Try one more before that, not that it matters. ARE THEY OR ARE THEY NOT PRO-INVASION? Please note, you pompous fool, that this is not the same question as yours, i.e.: Does PNAC say in it's own documents "PNAC beleves that the American government should immediately invade Iraq. The End." That's not an argument at all then, just some stupid anecdote. Here let me quote myself: Interesting response, and usual Hayesian illogic. Is that to imply that every war supporter must have signed the clinton letter? What a bunch of twisted nonsense, albeit the usual Hayes-method of bizarre absolutes. As par the norm, you arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that you have the same issue. Whereas I admit you are technically right wrt to your meaningless trivialities, you hang on to your own stubborn viewpoint to the point of making a complete ass of yourself. You haven't shown anything "conclusively" except that you can't read, even when I use your exact terminology against you. What's sad is that you even admit it, yet you won't come out and say it, rather you hide behind word games: You only see that miltary intervention can mean things other than invasion. Hypocrite. I always like when you decry an ad hom attack with another ad hom attack - it makes your arrogant posturing all the more ridiculous. Here is the meat of your silly delusion: Advocating invasion does not mean that PNAC explicitly called for military forces to invade. Twist it all you want, but it is YOU that is refusing to see beyond your own rhetoric. But wait, what's this: So really, you have nothing of substance to add, just a boring word search. If you don't want to observe, think critically, and deduce please leave such matters to the big kids, and you can go back to blowing up army men in the sand box. Um - no I never said that. But it's funny since you have yet to come out and acknowledge that military action can be invasion. Pot, kettle? lol you are hilarious. Therefore they can be synonymous, if one dares to think outside his own warped viewpoint. Your pathetic attempts to utilize one particular word as indication of a massive theme are silly and a waste of time.
At least he's been very consistent throughout all these years. Nowadays, it's rare and recommendable to be persistent in any aspect. There are too many arguments and discussion in D & D anyways, it's kind of fun for someone like me, who's not good in English, to watch a word game in every discussion he's been involved in. It's educational and entertaining to me.
did we or did we not end up invading iraq? are not several of the architects of the war and members of bush's administration also members of pnac and authors of several of the documents calling for military action against iraq?
Well that settles that... Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden Views are predictably partisan; independents mostly blame Bush by Lydia Saad GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue. According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
What did Richard A. Clarke really say about Al Qaeda BBSNews Analysis 2006-09-26 -- Former president Bill Clinton laid out some clear facts to showman Chris Wallace this past Sunday on the right-wing FoxNews network. This has troubled Republican operatives who have assembled some talking points to hand out to the GOP faithful that are great at volunteering but don't take enough time to read the books, and read the 9/11 Commission report, and actually assess facts rather than White House talking points distributed to a friendly television network and some print commentators. Richard A. Clarke was the former counterterrorism "czar" under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, president of the United States for the last six years or so. He knows a little bit about both administrations and their take on terrorism, and bin Laden, and Al Qaeda. The first talking point being bandied about that we come across in the book is someone making the claim that the connection between bin Laden and an organization called Al Qaeda was "well known" by the time of the Clinton inauguration. This is a very dubious claim, Clarke reports in his book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" (Free Press 2004) that at the end of June 1993 neither the FBI or the CIA could tell him who were the people or the organization that was behind the first World Trade Center bombing (and then those other terrorists rolled up in the subsequent investigation who were going to bomb the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the UN. They were caught and sent to jail.) But when Clarke queried the CIA and the FBI with the question "Who are these guys?" They could not tell him. His name "never came up in our meetings in 1993 as a suspect in the World Trade Center attack." In mid 1995 the CIA and the Counter-terrorism Center attached to the White House formed a "virtual station", an operation like a CIA overseas office according to page 148 in Clarke's book account. It is on that same page that it is revealed that the final puzzle pieces fit to show that not only was the mysterious Usama bin Laden a terrorist financier but according to Clarke, bin Laden was Al Qaeda's "mastermind" and this was finally with solid evidence viewed as solid intelligence starting in 1996. National Reviews's Byron York penned a hit piece on Clinton's dress down of Chris Wallace (and by extension of FoxNews) by selectively quoting from Clarke's book. And those that actually take the time to read it or who have read it will understand what York and now the Washington Times piling on are trying to do. And that is obscure what Richard A. Clarke actually wrote about Clinton and still get people to not buy the book. Because if they do read the book they will get a glimpse into the thinking of the current administration and just how of little concern bin Laden was to them. York writes: "On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA's slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. 