Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 158

Thread: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

  1. #21
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

    Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

    I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

  2. #22
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What's your big play here? Just stopping by for a meaningless one liner? I don't run from these kinds of things. But then again, the difference between you and I is that I actually articulate intelligent arguments.
    Absolutely, one liners are fun when you're around.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #23
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What's your big play here? Just stopping by for a meaningless one liner? I don't run from these kinds of things. But then again, the difference between you and I is that I actually articulate intelligent arguments.
    Lerxst, you hit the nail on the head!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  4. #24
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

    Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

    I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.
    What's shocking is that the president would actually buy into a scheme like this, then use the power of the government to lie to people about the need to go into Iraq, then actually use the United States military to invade Iraq, all the while being fervently defended by people who had no idea it was all an act.

  5. #25
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    What's shocking is that the president would actually buy into a scheme like this, then use the power of the government to lie to people about the need to go into Iraq, then actually use the United States military to invade Iraq, all the while being fervently defended by people who had no idea it was all an act.
    Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?

    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

  6. #26
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,480

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    So it could be true about the Clintons, but you seem pretty convinced about the guy in the OP based on your posts. What gives him more credibility than Dick Morris, in your opinion?
    Did I say he had more credibility? No I didn't. I was commenting on other posters immediately discrediting him. I haven't read his book, however the statements he is making have been corroborated by other people including other former Bush officials in numerous books. What this guy is saying isn't really new.

    What Dick Morris said were things that, in some cases, unless the First Lady or secret service body guards were to corroborate, are almost certainly his story...take it or leave it. On those, it's possible.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #27
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,480

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

    Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

    I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.
    I've been shouting for people to research The Project for a New America Century for years now. Just look at the signatories on so many of their papers and then compare those names to the list of Bush administration officials and other key advisers.
    *insert profound statement here*

  8. #28
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,480

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?



    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
    Nice try. Bush had strong information from our own people well in advance that there was almost no probability of WMD's in Iraq. He did not have the unanimous consensus of his intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq was warranted. What he did was cherry pick intelligence, many bits of which were raw, unvetted intel, and use that to build his case. There are a multitude of publications out there that document this issue in great detail. I can provide a list if you need it. Further there are a number of books detailing the run up to the invasion of Iraq that critiqued the military capacity of Iraq and the conclusions were overwhelmingly consistent...Iraq posed no realistic military threat to it's neighbors. Their capacity to wage a war of aggression against another nation was practically nil. In fact it was all the could do to maintain internal security. There were ZERO imminent threats posed by Iraq. None. Our own military historians have been cautious about touting the ease of which we defeated the Iraqi military, citing the very poor shape it was in when we attacked and warned us not to get complacent.

    The whole facade was a big ****ing lie. It was dishonest and designed to convince the public that this was the right thing, the only thing that we as a nation could do to protect U.S. interests and prevent Saddam Hussein from "threatening the world with nuclear weapons and poisonous gas."
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    In 6 years you people cannot even raise enough money to hire attorneys to take this to court.
    How many Millions of dollars has MoveOn, DailyKos, etc spent on this crap?

    Bush knew this or that. All of it nefarious and bad of course.
    Prove it in a court of law. Anyone with sense knows they can't.

    Conspiracy Theories - Debate Politics Forums




    I also enjoy how the OP believes every Bush official that has anything to say that he wants to hear.

    Oh I found this for you all..enjoy-

    Current wisdom has it that if there had been a few less hanging chads in Florida in November 2000, the world would be a different place.

    Al Gore would have won the presidency, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened, and several hundred thousand people who perished in that war would be alive today. That conclusion is based on the generally unchallenged belief that Iraq is George W. Bush’s war: that he and a cabal of like-minded right-wingers conceived and executed the invasion for their own ideological motives. Or, as Frank Harvey, a research professor of international relations at Dalhousie University, puts it: “A few powerful ideologues exploited public fears (and international goodwill) in the aftermath of 9/11 to amplify Iraq’s WMD threat as a primary justification for an unnecessary, preventive invasion.”

    That view, notes Harvey, “has emerged as the dominant narrative for explaining the U.S. attack. It represents the prevailing consensus running through dozens of the most popular books on the Bush administration, and hundreds of frequently cited (and widely circulated) scholarly articles, media reports and blog entries on the invasion. In fact, casual observers engaged in a cursory review of the literature will find the same thesis repeated (and usually defended) by prominent scholars, journalists and Washington ‘insiders’ on the left and right of the political spectrum.”

    Harvey believes the conclusion is dead wrong. In a new paper for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, he deconstructs the thesis and finds it “overlooks almost all of the relevant historical facts.” More than that, he asks a simple question: Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.

    Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled ... to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”

    There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:

    • Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective ... Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”

    For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate -- including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.

    • The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:

    “Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”

    Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.

    • Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.

    “Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”

    • The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.

    Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
    “President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”

    He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.
    Kelly McParland: Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study - Full Comment

    Oh and Polynikes-- Your theory is specifically discredited by the part(s) underlined.
    Last edited by Triad; 05-05-09 at 12:07 AM.

  10. #30
    Guru
    DamnYankee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,015

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, another former Bush official whose telling tales and naming names. It's kind of a big deal considering what Bush did and how some peoplecontinue to bleat his praises.
    It's another dumb ass trying to make a buck. He knows that if he writes some good **** about Bush, the DailyKooks/movealong.org leftists will eat it up.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •