Patterico's Pontifications

12/24/2008

Obama and the Bush Doctrine

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 2:39 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby writes that progressive Democrats are peeved at Obama’s transition decisions — especially the appointments of “hawks” like Robert Gates, General James Jones, and Hillary Clinton to handle national security — as well as key roles handed to a “passel of former Clinton operatives” and the naming of Pastor Rick Warren to give the Inaugural Invocation.

If so, the bad news just keeps coming. A reported Obama appointment suggests to me that Obama may accept the substance of the Bush Doctrine, limited by America’s ability to enlist the support of some democratic nations or a regional alliance. (That’s not a minor limitation but my point is many Obama supporters might be surprised to learn Obama does not reject the Bush Doctrine.)

Yesterday’s Austin American-Statesman reports Obama will name James Steinberg, Dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs, as Deputy Secretary of State. In 2005, Steinberg and a co-author published an opinion piece in the LA Times that identified preventive war as a useful and “legitimate tool for dealing with new security threats.” In the article, Steinberg approved the Bush Doctrine and argued it should be expanded:

“Conditional sovereignty is central to a new norm of state responsibility. In September, U.N. members embraced the idea that states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide and other gross violations of human rights. That logic also suggests that states have a responsibility to head off internal developments – acquiring weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists, to name two – that pose a threat to the security of others.

When states fail to meet their responsibilities, the international community will need to step in. Diplomacy and economic pressure are frequently sufficient to do the job. But there will be times when limited military action will be the only effective way to obviate an imminent threat – before, say, a state produces enough fissile material to make nuclear weapons or before terrorists are fully able to hatch their plots. One problem with the Bush doctrine, then, is not that it is overly reliant on preventive force but that it too narrowly conceives of its use, primarily to deal with terrorism and to remove threatening regimes.”

Steinberg and his co-author argued Bush was not only right to use preemptive war to stop terrorism but suggested they would go even further and use preventive force in the case of “genocide and other gross violations of human rights.” (Iraq, anyone?)

However, Steinberg’s article argued the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it should only be used in partnership with international organizations:

“The Bush doctrine’s other problem is that it insists that individual states, or at least the United States, must have the right to decide when preventive force is justified, even though the threat affects the security of many. The decision to use force in these cases cannot be one state’s alone.
***
Preventive military force has a role in managing today’s security challenges. Understanding that role is step one; establishing agreed standards for its use is step two; and implanting these standards in an effective institution is the third step. The Bush administration got the first step right, and the logic of its arguments builds toward the second. But it has gotten step three wrong. Unilateralism is not the only alternative to the Security Council. Regional organizations and a new coalition of democratic states offer ways to legitimize the use of force when the council fails to meet its responsibilities.”

Perhaps Steinberg has changed his views but I doubt it, which makes this an interesting appointment given the perception by some that Obama rejects the Bush Doctrine.

My guess is that, rather than relying on a set of guiding principles, Obama trusts his judgment and intellect to help him solve problems as they arise. I think this is something every President has to do, but there are limits to what even a very smart person can handle. I know lawyers who think they are smart enough to solve any problem … and they often are. They are typically perfectionists and the good news is that they rarely fail. The bad news is that their few failures tend to spiral out-of-control because they have a hard time accepting there are some things they can’t control.

— DRJ

168 Responses to “Obama and the Bush Doctrine”

  1. Perhaps this gem of a quote I came across today would apply:

    G.K. Chesterton...“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.”

    allan (54b7a7)

  2. The “Bush Doctrine” is seemingly more important to Democrats for giving them something to brazenly misrepresent, or display their ignorance of the Constitution upon ( like Slow Joe Biden showing what a clown he is in his recent incoherent statements about the “unitary executive” that he completely misunderstands ). Likewise, Orin Kerr takes Dahlia Lithwick apart over her silly attack on Dick Cheney.

    SPQR (72771e)

  3. The main reason Democrats oppose anything is because Republicans are in favor of it.

    backwoods conservative (3f6ab9)

  4. Obama trusts his judgment and intellect to help him solve problems as they arise.

    I would say that he trusts the world to treat him kindly and his trust is not entirely misplaced. He has been very lucky. But Fortune is a fickle lady.

    nk (20403f)

  5. #4 — The problem is that Obama’s world has been one where he was insulated from any real challenge or hardship. He has benefited from positive discrimination and the support of a powerful political and media machine in his swift rise to the top.

    Now he will be exposed to a world where the New York Times and Chicago cronies won’t be able to help him. Putin and Ahmadinejad don’t give a toss about what the US media says.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  6. Steinberg and his co-author argued Bush was not only right to use preemptive war to stop terrorism but suggested they would go even further and use preventive force in the case of “genocide and other gross violations of human rights.” (Iraq, anyone?)

    Why can’t this Bush doctrine be applied in the case of Zimbabwe? That would give it some credibility.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  7. Because Zimbabwe is not a threat to anyone outside Zimbabwe, and especially not a threat to the US.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  8. “… rather than relying on a set of guiding principles, Obama trusts his judgment and intellect…”

    Juggy doesn’t have any “guiding principals”, unless you count “getting elected” as a principal.

    his judgment is historically suspect, trending from poor to just plain bad, which leaves only his alleged intellect as a fall back.

    since it appears that his books were ghost written, no one has produced his college w*rk, or anything else for examination, and since his extemporaneous speeches off teleprompter have been vacuous and puerile, it’s doubtful that he possesses anything more than a mediocre mind and a gut instinct of what will appeal to other non-thinkers.

    IOW, unless he realizes that any and every crisis during his time in office is “above his pay grade” and he defers to the brighter people around him, we’re screwed, and the people he’s surrounding himself with aren’t all that good anyway.

    get ready for Carter II

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  9. … and also because after the way the left-wing media and Democrats and other nations turned on the US after Iraq, the US is much less willing to use force for humanitarian purposes.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  10. well, you know what they say EP:
    “no good deed goes unpunished.”

