Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Drake Tungsten]

And the republican controlled house?

Not sure. I found a 218-218 tie vote having to do with Kosovo, but it didn't appear to be an authorization vote.

And right wing radio?

Hell if I know. I'm not going to listen to Limbaugh from 6 years ago (if that's even possible) just to disprove some BS point of yours.

And the simple point remains: before 9/11 there was little if any political will in the US to involve US ground troops in any war based solely on the threat of terrorism.

You of course ignore the fact that building up such will is part of the job of the presidency. If the President believes a threat is real, its his responsibility to try to convince the public to do whatever is necessary to meet that threat. I don't really blame Clinton (or Bush, for that matter) for not trying harder to combat terrorism, but it would've been nice to see him make the effort. It would've been a far more useful application of American power than the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Hell if I know. I'm not going to listen to Limbaugh from 6 years ago (if that's even possible) just to disprove some BS point of yours.

Your ignorance is showing.

You of course ignore the fact that building up such will is part of the job of the presidency. If the President believes a threat is real, its his responsibility to try to convince the public to do whatever is necessary to meet that threat. I don't really blame Clinton (or Bush, for that matter) for not trying harder to combat terrorism, but it would've been nice to see him make the effort. It would've been a far more useful application of American power than the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were.

1. The bully pulpit of a president has limits. This is especially true of any aciton which requires ground forces. For the most part, Presidents just do it without asking anyone, or even trying to build support. They simply inform the people after they acted. This works fine when its air attacks, or seding troops inthe Caribbean area and for short stints. But to attempt to send troops into Central Asia, a move that requires a lot of diplomatic wrangling to begin with...I would love for you to state ANY president who could do that. Heck, FDR could not build up enough support to fight Hitler UNTIL Japan attacked the US itself. Wilson ran saying he would keep the US out of the war. Bush himself ran his 200 campaign essentially saying he would not undertake any Kosovo's or Bosnias.

2. Prior to 9/11 the US would hardly have had the possibility of sticking its head into Afghanistan and Central Asia period. So I would trully like to know what the hell you think Clinton or Bush could have done diplomatically to get to a point they could even attempt sending the marines in.

And I asked the question about the terrorist strike prior to Oklahoma for the simple reason that terrorists attacks until 9/11 could hardly be "historic" save for assasinations. IN 1920 30 people were killed by a bomb on Wall Street. According to Wikipedia WaPo at the time called it "an act of war". There is not ever a marker to remember the place it occured. They never found who did it, or why, and the worst terrorist attack in the US until 1995 became a trivia question. the first WTC bombing would have become just that as well if 9/11 had not happened. And you hardly hear much anymore about Lockerbie and the Marine Barracks. If you said Khobar Towers most Americans would have no clue. All of these events were huge news at the time, but no one thinks that the world changed because the Marrine barracks in Beirut were bombed or that PanAm flight was blown from the sky.

So again, to compare what a president had in terms of popular mandates for serious military action for attacks many orders of magnitude smaller and far more isolated from the common life of your joe sixpack to 9/11 is disingeneous.

And yet again, what does any of this have to do with your previous assertion, pertaining to Iraq, that Bush was taking steps to save any crumbling international order?

[Drake Tungsten]

Your ignorance is showing.

How exactly? If you're saying I'm ignorant of Limbaugh's views on Kosovo (or Limbaugh's views in general), then I must admit to being guilty as charged.

So again, to compare what a president had in terms of popular mandates for serious military action for attacks many orders of magnitude smaller and far more isolated from the common life of your joe sixpack to 9/11 is disingeneous.

I guess its a good thing I never made that disingenuous comparison, then.

And yet again, what does any of this have to do with your previous assertion, pertaining to Iraq, that Bush was taking steps to save any crumbling international order?

I never said that. I believe I said pretty much the exact opposite...

See, this is why I don't even bother with you anymore.

[DRoseDARs]

You do know that Rush was a drug addict basically the whole time of his radio show up until he was very publically outed as a pill-popper, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

Was that directed at me? If so, why?

[DRoseDARs]

Because you seem to think Rush Limbaugh is someone who's views on anything are of relevence, given his drug-addled mental state for the past few years.

Edit: I got lost somewhere on the last page of discussion, so I throw GeGap in with you since both of you seem to be talking about him.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Because you seem to think Rush Limbaugh is someone who's views on anything are of relevence, given his drug-addled mental state for the past few years.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you're saying I'm ignorant of Limbaugh's views on Kosovo (or Limbaugh's views in general), then I must admit to being guilty as charged.

Those certainly sound like the words of a Limbaugh fan...

[DRoseDARs]

Read my "Edit:"

I apologize if my confusion got... well... confused.

[Dinner]

Walter Jones (R-NC) the foaming at the mouth conservative who wrote the bill demanding French Fries be renamed Freedom Fries when several European government's pointed out that Bush was a liar has now come out claiming that neocons are to blame for Iraq. Mr. Jones didn't like it when ABC pointed out that he was a huge backer of rushing to war in Iraq and Jones now claims his support for the war was misunderstood.

Video - ABC: "Freedom Fries" Rep. now blames neocons for Iraq

A NC Republican Representative, Walter Jones, now believes that neocons within the Republican party are responsible for pushing the US into the Iraq war.

Based on the bad WMD intelligence given to Congress, Rep. Jones initially supported the Iraq war and even invented the name "Freedom Fries" as a way to protest France opposition to the war.

He now wants to see soldiers pulled out of Iraq as soon as possible. He will be introducing a bill on the house floor to that effect this week.

http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/abc/thisweek_water_jones_iraq_withdrawl_050612-01.wmv

[Dinner]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/13/BL2005061300982_pf.html

In other news a second British memo has been uncovered which basically confirms what the other Downing Street Memo said. Bush had evidence forged to justify his rush to war, that the decision to go to war was made months if not years ahead of time, and that the administration knew there was little to no WMDs in Iraq.

[Dinner]

The revolations about Bush's constent lying and the unending bad news combined with lack of progress in Iraq seems to be turning the American people against the war and against the Republican party. A record 60% of the American public now believes that some or all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq according to a new USA Today poll.

Poll: USA is losing patience on Iraq
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.

Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.

The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn't suggested sending more U.S. troops.

"We have reached a tipping point," says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. "Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, 'I want our troops home.' "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

[Dauphin]

What's the chances of the Liberal Left Communist Conspirator Media (i.e FOX) not mentioning that there are troops in Iraq and hoping Joe Public forgets that they haven't been brought home?

[Alexander's Horse]

check your civ manual re democracy and war weariness

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/13/BL2005061300982_pf.html

In other news a second British memo has been uncovered which basically confirms what the other Downing Street Memo said. Bush had evidence forged to justify his rush to war, that the decision to go to war was made months if not years ahead of time, and that the administration knew there was little to no WMDs in Iraq.

2nd memo link? 'cause the 1st one didn't state explicitly or implicily intelligence was being forged

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

2nd memo link? 'cause the 1st one didn't state explicitly or implicily intelligence was being forged

No. It stated it was being fixed.

It must be terrible to be a hair's breadth from complete humiliation on this matter, as you and your side are Ogie.