.

The second way is very effective, but an accurate accounting is difficult and there's room for fraud.

In the past, the military only ever did anything the first way. There are many accounts of the humorous and sometimes tragic results of that.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, there were millions of dollars that no one will ever know exactly where they went. But on the ground commanders were able to make some effective things happen.

What do you want? A system that is effective AND every penny is accounted for? Wouldn't that be great.

 

[turnandshoot4]

It's too bad we can never see alternative versions of history.

Imagine this scenario:

Bush declares that since we know that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, we're not looking at regime change there.

A reporter asks why he's not worried that Saddam will provide WMD to a terrorist group. Bush replies that we don't even think they have WMD, and even if they do, we don't think they'll help any terrorists.

I'm imaging all the attacks he'd get from the left for being such an idiot as to make those assumptions.

Let's take it a step farther. Let's say that after that, Iraq, did provide terrorists with a WMD, let's say the very last of the gas they had in stock. The terrorist group kills a few hundred Americans with it.
Stop right here. Where would they get the WMDs? Or are these imaginary WMDs for an imaginary scenario? If that is the case I would like for Mexico to have imaginary WMDs as well so we could at least secure the border.

It's nice to know that all you guys would be defending Bush right now. And I'm sure the left wing press would have stood up behind him.

In this alternate World, I'd be criticizing Bush for being an irresponsible idiot, and rambone and turnandshoot would be standing up for him, trying to explain that any reasonable person would have left Iraq alone, and there's no way Bush could have realized that Iraq even had any gas left and that it was unthinkable that Saddam would give it to terrorists.

The Bush administration heard what they wanted. The rest of the world (including Hans Blix) knew they didn't have WMDs. IF the inspector at least agreed with Bush I would give him more credit. But he didn't. Not once did he say they had WMDs or even the capability of having WMDs. He then criticized (and rightly so) the administration of war mongering.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would have gone.

Bush didn't invade Lybia. Good for Bush.
Bush didn't invade Iran. Good for Bush.
Bush didn't invade Georgia to fight with Russia. Good for Bush.
Bush didn't invade N. Korea. Good for Bush.
Bush didn't invade Darfur. Good for Bush.

Is that better?
We know the answer because we can look at all the criticism the first Bush got FROM THE LEFT for honoring his original scope in Desert Storm and stopping short of Baghdad. Anyone remember that? The left beat him up for that for a decade.

H.W. lied to the Kurds and said he would overthrow Sadam. They then got slaughtered. Now they hate us. Go figure. We never should have went in the first place anyway. He was a gun grabbing globalist and I'm glad he never got a second term.

Puh-lease.

What game do you love? Ignoring my points?

Your points are no longer ignored now that I am on my computer and not my phone. You gave an imaginary scenario I gave a true scenario. The game I love is the imaginary scenario game.

I'm sure you do love that game. You think you're winning because you don't understand the rules - or history, ancient or, apparently, recent. (bin Laden was in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. He was in Pakistan when we tracked him down and killed him.) But thanks for playing.

If you read my post below from earlier in the thread you will see that I pointed out he was in A-Stan. I am not winning because there is no winning in the internet. Just talkin. One other thing, if Bin Laden was in A-stan when we invaded Iraq why didn't we get him? We were already in A-Stan by that time.

Did everyone miss the part that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan?

You know, the head of Al Quaeda.

So again, Iraq made no sense to invade after 9/11. The hijackers were Saudis. The leader was in Pakistan. When he was in A-Stan they let him slip away by letting local generals go in and get him. Who isn't funding terror in the Middle East? Iran is. Pakistan is. Heck, Pakistan has the STATE funding it. Even our CIA is funding them.

Not everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's. Hans Blix ring any bells? The U.S. and the British were the ONLY countries in the WORLD that were saying Iraq had WMDs. They (US & UK) were also trying to build the war propaganda. NATO did not support the war because there was NO evidence that Iraq had any WMDs. Maybe a couple of trucks that MIGHT have been mobile chemical weapon factories but evidence was sketchy. They heard what they wanted to hear then went running around like chicken little.

I remember asking myself WTH when they said we were going to Iraq. They couldn't even import PS2s because of the chip in them.

China doesn't want to go to war with anyone. They just want to trade. They are better at taking over the world like that than with a fight.

 

[dross]

Your points are no longer ignored now that I am on my computer and not my phone. You gave an imaginary scenario I gave a true scenario. The game I love is the imaginary scenario game.

No, you're still ignoring my points.

There is a technique used in argument and discussion. It involves using hypothetical situations to define people's assumptions. Often positions are so complex they must be simplified in order to get at the underlying values and assumptions and make the interaction productive.

An example:

A: I'm against hunting.
B: In all circumstances?
A: Yes.
B: Okay, let's say you and your family are marooned on an island. The only thing to eat are the animals on that island. None of the plants are edible to humans. Would you hunt then?

Now we find out where the person is coming from. Some possible responses:

A: Yes, in that circumstance I would hunt.
or
A: No, I still wouldn't hunt.
B: Why?
A: Because killing is always wrong.

You see, we've learned something. Here's an example of some non responses that are really just attempts to avoid further defining a position, or more often, to avoid the weakness of a position being revealed.

A: I would never put myself in a situation where I was on a desert island.
or
A: Hunting for sport is wrong, even if it's on an island.
or
A: Nobody goes hunting on some island.
or
A: I can't believe there are no edible plants. I would find some and eat them.

What it appears you meant when you said, "I love this game," is that you weren't going to answer any questions in a way that revealed the weaknesses of your argument.

But now, that's happened anyway, right here for everyone to read.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Good post!

But I do like hunting. I would hunt if I was hungry. I would hunt if I wasn't hungry.

As long as we continue to fight wars against invisible enemies we will be in a state of perpetual war. The war on communism was a joke. If the people want to convert, then so be it. I'll be moving. The war on terror is a joke. Our own CIA are terrorists teaching terrorists how to be terrorists. To go fight "terrorism" is another never ending war.

People continue to hand out BLANK CHECKS for fight wars BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID. People continue to hand out THEIR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES to the gov't BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID. This is not excusable.

The right is guilty of handing out the checks.

The left is guilty of handing out liberties.

They are both wrong.

The right wants to protest higher taxes but insists on policing the world "because they need it." So they spend the money but then don't want to pay for it. Smart. They send soldiers over that get blown up then defund the VA. Disgusting.