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  11. Comment by Evil Pundit — 12/24/2008 @ 4:47 pm
    Do you think they would have turned against Bush if he had invaded Zimbabwe instead and overthrew this crazy dictator? Which would have won more support, Iraq or Zimbabwe?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  12. Zimbabwe, of course, since the U.S. has no interests at stake.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  13. #12
    So we agree that nothing is wrong with the Bush doctrine, the question is application. It could have been more wisely spent. Hope Obama does better.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  14. love2008,

    I don’t think this is an easy question. On the one hand, principled decisions can be rigid but sometimes a President needs to be flexible. On the other hand, basing policy on judgment instead of principle results in unpredictable U.S. policies. Zimbabwe can be unpredictable and the world will be fine. If the U.S. is unpredictable, the world and its people often suffer.

    DRJ (be6fb0)

  15. 10. Zimbabwe, of course, since the U.S. has no interests at stake.

    I suspect it’s more “Zimbabwe, since no one else has any interests at stake.” Which means that cozying up to world powers, especially UN Veto powers like France and China, is a get out of jail free card for dictators.

    Sadly, for many people, the ‘rightness’ of what the US does is determined not by the people helped, but entirely by the PR spin put on our actions.

    Civilis (ae308f)

  16. Obama trusts his judgment and intellect to help him solve problems as they arise.

    as opposed to the intellect and judgment to foresee problems before they arise?

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  17. Note to my post above: isnt that what got us into the terrorist mess in the first place. Letting things fester until the problem “arises”. We let al queda and iraq fester all through the 90’s. We shoulda taken out the taliban after the 93 wtc bombing, and Saddam after his first UN resolution violation.

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  18. Invading Zimbabwe instead of Iraq would have made no difference to the way the Bush Administration and the US were criticised.

    It wasn’t about what they did, it was about who they were. The same hypocrites who want an invasion of Zimbabwe now, would be calling Bush a “war criminal” if he actually did it.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  19. I guess I’m kind of slow on this. Unilateral like the US, the UK, Spain, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, El Salvador, Japan, and a dozen other countries; I must be reading unilateral wrong. Now if it means without the support of Russia, Germany, and France, then we mean something else. The fact that they were the recipients of the Oil
    for Food scams may have had something to do with it. All in all, Steinberg is about as good a choice as could realistically be made. Well besides the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade he has a spotless record.

    narciso (dda662)

  20. The left would have accused Bush of invading Zimbabwe so it could be renamed Rhodesia and given back to it’s white masters… I can hear Rev. Wright giving that sermon…

    Maybe Obama will start his world tour by meeting with Mugabe in Harare… give a nice speech. Then sugar plum fairies will fly around and make it all OK

    SteveG (a87dae)

  21. Perhaps Steinberg has changed his views but I doubt it..

    I do.

    Based on the various pieces Steinberg has co-authored, he appears to be one of those classic beltway foreign policy practitioners who is willing to pen all sorts of non-committal analyses, where he ranges academically and abstractly over the “risks” and “opportunities” of various policy options, but is not willing to put himself on the line in opposition to national decisions of the highest possible moment. Thus, no matter which way Iraq went, he wouldn’t have damaged his chances of landing a spot in the next administration.

    A careerist in a suit without a side: The classic Washingtonian fit.

    Steinberg joined with Michale O’Hanlon – way back in 2004 – arguing for a date-certain Iraq pull-out:

    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0518iraq_steinberg.aspx

    Eight months ago, Steinberg disparaged the Bush Doctrine as “playing to the terrorist’ strengths and America’s weaknesses”:

    http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_steinberg.pdf

    When the lives and livelihoods of thousands of American troops and millions of Iraqis were on the line lack in 2002 and early 2003, where was Steinberg? I’d sure as hell rather see him in a supporting role downstream than in the White House as National Security Adviser.

    steve (ae4397)

  22. It would be racist if President Bush had sent white troops to Zimbabwe, and would only have been a question of how long would it take before the progressive MSM ran a story about American troops engaging in ethnic cleansing, complete with bedsheets. The trumped up stories that were generated out of Iraq would be 100x worse coming out of Zimbabwe.

    JD (ba27e7)

  23. Patterico quotes a journalist as saying:

    “The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby writes that progressive Democrats are peeved at Obama’s transition decisions — especially the appointments of “hawks” like Robert Gates, General James Jones, and Hillary Clinton to handle national security”.

    But polls show that Democrats overwhelmingly approve the appointments of Gates, Clinton, etc.

    Andrew Perez (7f9f90)

  24. JD – Zimbabwe wouldn’t be like the religious crusade and war for oil we are pursuing in Iraq. Remember also, it is the white man’s burden to do these things. At least the mines ran when the white folks were in charge in Rhodesia.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  25. Comment by JD — 12/25/2008 @ 1:53 pm

    Atleast we would have a good reason for being there.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  26. Well then, let’s see Obama put his money where his mouth is, and go save some black people in Zimbabwe.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  27. lovie – Since today is Christmas, and I am overcome with the spirit of the season, I will not point out how brain-poundingly stupid your last comment was.

    JD (ba27e7)

  28. Comment by JD — 12/25/2008 @ 2:45 pm
    Your anger is misplaced. Not to worry. Such blunders won’t happen again under a more sensible, restrained regime.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  29. I have no anger, lovie.

    And I commend you for acknowledging that it will be a regime.

    JD (ba27e7)

  30. Why is it that the entire Left describes anyone that disagrees with their worldview as being hateful? I know, stupid question.

    Racists.

