3rd Party Ticket?

#76
#76
TennTradition said:
And...for the record, trUT....I don't mean or want to trivialize the process of deciding to go to war and implementing the decided upon strategy. While I don't understand fully how the process works, I do understand it isn't easy or always clear. I think that my fundamental problem is that going to war in Iraq seemed like a bad idea at the time - and when combined with the surprises that we apparently weren't prepared for, it began to seem like a really bad idea. I will always get more upset about the trumped up nuclear WMD charges than mistakes in estimating the after-invasion posture/environment in Iraq...because at least the latter were honest mistakes.

You may disagree with me on this, but it's where I'm coming from on this issue...and comments made from that position aren't meant to demean the military, trivialize war, or suggest that a pacifist strategy is appropriate.
Click to expand...

Were you also upset with the every major world intelligence agency, including the Clinton adm. He bluffed with nothing but a pair of duces, and he got his neck stretched.
 
#77
#77
iceman9 said:
Were you also upset with the every major world intelligence agency, including the Clinton adm. He bluffed with nothing but a pair of duces, and he got his neck stretched.
Click to expand...

With regard to the nuclear threat, there were plenty of US intelligence agencies that contradicted the intelligence the administration chose to move forward with. If I remember correctly, the DOE Intelligence review and the State Department intelligence service determined that the aluminum tubes Iraq had were for standard munition use - and could not be used for uranium enrichment. The CIA, on the other hand, continued to suggest they were for use in enrichment. The CIA won - and I can't help but believe that this was because the administration liked their answer more (particularly when the DOE is the government's expert on this issue).

The biological and chemical WMD claims are much more complicated, IMO...and I don't tend to get as ticked about that.
 
#78
#78
TennTradition said:
And...for the record, trUT....I don't mean or want to trivialize the process of deciding to go to war and implementing the decided upon strategy. While I don't understand fully how the process works, I do understand it isn't easy or always clear. I think that my fundamental problem is that going to war in Iraq seemed like a bad idea at the time - and when combined with the surprises that we apparently weren't prepared for, it began to seem like a really bad idea. I will always get more upset about the trumped up nuclear WMD charges than mistakes in estimating the after-invasion posture/environment in Iraq...because at least the latter were honest mistakes.
Click to expand...

Thats funny, I see it just the opposite. For years (since the Clinton administration), intelligence had made us believe that Saddam still had WMD's (probably still did, but hid them in Syria... oh well). The more unforgiveable action is the planning and execution. We had prior experience in Vietnam to look back on. We hand cuffed the soldiers early on, we weren't honest about how many troops we needed and begin to proceed to incrementally increase the number of boots on the ground, we claimed "mission accomplished" way too early, took a lot of ideas/strategies off of the table (like splitting Iraq into 3 regions or using tactical nukes), and we tried to appease the UN and liberals worldwide.
 
#79
#79
Rasputin_Vol said:
Thats funny, I see it just the opposite. For years (since the Clinton administration), intelligence had made us believe that Saddam still had WMD's (probably still did, but hid them in Syria... oh well). The more unforgiveable action is the planning and execution. We had prior experience in Vietnam to look back on. We hand cuffed the soldiers early on, we weren't honest about how many troops we needed and begin to proceed to incrementally increase the number of boots on the ground, we claimed "mission accomplished" way too early, took a lot of ideas/strategies off of the table (like splitting Iraq into 3 regions or using tactical nukes), and we tried to appease the UN and liberals worldwide.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what it takes to effectively wage war - a winnable war...so it is hard for me to get really upset about our execution when I don't understand how to make it better. It bothers me when things don't appear to be going well - but I don't/can't get as upset about it (or at least upset in the same way) because I don't understand it well enough. I'm not saying there isn't good reason to be upset here - I just can't defend that position because I don't know enough about it.

I truly feel (and information available today seems to indicate) that we knew better on the nuclear issue, but wanted to lump it in with the other reasons for war. The intelligence was confirmed when we actually recovered some of their aluminum tubes, sent them to Oak Ridge, and they determined they could not be used for enrichment. It is my understanding that this happened after the Clinton administration...
 
