The War Was a Mistake II
Here are more details about the delightful prelapsarian status quo in Iraq. No wonder Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi wax so nostalgic for those days.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:47 AM
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- Coming Out of the Dark
- How (Inadvertantly) Revealing
- My Brilliant Husband . . .
- Earth to John McCain
- The Two Best Christmas Specials of All
- Just For the Record . . .
- No Crosses on Federal Property!
- Depressing for the Democrats
- Global Warming: A Gender Issue
- The War Was a Mistake I
5 Comments:
Quoting from the article, "Between February and September 1988, 100,000 to 180,000 Kurds died or disappeared. The bombing of the Kurdish village of Halabja with chemical weapons including mustard gas, tabun, sarin and VX on March 16, 1988, which killed 3000 to 5000 civilians, was the most publicised of these atrocities because it occurred near the Iranian border and Iranian troops were able to penetrate with the assistance of Kurds, filming and photographing the victims."
That's right, Saddam Hussein murdered over 100,00 Kurds and used poison gas on Halabja, while President Ronald Wilson Reagan sat on his hands and did nothing. No, wait, that isn't fair... he tried to establish closer diplomatic relations with Iraq.
If Ronald Reagan didn't feel a war in Iraq over human rights abuses was justified, while the abuses were occurring and when Iraq was a much bigger military threat, why bash the Democrats.
Mr. Twister,
Are you saying that since Reagan in the last year of his presidency as well as Bush I in four years and Clinton in 8 years didn't do anything about Hussein's murderous rampage, that our current president shouldn't have either?
What is your point? Are you saying that the realism that guided forgein policy during and immediately after the Cold War should still be practiced today?
By the way, since the Cold War didn't actually end until Bush I's presidency, and since the first completely post cold war president was Bill Clinton; shouldn't Clinton bear some responsibility for not recognizing the changing dynamics of the world stage? After all, isn't that a president's primary responsibility?
Oh, that's right. He did. He basically said the cold war is over. There is no more threat. Let's gut the military and intelligence services in order to enjoy a budgetary "Peace Dividend". And as world events slapped him in the face with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he ignored it and allowed the current threat to grow.
Granted, many U.S. Presidents since WWII turned a blind eye to tragic events in order to maintain some sense of order during the cold war. You might even say this was nothing more than a form of bribery in an attempt to keep some countries "in our camp" versus the Soviets.
Still, that doesn't excuse Clinton from his primary - and most devestating - failure. He failed to recognize the severity of the threat from Islamic Extremeism. And that's probably giving him more credit than he deserves. It's far more likely that he actually did recognize the threat. There were many studies and reports detailing the seriousness of the threat. The sad and tragic truth is more likely that he knew the threat but ignored it either due to fear of political fall out or outright cowardice.
Greg,
No. I am saying that I am getting a little sick and tired of Carol getting on her moral high horse about human rights abuses in Iraq and using them to play partisan politics. This is especially true when supporting and selling arms to Saddam Hussein was a bulwark of Dutch Reagan's Middle East policy.
Every example Carol has given occurred in the 1980's, and the worst cases of abuse were well known to the United States government. And that government, lead by Carol's idol, Ronald Reagan, chose to not only ignore the abuse, but to actually court Saddam Hussein.
As for your blathering about Clinton, let's look at the record there. The Clinto administration did undertake some military missions primarily for humanitarian purposes. Did the Republicans applaud him for that? No, Presidential candidate Bush hammered the administration for engaging in nation building. And what did other Republicans say?
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home."--Sen. Rick Santorum R-PA
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."--Sean Hannity Fox News
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep. Tom Delay R-TX
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."--Tony Snow Fox News
Huh, that's funny--I would have swore I've heard Republcians branding Democrats as troop-haters and enemy-sympathizers for questioning the current Commander in Chief. Hypocrites.
Finally, as far as the threat of Islamic Extremism goes...
How does invading a secular state in the Middle East and turning it into an Iranian style Islamic republic help us eliminate Islamic Extremism?
How does spitting on the Powell Doctrine and giving every two-bit terrorist in the world a blue print for tying down the US military, help us curtail Islamic Extemism?
How does taking a country with an active disdain for al Quaeda and turn it into a terrorist breeding ground and al Quaeda recruiting poster, help us win the victory against Islamic Extremism?
"The President now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting our troops in harm's way."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Dan? Pete? Carol?
Greg?
Post a Comment
<< Home