    JD (ba27e7)

  31. JD – It’s racist, hateful and homophobic to disagree with the left and any such disagreements smack of desperation. You have been marginalized. Deal.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  32. Who mentioned the word “hateful” in this conversation? Cos I know I didn’t.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  33. Oops, anger. I am not angry either. Exchange hate for anger in above and it still stands.

    JD (ba27e7)

  34. steve,

    You may be right about Steinberg and, if so, I agree it’s good he’s not National Security Adviser. But if Steinberg is willing to change policies with the wind, then his appointment makes Obama seem even more wishy-washy than he already seems … and Deputy Secretary of State is still an important position.

    DRJ (30954e)

  35. Andrew Perez,

    Thanks for your comment. Please note that Patterico didn’t write this post, I did. In addition, the term ‘progressives’ is a term used to describe far-left Democrats, and I don’t think they are as impressed with Obama’s appointments as they were with his candidacy.

    DRJ (30954e)

  36. Look at Steinberg’s appointment as a consolation prize. An early and ardent supporter of Obama, he was a front-runner for National Security Adviser. Now he’s probably Hillary’s point man on the Israeli peace process. Probably her call, anyway.

    steve (ae4397)

  37. Contrary to what the cackling media might tell you vis-à-vis Sarah Palin, the Bush Doctrine isn’t notable for preemptive strikes. If you think that’s something that originated with Bush 43, you need to have a talk with Hitler or perhaps Manuel Noriega. What was new is the notion that as a state, you’re either with us or against us. And that was never really put into play.

    As for Zimbabwe or Sudan, we’re supposed to be chastened against unilateralism now. Let me know when China, Russia and France are on board.

    Pablo (99243e)

  38. Why can’t this Bush doctrine be applied in the case of Zimbabwe? That would give it some credibility.

    Lovie, why would taking out Mugabe give it credibility if taking out Saddam didn’t?

    Pablo (99243e)

  39. Now he’s probably Hillary’s point man on the Israeli peace process. Probably her call, anyway.

    Dennis Ross is being discussed for that spot. Because of the CHANGE!

    Pablo (99243e)

  40. steve:

    Now he’s probably Hillary’s point man on the Israeli peace process.

    Do you think this suggests Obama will argue Israel can’t unilaterally use preemptive force against Iran?

    DRJ (30954e)

  41. DRJ – He very well may take that position, on a Tuesday. On Wednesday, the opposite. Nuance.

    JD (ba27e7)

  42. Do you think this suggests Obama will argue Israel can’t unilaterally use preemptive force against Iran?

    Even if you *could* glean that from Steinberg’s incomprehensible paper trail, Israel will do what Israel needs to do.

    steve (ae4397)

  43. I hope that’s true but Israeli politics still responds to international and especially U.S. opinion. It’s not just nuclear weapons that can harm a nation. International sanctions cause damage, too, especially when it comes to democracies.

    DRJ (30954e)

  44. Obama may think we need a world view that does not make all of our problems subordinate to the needs of fighting the global war on terrorism. A definition of our national interest that recognizes the concerns and needs of others – in the Gulf, the Middle East, Pakistan and Europe – is likely to be his organizing principle. Non-traditional national security challenges like proliferation and pandemic disease will go unmet without collaboration, as will [gasp] climate change. Perhaps this will be one administration that does not prize symmetric viewpoints in its policy nerds.

    steve (ae4397)

  45. R U going 2 luv ’09?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  46. steve:

    A definition of our national interest that recognizes the concerns and needs of others – in the Gulf, the Middle East, Pakistan and Europe – is likely to be his organizing principle.

    So the military support and billions in international aid the U.S. has provided over the years had nothing to do with the “concerns and needs of others”? I submit the U.S. has always tried to reconcile its interests with the needs of other countries. The Ugly American is a myth.

    DRJ (30954e)

  47. The Ugly American is a myth.

    No it is not. George Soros is ugly. So is Bill Ayers. And Rev. Hatey.

    JD (ba27e7)

  48. I would call them the unappreciative Americans.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  49. “A definition of our national interest that recognizes the concerns and needs of others – in the Gulf, the Middle East, Pakistan and Europe – is likely to be his organizing principle.”

    Apart from Syria, who in the Middle East is a big supporter of a more highly militarized Iran? With France, Germany and Russia making big bucks from Saddam in violation of U.N. guidelines prior to the 1993 invasion, were those the national interests we were supposed to take into consideration? If the Arab countries in the Middle East had a serious interest in solving the Israel/Palestinian problem, it would have been solved by now.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  50. The problem with Stienbergs statement that Bush’s flaw was step 3, ie unilateralism or the security council, is that it was not Bushs position and in fact he made new alliances, it was the Democrat position that it was the security council only.

    lonetown (cdb28b)

  51. Lovie, why would taking out Mugabe give it credibility if taking out Saddam didn’t?

    Comment by Pablo — 12/25/2008 @ 6:51 pm
    Good point. The simple answer would be, there is no oil in Zimbabwe.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  52. “The simple answer would be, there is no oil in Zimbabwe.”

    Lovey – Is Zimbabwe supporting international terrorism?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  53. “The simple answer would be, there is no oil in Zimbabwe.”

    Lovey – Was or is Zimbabwe developing WMD?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  54. “The simple answer would be, there is no oil in Zimbabwe.”

    Lovey – Was or is Zimbabwe violating an international cease fire agreement and more than a dozen U.N. resolutions?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  55. Comment by daleyrocks — 12/26/2008 @ 9:08 am
    Daley, was Saddam supporting international terrorism?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  56. “Daley, was Saddam supporting international terrorism?”