#80
#80
TennTradition said:
And...for the record, trUT....I don't mean or want to trivialize the process of deciding to go to war and implementing the decided upon strategy. While I don't understand fully how the process works, I do understand it isn't easy or always clear. I think that my fundamental problem is that going to war in Iraq seemed like a bad idea at the time - and when combined with the surprises that we apparently weren't prepared for, it began to seem like a really bad idea. I will always get more upset about the trumped up nuclear WMD charges than mistakes in estimating the after-invasion posture/environment in Iraq...because at least the latter were honest mistakes.

You may disagree with me on this, but it's where I'm coming from on this issue...and comments made from that position aren't meant to demean the military, trivialize war, or suggest that a pacifist strategy is appropriate.
Click to expand...
If memory serves me correctly, and it usually does, it was not just the CIA that trumped up these WMD charges. British, French, and Russian intel all came to the same conclusions (we now understand it all came from basically the same source), and according to Saddam's interrogator, Saddam was aggressively trying to bluff the world into believing he had WMDs and was ready to use them, in an effort to keep Iran at bay (he never fully believed the US would invade with ground forces.) Therefore, I have a hard time pinning that on GWB as dishonesty and an attempt to subvert the will of the American people. I agree with allvol that he bluffed, although I would say with a 7 2 split, and got caught. Either way though, the only way you can fault GWB for that is if you believe that Iraq should have been able to carry out its WMD program.
 
#81
#81
therealUT said:
If memory serves me correctly, and it usually does, it was not just the CIA that trumped up these WMD charges. British, French, and Russian intel all came to the same conclusions (we now understand it all came from basically the same source), and according to Saddam's interrogator, Saddam was aggressively trying to bluff the world into believing he had WMDs and was ready to use them, in an effort to keep Iran at bay (he never fully believed the US would invade with ground forces.) Therefore, I have a hard time pinning that on GWB as dishonesty and an attempt to subvert the will of the American people. I agree with allvol that he bluffed, although I would say with a 7 2 split, and got caught. Either way though, the only way you can fault GWB for that is if you believe that Iraq should have been able to carry out its WMD program.
Click to expand...

I know that we agreed with other intelligence agencies on the mobile biological WMD labs - and that pretty much all intelligence on this ended up coming from the same flawed source. That is the one that I said I could live with a little more.

It is my understanding that the aluminum tube issue was first uncovered by a CIA analyst reviewing Iraqi procurement documents. The analyst did not have a strong nuclear engineering / scientific background, but did spend some time in Oak Ridge learning the trades - and he (correctly, and impressively, really) connected the tubes to a possible enrichment program. This was the story that the CIA continued to sell throughout the period leading up to the invasion. I know that the DOE analysts showed that the tubes could not be used for enrichment, and I'm pretty sure that the state dept. analysts agreed. Perhaps you are right that other nation's intelligence services came to a similar conclusion as our CIA - about that I am not sure. My guess is that the DOE covered their butts with some degree of "uncertainty statement" that the administration used to justify not using their intelligence and accepting the CIA position, which supported the administration's overall goals.
 
#82
#82
I would have probably put more faith in the CIA than the Dept. of Energy had I been in the position also. If the CIA is wrong, then no real harm, no real foul. If the DOE is wrong and Iraq uses nuclear weapons against US interests in the Gulf (or even further) then you were the President who sat on the CIA intelligence and did nothing.
 
#83
#83
therealUT said:
I would have probably put more faith in the CIA than the Dept. of Energy had I been in the position also. If the CIA is wrong, then no real harm, no real foul. If the DOE is wrong and Iraq uses nuclear weapons against US interests in the Gulf (or even further) then you were the President who sat on the CIA intelligence and did nothing.
Click to expand...