'I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,' Clarke writes. 'I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.'" What is also pathetic is what York leaves out. He quotes one sentence, leaves out the meat and quotes the last sentence to obscure what Clarke actually wrote in the middle of the two sentences. Here it is for our readers: In other words, York's central claim that Clinton did not want bin Laden dead is a sham. But he does not stop there in misrepresenting what Richard Clarke wrote. Consider another egregious example where he actually puts words in Clarke's writing that do not exist when York claims Clarke's claim was that Bill Clinton "the commander-in-chief was not in command." York correctly reports the page number and then solidly went astray from what Clarke wrote by seeming to try and use the quote: "In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more." To make it look like Clinton just did nothing. In fact, here's what Clarke wrote at the start of page 225 that York selectively quoted from: York left that out. And he also left out the central conclusion from page 225 that ends with a finishing paragraph on page 226. Richard Clarke makes clear in his book, and at the very spot that York chose to quote from, that a lot was done by the Clinton administration to deal with terrorism. And Clinton made it what some termed as an "obsession" that the incoming Bush administration should put al Qaeda at the top of the White House todo list. Clarke wrote: Right-wing Republicans do not want the public to read Clarke's book. They are trying to put an image of its content out there that glosses over the facts and the political realities prior to September 11th, 2001. They want you to conveniently ignore the smear campaigns going on, that were stirring rumors of Clinton's actions being driven by the Lewinsky affair. And they don't want you to know that Clarke firmly puts those notions to rest. President Clinton at the time took many decisive actions against terrorism and rightly recognized that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that was fair to Arabs and Jews alike would drain the swamp of terrorism by going after the main root cause of the tension. Republicans do not want you to read this book because it is told by a man with no huge axe to grind nor does he stand to gain anything. His telling in his book comports easily with verifiable sources, it's an easy read even though it is packed with a lot of information both during the Clinton administration and the second Bush administration whose current commander in chief is George W. Bush. The gist of Clarke's book echos the rest of the reports and commissions coming out of late. The United States was attacked by a terrorist operation named al Qaeda that had been funded by Usama bin Laden; instead of staying on the course of getting bin Laden and tending to root causes, such as the U.N. Resolutions outstanding in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. attacked Iraq. And now reaping what the experts said would happen America is less safe and continues to be as long as the "stay the course" gang remains in power. Republicans really do not want voters reading this book by ex-terrorism czar Richard Clarke. That's why they are quoting around what he really wrote rather than the full facts of what he wrote that have held up to extreme scrutiny.
Yes, that post was a waste of your time. Yes, I understand that I am correct that PNAC documents never call for the invasion of Iraq. What is the implication of that? Well, I think it is important to note that the same contention is oft repeated: 'don't believe the cabal has been planning to invade Iraq for a decade - then look at the PNAC letter/documents in which they call for the invasion.' The problem is that they don't call for an invasion. The documents, representative of the PNAC's official positions don't, they call for a stronger military stance to protect our interests in the Gulf. If someone said 'Cuban documents from almost a decade ago show they were going to invade the US' then we might investigate that allegation, no? And yes, there is a big difference between providing aid to an internal uprising and invading a country. For example, we have been providing exactly the type of aid spoken about in the WS articles to the Kurds. Does that aid constitute an invasion? Apparently not or this entire discussion would be a little redundant. The limiting examination comes from the fact that the original claim was limited to PNAC documents. While Kristol et al are part of PNAC an article written in the NYT or WS are not the same as a document issued by PNAC and officially representative of its position.
Stringing together a bunch of repeated insults is not debate. You're seeming a bit obsessive though with your perspective that I 'goad you.' IIRC I wasn't even talking to you when you jumped in the thread.
Thank you for your response. I can appreciate the need to be precise. Would you, perhaps, agree that the following statement is true: Many Neo Conservatives who ended up serving in the Bush administration were at one time members of the PNAC or were strongly influenced by the foreign policy ideas of the PNAC, the Weekly Standard, and/or members of those two organizations. The foreign policy idea advocated a much more aggressive military stance than what Bill Clinton was capable of doing (which was to launch missles and enforce no-strike zone). Such a policy included calls for "military action," and certain PNAC members may have even called for "invasion," although they expressed the "invasion" idea at forums other than the PNAC. I don't know if that entire thing is correct, but I'm just trying to work toward some resolution here.
Oh yeah - no goading there. Good one, Hayes. Meh, sorry your panties are in a wad, I always thought half the fun of arguing with you was the flurry of thinly veiled insults. But whatever, if it makes you feel better to pretend your too insulted to go on, I respect your abdication.