    Lovey – Even you should be able to answer that one all by yourself.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  57. Lovey – Was or is Zimbabwe developing WMD?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 12/26/2008 @ 9:09 am
    Daley, was Iraq?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  58. Lovey – Even you should be able to answer that one all by yourself.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 12/26/2008 @ 9:14 am
    Daley, even you should know you shouldn’t make baseless assertions.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  59. the “we attacked Iraq for their oil” is just another libtard canard. How much oil have we gotten from Iraq sans paying the going rate for it? How many terrorists were tied up in Iraq and how many were anniliated by our GIs? Yes, we lost thousands of our youth because of the evil Bushitler’s war. Give peace a chance. war is not the answer and what is it good for? How many terrorists would be headed to defend Robert Mugabe’s interests? How many African dictators rule in a beneficent fashion and don’t destroy the country or abolish human rights? How many Iraqis and Afghans now vote in a democracy? How nany women are no longer being raped and how many Iraqi political prisoners and ordinary citizens no longer are fed feet first into wood chippers?
    The left is hopelessly hypocritical with their duplicity and revisionist history. We already have the most ethical Congress in history despite approval ratings in the toilet. I’m sure the Obamafuehrer with his Ill. posse and assclowns like Dodd and Franks will enable Amerikkka to recover from the horrible Bush regime. And is their any doubt that adding such luminaries in the US Senate such as Princess Caroline, Stuart Smiley, Joe Biden’s son after the 2010 election and whomever takes over Baracky’s seat will set a new gold standard of excellence in government?
    Don’t look now but it sure looks like India and Pakistan are on the verge of war, Israel has to do something about Gaza, Iran continues to march toward nuclear weaponry. How will the new Abe Lincoln/FDR handle these and domestic problems. I’m sure many billions “invested” in green industries will be so much help for the economy. Afterall the subsidized ethanol industry is going sow ell, even if they too now want more money and even though the diversion of crops to making ethanol has sent food prices soaring and made many more people world-wide go hungry.
    If there really any justice in this world, asshats like Algore would be strung up on a pole instead of having fools kiss his fat ass over the AGW hoax. Of course now he is down with the carbon credits boondoggle and massive funds going to the greens. Your Potus elect will be doing his part by making Hawaii the western white house. Do as I say and not as I do. Emulate algore, breck girl, Obama, Travolta, Lurch, Huffington, etc.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  60. Is love really still peddling the “Saddam wasn’t all that bad” line of bs?

    Really?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  61. Daley, was Saddam supporting international terrorism?

    Yes, quite openly. He made a big show of writing the checks. How quickly we forget.

    Pablo (99243e)

  62. Lovey – Are you asserting that Iraq was not supporting international terrorism and had not or was not developing WMD’s? Simple yes or no answers rather than evasions will suffice. Take a position so that we can understand what you are saying.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  63. Comment by Icy Texan — 12/26/2008 @ 9:39 am
    Not really. My point is that if Mugabe has not been removed by us, even with all his crimes, removing Saddam did not necessarily make us safer. He was as much threat as Mugabe is now.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  64. Comment by daleyrocks — 12/26/2008 @ 9:44 am
    Daley you must be the only who still believes that (a) Saddam was in bed with AQ and (b) he was developnig WMDs. These are claims that have been long debunked by the facts on ground. Granted, Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer of his own people. Just like Mugabe and some dictators still in power today. Nothing more. So my answer is “yes”.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  65. Saddam’s track record of invading both Iran and Kuwait puts him at the same threat level?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  66. My point is that if Mugabe has not been removed by us, even with all his crimes, removing Saddam did not necessarily make us safer. He was as much threat as Mugabe is now.

    When has Mugabe ever shown any aggression directed outside Zimbabwe? I can’t make heads or tails of your if-then formulation here.

    Pablo (99243e)

  67. Fer Chrissakes dear leader Hussein used wmd on both the Kurds and Iran during their eighties war. And how much wmd was diverted to Syria pre-Desert Storm? How fecking stupid do the trolls think we are. Saddam was intent on developing nuclear bombs thirty plus years ago and had the French supplying him with the necessary uranium derivatives and building a plant in 1975. That’s why Israel had their Raid On The Sun June 7, 1981. But the leftwads don’t give a rat’s ass about any truths, except in how they wish to define what is true. The most incompetent jackals who actually were instrumental in getting Americans killed are bumped upstairs and their failings swept under the rug and/or on the very committees investigating what went wrong (duh, Jamie effin’ Gorelick ring any bells?)
    But don’t worry as the media is looking out for us and we know that Obama’s minions are not corrupt vis a vis Blagovich because their own enquiries say so. Let’s see how much damage the Chicago posse, George Soros’ influence and the lower level O appointments coming from the hate america left inflict on the country.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  68. So much for the season. The answer is simple, here: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, so he can’t be that bad. Doesn’t the argumentation scan that way?

    So pick some other dictator, and insist that that dictator was worse.

    It’s just more partisanship. Arguing facts won’t matter. Feelings are more important.

    Sigh.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  69. Yes, quite openly. He made a big show of writing the checks. How quickly we forget.

    Comment by Pablo — 12/26/2008 @ 9:44 am
    Care to refresh my memory, Pablo?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  70. Sure.

    Pablo (99243e)

  71. Prediction:

    1. Pablo will post the links.
    2. L will attack the sources
    3. Pablo will post more links
    4. L will change the subject back to Mugabe.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  72. 1. Pablo will post the links.
    2. L will attack the sources

    Hmmm….better keep it fair and balanced, just in case.

    Pablo (99243e)

  73. So . . . is it love’s contention that we should be the policeman for the entire world? the old “if you did it there, why not do it here?” totally-divorced-from-reality accusation?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  74. Not if we might have some self-interest involved, IT.

    Pablo (99243e)

  75. Comment by Eric Blair — 12/26/2008 @ 10:04 am
    Wrong, Eric. I have read the link. He did sponsor international terrorism. But it does not say anything him being in cahoot with AQ. The link is authentic, though.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  76. He did sponsor international terrorism. But it does not say anything him being in cahoot with AQ.