Your basic point is strong - the potential consequence of inaction is huge. On the other hand, it appears the CIA analyst's decision was largely nothing more than a weak connection ... remembering that these tubes could be used for enrichment. The fact that they had entirely the wrong strength characteristics would seem to damn that conclusion (as the DOE indicated)...but it didn't. I do see what you are saying...but I would have to believe that this sort of thing happens often ... and we make the choice not to act. I will also readily admit that I could be over-simplifying the CIA's decision in this case because I likely don't have all of the information .... but I can't help but be mad about it based on the information I have (and I'm not convinced that if I did have all the information, it would do anything to make me feel better).
 
#84
#84
Let's keep in mind that there are still plenty of American's (an ever-growing number) that express their disappointment in FDR for not doing more to stop the Japanese attack on Pearl. Yet, the minimal evidence that hinted at a Japanese attack on the Pacific Fleet was nowhere near as actionable as the evidence that GWB, along with WJC, was receiving from the CIA on the Iraqi weapons program.

I just do not believe that as POTUS you can wholeheartedly refute what your primary intelligence gathering arm is telling you without more solid evidence than the Department of Energy telling you that the tubes seem as though they are too weak for enriched uranium, yet, they would need more samples and until they received more samples the findings are in effect, inconclusive.
 
#85
#85
therealUT said:
Let's keep in mind that there are still plenty of American's (an ever-growing number) that express their disappointment in FDR for not doing more to stop the Japanese attack on Pearl. Yet, the minimal evidence that hinted at a Japanese attack on the Pacific Fleet was nowhere near as actionable as the evidence that GWB, along with WJC, was receiving from the CIA on the Iraqi weapons program.

I just do not believe that as POTUS you can wholeheartedly refute what your primary intelligence gathering arm is telling you without more solid evidence than the Department of Energy telling you that the tubes seem as though they are too weak for enriched uranium, yet, they would need more samples and until they received more samples the findings are in effect, inconclusive.
Click to expand...

Was this the case? That would certainly satisfy the condition of uncertainty that I mentioned earlier - that is, the one that provided Bush the room to side with the CIA intelligence over the nuclear analysts at DOE.

I've already said that I was wary of the invasion at the time, so my views may be skewed. But, how was this intelligence any more reliable than the intelligence that Korea is enriching uranium/making plutonium and developing a nuclear weapon? I, again, would be wary of entering a war with N. Korea (especially right now), but I can't help but shake the feeling that it was easier for GWB to side with the CIA on this one because it supported what appeared to be GWB's goal...regime change in Iraq.

I guess a reasonable question would be ... if we trust our intelligence on N. Korea and think that it is possible that its leadership would use the weapon, should we invade? (I'm asking this because I would readily accept that you have a more informed opinion on the matter).
 
#86
#86
My honest and blunt answer is that I would not mind seeing us finally get rid of the current mess that is North Korea. However, seeing as we have a finite amount of military capital (in terms of equipment and men) we have to pick and choose our spots. I believe that there was already a precedent to go to war with Iraq (several UN Resolutions that Iraq had carelessly and recklessly ignored), that we had military strategists that were more than familiar and comfortable with the terrain of Iraq and with the Iraqi military, and that due to the fact that the easy connection to inspire American jingoism was already there (we were attacked by Arabs and Iraq is an Arab state.)

Also, when going to war with Iraq, one does not need to bother himself with worrying so much about big brother stepping in and making a tougher fight of it (or so the entire intel community believed leading up to March 2003...Nobody in the CIA or DoD believed the Iranians would step in. Many still do not want to tick China off though and force them into a war with us.)

I do not know all the answers. I just know that it is an extremely complex decision making process and one in which I believe had plenty of right answers and plenty of wrong answers. If we had gone in to NK, Iran, or East Africa, I believe those would all have been right answers in response to the greater Global Terrorism Threat. Had we gone in to Russia or N. Ireland, I believe those would have been wrong answers in response to the same threat (the backlash on those actions would have been extremely severe for our men in uniform as well as our economy.)
 