I also appreciate your attempt to work toward a resolution rather than engaging in insults sans actual argumentation. Yes, I would agree with most of that but would add that other options short of invasion were also discussed including support for a southern safe zone similar to what was happening in the Kurdish section of Iraq. What, one might ask, is the importace of this observation? I think concluding that neoconservatives/the PNAC/the cabal were always predetermined for a wholescale invasion of Iraq is incorrect. Further I think it ignores the fundamental changes that took place because of 9/11. That group certainly saw Iraq as a continuing threat to US interests in the region because of the belief that he was still a military threat. But 9/11 significantly broadened the justification for taking Saddam out by bringing terrorism into the equation. The reasoning behind removing Saddam changed from him personally being a threat to US interests to removing Saddam to engender a broader democratization of the Middle East to counteract the upsurge in fundamentalist extremism. The debate moved from Saddam's military (or so it was believed) threat to that threat +. Claiming that an invasion was set in stone in '98 ignores the way the internal debate changed pre and post 9/11. Certainly the PNAC/neconservatives/cabalists were in favor of removing Saddam in '98, but the catalyst for the decision to invade was 9/11. While common 'wisdom' says that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, that ignores the relation of 9/11 to our containment policy (ie troops in Saudi Arabia) and ignores Bush's change from being almost an isolationist (we shouldn't be nation building) to supporting the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. An understanding of that change is completely missed when we conclude that an invasion was predetermined in 1998. This part of the discussion could have happen far earlier in this thread. Instead some people decided to continue to argue the invasion was predetermined when the facts don't bear that out. Actually go back to your first post on this issue. I applauded your intellectual honesty, which at least in my world is not an insult. Then you subsequently adopted the position that you had initially rejected and started in with the insults. Go figure.
Argh - no I did not. I said the quoted articles (not from PNAC) do call for invasion. I then made a declaration that PNAC was pro-invasion, which for some reason pissed you off, even though it is hardly the "backtracking" you imply. After trying to explain this several times, you got all uppity and I dropped the "thinly veiled" from the insults. Seems like you need to go back and reread yourself.
While I don't agree with everything Hayestreet has said, that was a meaty and informative post. Thanks. I agree with you that the distinction you are drawing is an important one. I knew you wouldn't draw this out like this unless there was a point to it. Yes, this is definitely true. I think "Neo Con" is being used as a dirty word today, just as "liberal" is being used as some sort of shorthand for "gay-communist-terrorist-babykiller lovers." Neo Cons are not all a bunch of bloodthirsty people. Many of them are sincere optimists who believe America should exercise its powers around the world for the good of all mankind--benevolently if possible, militarily if necessary. Of course, some Neo Cons benefit personally from this ideology (Dick Cheney via Big Oil), but that doesn't mean many of them sincerely believe a new American hegemony is what is best for America, if not the world. I don't think there is a conspiracy to invade Iraq before 9/11. I do think, however, that the President was being advised by people who always thought strong military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, and 9/11 just gave them the sliver of opening they needed to carry out their plan. These Neo Cons were true believers. They were overzealous in their push for military action and probably shielded the President from any intelligence that contradicted the Iraq-9/11 link or any reports discussing the folly of occupying Iraq.
I wouldn't disagree with most of this either. I was taking a look at SamFisher's post about the administration's original positions and I think it backs up a lot of why this 'technicality' is important to note. From the Foreign Affairs article he posted that details the goals and criteria of the Bush administration coming out of the election: As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him... One thing is clear: the United States must approach regimes like North Korea resolutely and decisively. The Clinton administration has failed here, sometimes threatening to use force and then backing down, as it often has with Iraq. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence -- if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration. Second, we should accelerate efforts to defend against these weapons. This is the most important reason to deploy national and theater missile defenses as soon as possible, to focus attention on U.S. homeland defenses against chemical and biological agents, and to expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000...ign-2000-promoting-the-national-interest.html Those are, as Sam pointed out (Let me say I don't know what Sam thinks about any of this and am not in any way implying he supports my position ), the two instances where Iraq was discussed. Neither of those show a predetermination to invade Iraq, rather the most radical action suggested is supporting internal opposition to Saddam. I think it shows a sharp contrast between what the administration and the cabal/PNAC thought pre and post 9/11. They went from 'there need be no sense of panic about them' to 'we need to act now.' That wasn't set in 1998 but in 2001. Further I think it is more important to try and understand what brought about that change instead of continuing this cabalist/conspiracy line of thought that is represented by the original statement I took exception with - namely that the decision to invade is written out in the PNAC documents of 1998.
so saddam must be removed because he is determined to develop wmds but saddam won't use the wmd's anyway? why are we in iraq again?
I think reasonable people can differ on the intepretation of the Neo Con's position about Iraq. I tend to believe that the Neo Cons contemplated invasion as one of their primary goals, though support of an insrugency (the good kind) would've been even better. (I mean, why wouldn't the Neo Cons prefer insurgency? It does the dirty work for the US and puts less American lives at risk.) But I accept the fact that the burden is on me if I want to make a specific statement like "the PNAC always advocated invasion of Iraq," which is something one can prove or disprove by visiting PNAC's website. That's why I like to stick to more general comments. It's ok. We still stand for pot-smoking-tree-hugging-sandal-wearing hippies. Oh, and our women don't shave their legs.