    So you’re saying that Saddam sponsored the off-brands of international terrorism because he got it at discount prices, to avoid paying the premium pricing of the AQ name brand.

    The AQ reference is a strawman. Your original assertion was that Saddam wasn’t sponsoring international terrorism. Pablo blew that up like an action-flick explosion.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  77. The Spirit of the Season has changed nothing….
    love2008 is still insufferably stupid!…and a troll.

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  78. if you did it there, why not do it here?” totally-divorced-from-reality accusation?
    Comment by Icy Texan — 12/26/2008 @ 10:11 am

    No IT, it’s more like “If you can’t do it everywhere and to everyone, don’t do it to anyone..” Something like that. It helps with the credibility arguement.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  79. Love’s weak comparisons of Saddam to Mugabe speaks volumes about the left’s desparate attempts to justify Saddam remaining in power. It’s “Look over there; that guy’s bad, too!” — or — “If you’re gonna smack one of the children, you had better smack them all”. Remember, it’s Equality before Liberty.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  80. Comment by Paul (creator of “Staunch Brayer”) — 12/26/2008 @ 10:33 am
    Paul, did we go to war with Iraq because they were supporting terrorist attacks on Israel? Or because of their alleged connection to AQ and 9/11?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  81. “No IT, it’s more like …”

    — Shocka! A ‘glass is half empty’ version of the exaxct same thing.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  82. Comment by Icy Texan — 12/26/2008 @ 10:41 am
    Exactly. It’s called justice.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  83. Paul, did we go to war with Iraq because they were supporting terrorist attacks on Israel? Or because of their alleged connection to AQ and 9/11?

    Neither. We resumed hostilities (as the war had been ongoing, though in off and on cease fire, for 12 years) based on Saddam’s material breach of UN Res 1441.

    No one of any import ever alleged that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11.

    Pablo (99243e)

  84. “exaxct” – I shame myself

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  85. One of the Left’s signature failures is the inability to priortize; to do what needs to be done, and to ignore that which is not meaningful or critical. But, when you live in a fantasy world, you don’t need to husband resources, using only those that need to be used, when they are needed, because the power of good intentions is infinite.
    Yes, Equality over all!
    Which is why, if we let them, they always morph the Constitution into a Sucicide Pact.

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  86. Comment by Icy Texan — 12/26/2008 @ 10:41 am
    Before we go any further, are you “Icy Truth”? Formerlly called “Missed it by that much”?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  87. No IT, it’s more like “If you can’t do it everywhere and to everyone, don’t do it to anyone..” Something like that. It helps with the credibility arguement.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    If you can’t feed all of the starving children, don’t feed even one of them. It wouldn’t be fair.

    Sounds sort of silly when you put it that way, doesn’t it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  88. I shame myself

    Comment by Icy Texan — 12/26/2008 @ 10:47 am
    Yeah, shame on you…… 🙂
    And me.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  89. “No one of any import ever alleged that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11.”
    No one except the Left, for they still cannot comprehend how the UN could ever allow the US to engage in a punitive expedition against someone who transgressed agreements with the UN, when always before, such transgressions would lead to just more and more conversations and discussions and calls for sanctions that were never enforced.
    How Dare George Bush Actually Do Something!

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  90. I think we are all missing the point. Pablo stated that Saddam was supporting terrorism.

    L doubted it.

    Pablo demonstrated it was true.

    L changed it to supporting AQ, then moved on to other topics.

    Sigh.

    This is what he likes to do, remember? Troof to Powder!

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  91. Sounds sort of silly when you put it that way, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Pablo — 12/26/2008 @ 10:50 am
    Yes Pablo. But I am not putting it that way. It’s more like: if you won’t punish all the kids that stole, don’t punish any of them. Justice and equality to all. Isn’t it Pablo?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  92. Comment by love2008 — 12/26/2008 @ 10:45 am

    — Thank you for ADMITTING that your contention is this: if the USA is to police any region beyond our borders we must police the entire world; if we attack one bad guy we must attack all of the bad guys (simultaneously?); picking & choosing our battles is not an option; so-called “fairness” is more important than strategic decision-making; victory over an evil regime will always be tainted by the continued existence of the regimes we have not taken out.

    Is this the way things work in your divorced-from-reality universe?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  93. Paul, did we go to war with Iraq because they were supporting terrorist attacks on Israel? Or because of their alleged connection to AQ and 9/11?

    Your tossing of more strawmen doesn’t matter, Lovie, since Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284. In fact, the final straw was his blatant defiance of UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council to get him to comply with all the others. That alone justified taking him out. the fact that he sponsored international terrorism simply buttresses the point.

    And before you bring up France’s and Germany’s opposition, recall that both nations were abusing the oil-for-food program.

    You must be heavily into recycling, Lovie, since you are raising old arguments thoroughly debunked years ago.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  94. Personally, Pablo, I would change your aphorism to “..the pursuit of perfection is the enemy of the good…”

    You watch. Remember how we had to hear, endlessly, about corruption among Republicans? Now we are hearing about realpolitik when it is from Democrats.

    It’s the same thing here, discussing how to deal with the international situation. The real goal is for us to be Buchanan style isolationists (…if you don’t fight for “justice” everywhere, all the time, you don’t fight for justice at all…”).

    I’m glad Saddam’s gone. And despite revisionism, both the left and right were convinced of his horrific badness and connections to international terrorism (including Bill Clinton). Heck, the UN thought so.

    As soon as Mugabe starts invading other countries, I recommend we crush him like a bug.

    Of course, when Obama does it, it will be a good thing, right?

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  95. If you’d hang around more often you’d already know that answer.