#87
#87
therealUT said:
My honest and blunt answer is that I would not mind seeing us finally get rid of the current mess that is North Korea. However, seeing as we have a finite amount of military capital (in terms of equipment and men) we have to pick and choose our spots.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. If we could get rid of the threat, I would be a happier person - but it doesn't seem like that is a logistical option right now (short of politically unrealistic options such as massive nuclear strike).

therealUT said:
Also, when going to war with Iraq, one does not need to bother himself with worrying so much about big brother stepping in and making a tougher fight of it (or so the entire intel community believed leading up to March 2003...Nobody in the CIA or DoD believed the Iranians would step in. Many still do not want to tick China off though and force them into a war with us.)
Click to expand...

While I agree that this is everyone's concern about actually going to war with N. Korea - that China would step in - how is it remotely in their interests to engage in a war with us? Geez...even just discussing the hypothetical weirds me out...

therealUT said:
I do not know all the answers. I just know that it is an extremely complex decision making process and one in which I believe had plenty of right answers and plenty of wrong answers. If we had gone in to NK, Iran, or East Africa, I believe those would all have been right answers in response to the greater Global Terrorism Threat. Had we gone in to Russia or N. Ireland, I believe those would have been wrong answers in response to the same threat (the backlash on those actions would have been extremely severe for our men in uniform as well as our economy.)
Click to expand...

This is an interesting perspective...I mean, while it makes sense I really hadn't thought about things in quite this way. Would you say that the threat of Russia was an equivalent threat, though? (that is...same in nature)
 
#89
#89
Here is my problem. What happens in 2012 or 2016 when the right wing conservatives of this country finally find their guy and he gets the nomination for the Republican party? What will the moderate conservatives, independents or just regular conservatives that supported McCain do then? Will they thumb up their noses and not vote for the good of the party b/c hardcore conservatives have blatantly come out and said they will not vote for MCain no matter what in '08?

I just wish people like Rush, Ingraham and others would just keep it to themselves and not vote. That's fine, but don't make it public everytime you get in front of a camera or microphone. All it's doing is creating animosity for this election and future elections. Right now it's tearing this party apart and will probably keep the Democrats in the White House for the next 20 years.
 
#90
#90
When it comes down to it, I think these guys are just trying to create some conservative dialog in an attempt to get McCain to speak to the conservatives in the party some, make some promises .... basically trying to shift the balance back to the right a little through public debate. In some ways, they do have McCain talking about the conservatives' issues now...
 
#91
#91
Mullet Vol said:
I just wish people like Rush, Ingraham and others would just keep it to themselves and not vote. That's fine, but don't make it public everytime you get in front of a camera or microphone. All it's doing is creating animosity for this election and future elections. Right now it's tearing this party apart and will probably keep the Democrats in the White House for the next 20 years.
Click to expand...

So? If the GOP would nominate a true conservative, theyb wouldn't be in this position.

Screw the party. You can go down in flames with the party if you like, but I'm not gonna choose between the lesser of two evils. Either get it right or we'll just sit back and play this game until you do...
 
#92
#92
TennTradition said:
When it comes down to it, I think these guys are just trying to create some conservative dialog in an attempt to get McCain to speak to the conservatives in the party some, make some promises .... basically trying to shift the balance back to the right a little through public debate. In some ways, they do have McCain talking about the conservatives' issues now...
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap...
 
#98
#98
Rasputin_Vol said:
How is that winning? A commie is in the White House and the best effort the GOP trots out there is a centrist...:ermm:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this as a slam - but after 8 years of Bush, I honestly think that a Republican than appeals to independents is the best bet you have.
 
#99
#99
Would you rather have McCain that goes back on his word or Hillary/Obama? I would pick the former b/c at least we have a chance with McCain. We already know what we will get with Hillary/Obama.

Either way it will unite the party and especially the conservatives.
 
#100
#100
TennTradition said:
I'm not saying this as a slam - but after 8 years of Bush, I honestly think that a Republican than appeals to independents is the best bet you have.
Click to expand...

The base will not be energized and many will sit home. Plus, McCain would move the Republic in the same direction as Hillary/Obama, just not as quickly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top