    Icy Texan (formerly Icy Truth, who -- unlike Drew -- couldn't wait til the new year) (b7d162)

  96. Obama’s going to invade (or maybe that should be “re-invade”) another country?

    Without preconditions?

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  97. Comment by Eric Blair — 12/26/2008 @ 10:55 am
    See my comment @ 10:35am.

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  98. Comment by Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) — 12/26/2008 @ 10:54 am
    “The left…the left,….the left…” Why do you keep using that to define those who disagree with you? Isn’t that myopic thinking? People of the same political persuations have been known to argue from time to time. It doesn’t make one right and the other “left”.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  99. AD, I really think that you know who is a chatterbot.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  100. Yes Pablo. But I am not putting it that way. It’s more like: if you won’t punish all the kids that stole, don’t punish any of them. Justice and equality to all. Isn’t it Pablo?

    A cop pulls over a speeder who complains that he wasn’t the only one speeding, and it’s not fair for him to get a ticket unless everyone else does. the cop asks the driver “Have you ever been fishing?” “Sure” says the driver. “Have you ever caught all the fish?” asks the cop as he writes the speeding ticket.

    If you can’t protect everyone from being murdered by despots, then don’t protect anyone from being murdered by a despot. That wouldn’t be fair.

    Pablo (99243e)

  101. Comment by Icy Texan (formerly Icy Truth, who — unlike Drew — couldn’t wait til the new year) — 12/26/2008 @ 11:00 am

    The beginning of a New Year (yes, I know it’s an artificial construct imposed upon us be DWEM’s, but it is a useful reference point) is a convenient point-of-change, aka New Years’ Resolutions, etc.
    Some of us have better staying power, I suppose.
    Hah, Hah!

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  102. Honest answers please and all will be forgiven. We went to war in Iraq because of personal interests. Yes or no. Please be very honest. It’s Christmas for Christ’s sakes!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  103. Comment by Eric Blair — 12/26/2008 @ 11:05 am
    It wouldn’t be so painful if there was just an occasional pearl to be found in all of that dreck.
    But, the constant, mindless drivel….
    Is euthanasia allowed for the brain-dead – or is it commanded?

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  104. The goal, AD, is to accomplish what we see here.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  105. “Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool,
    than to opine, and remove all doubt”

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  106. Honest answers please and all will be forgiven. We went to war in Iraq because of personal interests. Yes or no. Please be very honest.

    Are you accusing daleyrocks, Pablo and myself of lying?

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  107. Not this preventive war nonsense again.

    We weren’t fighting the Iraqis because they might do something in the future, but because they did do something in the past.

    That would include:

    1. Invading Kuwait (and other countries).

    2. Agreeing to a ceasefire agreement and then refusing to honor its terms.

    3. Constantly shooting at American aircraft.

    4. Helping terrorists murder American citizens (and citizens of other countries).

    5. Plotting to kill a former U.S. president.

    The concept of preventive war doesn’t apply to our campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Dave Surls (ef70fa)

  108. Have no fear. Underdog Obama bin Hussein will bring us the head of Osama bin Laden and all will then be right with the world. The Religion of Peace will no longer hate us, AGW will be greatly ameliorated, povery and famine will disappear. Saddam was a right ok guy, Bush is a right asshole and al qaeda will surrender en masse when Osama is captured. Is there any doubt that had George W Bush concentrated on Afghanistand and the Taliban more and given short shrift to Iraq that the left would be moaning that Bush lied and his priorities all wrong. Of course it was just fine when Clinton tossed a few Cruise missiles blowing up aspirin factories and empty desert tents, all the while turning the cheek on various terrorist attacks and declining to take custody of Osama the several times when he was offered to the US due to controlling legal authority or some such. No doubt Hillary as Sec of State will open a much improved foreign policy that will win hearts and minds thoughout the world, perhaps with the same success as Madeleine SemiBright? How did that ‘lil Kim ass-kissing turn out? And who will be the O version of Janet Reno? Will the CIA and State continue to stab a potus in the back, reveal national secrets? Will the esteemed NY Times and Pinch continue their traitorous ways or will Pinch work with the Potus and Congress because his married squeeze is in the Senate?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  109. We went into Iraq for national and international interests.

    Pablo (99243e)

  110. Comment by Paul (creator of “Staunch Brayer”) — 12/26/2008 @ 11:18 am
    I have not called anyone a liar, Paul. Just answer the question.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  111. Another Drew signed off as:

    Comment by Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year)

    Well, what if we don’t want you to be known as AD next year? What if we were perfectly happy seeing you as Another Drew? Don’t our feelings count in this matter at all?

    The highly upset Dana (556f76)

  112. I have not called anyone a liar, Paul.

    Technically, no. But stating your wish for an “honest answer” when we’ve spelled out for you the exact reasons why backed up by facts suggests you think we are.

    Just answer the question.

    If you read and comprehended my 10:58 comment, you’d already have the answer.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  113. There will never be Another Drew.

    Official Internet Data Office (08bfab)

  114. Smarter trolls, please.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  115. Comment by The highly upset Dana — 12/26/2008 @ 11:31 am

    Having to deal with your “feelings” would keep me buried in the DSM for years.
    HEE-HEE!
    We all have to deal with the world as it is presented to us, some better than others.

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  116. I think I will come out of the blogging closet, too, and start signing in as Ptolemy XV The Great.

    nk maybe soon to sign in as Ptolemy XV The Great (20403f)

  117. Comment by Paul (creator of “Staunch Brayer”) — 12/26/2008 @ 11:37 am
    Fair enough.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  118. Lovey – You never answered my earlier questions about terrorism and WMD. You created strawmen out of things I never said. Why should people answer the questions of commenters who demonstrate no good faith on their own, which is your pattern here?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  119. I think I will come out of the blogging closet, too, and start signing in as Ptolemy XV The Great.

    Well, in that case, I’ll sign on as…

    Lord Paul, Master of the Universe, Creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  120. That;s a Star Trek reference, by the way.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  121. Daley you must be the only who still believes that (a) Saddam was in bed with AQ and (b) he was developnig WMDs. These are claims that have been long debunked by the facts on ground. Granted, Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer of his own people. Just like Mugabe and some dictators still in power today. Nothing more. So my answer is “yes”.

    Comment by love2008

    This is truly amazing. Saddam, who attacked Iran and Kuwait. Saddam who used poison gas on the Kurds. Saddam who drained the marshes at the Tigris and Eurphrates delta, an ecological disaster unparalleled in modern history. Who agreed to a cease fire and evaded the terms. Who had a nuclear weapons program and who DID seek yellow cake from Africa.

    He is the same as Mugabe.

    There we have it. The consequences of educational failure.

    Mike K (8df289)

  122. “Daley you must be the only who still believes that (a) Saddam was in bed with AQ and (b) he was developnig WMDs.”

    Mike K – Those are merely Lovey’s dishonest distortion of my questions. I did not mention AQ nor did I use exclusively the present tense for WMD development. She is just continuing her dishonest mode of commenting. Par for the course, but she won’t admit she distorted my words.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  123. ‘The Bush doctrine was a major departure from internationally agreed rules that limited the use of force to self-defense in case of an armed attack or military actions authorized by the U.N. Security Council.’

    LOL. As if we hadn’t been doing that for years (departing from those internationally agreed upon rules).

    We did it in Cuba, in Grenada, in Panama and in Kosovo.

    So, why would you call it the Bush Doctrine, and try and act like the concept is some brand new idea?

    Dave Surls (ef70fa)

  124. #100 Eric Blair:

    I really think that you know who is a chatterbot.

    Quite possibly.

    Even if it is, its annoying because of its continuous lying and dishonesty. As an example, it’s continued insistence that no WMDs existed, when in fact there chemical weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was not suppose to have (in accordance with treaty terms) recovered by the hundreds. And hundreds. And then some.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  125. Should we invade North Korea?

    Paul Hsu (646236)

  126. I submit the U.S. has always tried to reconcile its interests with the needs of other countries.

    I submit it has not.

    Our military budget is about equal to that of rest of world combined. Yet that strength has not translated into an ability to get our own way in that part of the world that is of greatest concern.

    If a critical mass of the world does not want us to succeed, our ability to leverage it is diminished.

    steve (6830b3)

  127. Our military budget is about equal to that of rest of world combined. Yet that strength has not translated into an ability to get our own way in that part of the world that is of greatest concern.

    steve, those two sentences seem to tread dangerously close to supporting empire building. That isn’t what we are doing and I don’t think that is the approach you favor.

    Reconciling our interests with those of other nations is finding common ground that is prosperous to each nation involved, not ‘get our own way.’

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791)

  128. If a critical mass of the world does not want us to succeed …

    It depends on what you mean by “does not want us to succeed.” Some nations want to put themselves in our place, others seek to eliminate us, and many depend on our power at the same time they resent it. The question isn’t whether they want us to succeed, it’s whether they want us to fail. I submit there aren’t very many countries that want us to fail.

    … our ability to leverage it is diminished.

    I don’t really understand this but I think you are saying we don’t get much bang for our international aid bucks. If so, it’s hard to evaluate but one analysis is to compare our influence and results with the Soviet Union’s. By and large, the nations we’ve helped are free and prosperous. That’s not true with the nations under Soviet influence. I view that as successful leverage.

    DRJ (30954e)

  129. If so, it’s hard to evaluate but one analysis is to compare our influence and results with the Soviet Union’s.

    After nearly two decades? I think we ought to stick with post-1991 realities, influence and leverage.

    steve (6830b3)

  130. So you want to restrict this discussion to Clinton and Bush II policies and actions? Don’t you think history helps us understand the value of international policies?

    DRJ (30954e)

  131. Well, what are the post-1991 realities?
    *Saddam Hussein, who made agreements with the UN that he thumbed his nose at is….Gone!
    *Mouammar Khadafi, after conducting clandestine terrorist operations against the West for decades, voluntarily gave up his WMD program…Gone!
    *India, which had traversed a “third way” attempting to balance the interests of the Soviet Union v. those of the West, has become one of the leading nations in entrepreneurial activity, and a bulwark against International Islamic Terror, while proclaiming its’ intention to only use its’ nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and has signed a binding agreement with the United States affirming that intention.
    *China has been integrated into the WTO, becoming a vital player in world commerce signified by its’ deployment of Naval resources to the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy far from its’ shores.

    I’m sure there are additional indicators of positive changes to the World Body Politik since 1991, but those are the ones that are just off the top-of-my-head.
    YMMV…

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0)

  132. So you want to restrict this discussion to Clinton and Bush II policies and actions?

    I don’t see how much before 9/11 and the Iraq invasion informs this discussion. The Reagan-Gorbachev cold war summits and Soviet empire collapse did not occur at a low-water mark of the U.S.’s standing in eyes of world. John Bolton and Jeane Kirkpatrick may have embraced similar neo-conservative views posted at the UN, but it was Bolton who was the personification of in-your-face unilateralism.

    steve (d2b2f4)

  133. steve – I think the Vietnam War still informs a lot of the left’s foreign policy thinking, but unfortunately they did not learn the correct lessons.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  134. And the “correct lessons” are?

    steve (d2b2f4)

  135. The U.S. does not have to avoid committing it’s military to anything but peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

    Avoid desserting allies or reneging on commitments after they are made.

    Military decisions should not be made based upon political expediency.

    Those are a start.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  136. steve – Other positive post Russia collapse developments are the gradual movement of Eastern European countries into NATO and western alliances. Neither you nor DRJ noted that above.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  137. steve,

    I used the Soviet Union because I was trying to compare American influence and standing during a time when there was another world superpower. There isn’t a comparable superpower at this moment, and I think that makes it misleading to assume that (1) everyone hates the U.S. and (2) it must be our fault.

    DRJ (30954e)

  138. But DRJ, your two premises are what the MSM tells us, over and over again. So they must be true, right?

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  139. They are until January 20th.

    DRJ (30954e)

  140. Isn’t this interesting: Around the world, they want what we have.

    DRJ (30954e)

  141. Funny, DRJ. I’m just used to hearing how much France hates us (which doesn’t bother me, since I have a large collection of French jokes).

    Then I started reading what Sarkozy was actually saying.

    It didn’t fit The Narrative.

    But you are correct: BO will bring us to the Land of Milk and Honey. From Chicago politics.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  142. DRJ, the hypocrisy of the MSM regarding BO is everywhere. It’s like the MSM doesn’t recall what it wrote BO (Before Obama). Here is an amusing example:

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=315188478171644

    Oh, sure, it is Michelle Malkin. But she isn’t wrong.

    Eric Blair (9294a8)

  143. The U.S. does not have to avoid committing it’s military to anything but peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

    And the Clinton or Obama policymaker who espouses that would be?

    I used the Soviet Union because I was trying to compare American influence and standing during a time when there was another world superpower.

    And I replied it’s fundamentally incomparable; the United States could crush any foe, quickly and at little cost. Unaccountably, we launched an invasion with barely a third of the force we had used during Desert Storm to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Once Saddam fell, Dick Cheney promised Tim Russert, “a good part of the world, especially our allies, will come around to our way of thinking.”

    Did it?

    I don’t get the Reagan correlative. If the idea was demonstrating to other countries the costs of opposing American will, we didn’t. If the dividend was that dictators would realize the risks of defying the United States, it’s not paid off.

    If the right prefers to believe Obama thinks there’s never a time when only decisive U.S. action can make the world safe, that’s fine. I’m not convinced either our allies or our enemies buys it.

    steve (f54458)

  144. “And the Clinton or Obama policymaker who espouses that would be?”

    steve – Where during the Clinton Administration did we commit our troops that wasn’t initially billed as a peacekeeping or humanitarian mission. Why do progressives keep gettig the vapors over empire building even when none is going on.

    The jury is out on Obama policy makers unless you believe some of the are war mongering empire builders.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  145. love2008: “Honest answers please and all will be forgiven. We went to war in Iraq because of personal interests. Yes or no. Please be very honest. It’s Christmas for Christ’s sakes!”

    — 1) Whose “personal interests”? those of the people of the Unoted States?
    2) It’s “chrissakes” for chrissakes! [For some reason I never tire of pointing out the complete inability of the left-leaning posters here to handle compound words.]

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  146. “United”

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  147. 126. Should we invade North Korea?

    No, but not for any moral reasons. It would be perfectly moral for us to oust Kim’s regime. The problem is that we can’t without sacrificing a lot of South Korea. North Korea has achieved deterrence through conventional arms alone.

    It would be moral for us to go in and remove Mugabe from power, and we also have the capability to do so. But we also had moral reasons to oust Saddam and the capability to do so, and in Iraq we had numerous strategic reasons to do so and we had legal justification for doing so (the breached UN resolutions and the US congressional support for regime change, signed by Clinton).

    Civilis (7b5c87)

  148. Where during the Clinton Administration did we commit our troops that wasn’t initially billed as a peacekeeping or humanitarian mission.

    Where was it indicated…after the Cole?

    Walk us through scenarios where you would have invaded outright, as opposed to sending a bombing “message.”

    steve (474b8a)

  149. So, do I get residuals, or at least one-time royalties, from nk maybe soon to sign in as Ptolemy XV The Great, Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year), Icy Texan (formerly Icy Truth, who — unlike Drew — couldn’t wait til the new year) and Paul (creator of “Staunch Brayer”), given that I was the one who started the constantly shifting names to distinguish myself from the much prettier Dana?

    Intellectual property and all that?

    The money-grubbing Dana (556f76)

  150. Comment by The money-grubbing Dana — 12/27/2008 @ 8:38 am

    First, you have to be an intellectual!
    …snickers….

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (56c081)

  151. “Walk us through scenarios where you would have invaded outright, as opposed to sending a bombing “message.””

    steve – I said nothing about the Cole. A snatch and grab of Osama or othewr terrorist leaders might have been indicated which could have involved troops. An action against Iraq rather than just “wag the dog” cruise missile attack.

    Why don’t you present some affirmative evidence on your side for a change about the left’s muscular foreign policy stance. Given that a majority of Democrats voted against the First Gulf War and only reluctantly voted in favor of the Iraq AUMF in an election year, it’s sort of tough to see.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  152. I wonder if Obama knows what the Bush doctrine is? A few others were shown not to in the past…

    Peter In Wonderland (9e7f7e)

  153. Wasn’t it during the Clinton years that a shooter team had Osama in their sights, but no one in DC was willing to pull the trigger?
    Will we have a repeat of that in an Obama Administration?

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (56c081)

  154. The commenter who will soon be known as the commenter formerly known as Another Drew wrote:

    First, you have to be an intellectual!

    I believe that I have a Hostile Blogging Environment tort coming; wonder if NK will serve as my attorney?

    The Dana with hurt feelings (556f76)

  155. Another Drew:
    I don’t think we will see a repeat of anybody being hesitant on the trigger with regard to Osama, though I wonder what type of shots we will have at Osama during the coming administration. It seems like we’ve been the Wile E. Coyote to his Roadrunner ever since 9/11.

    Peter In Wonderland (9e7f7e)

  156. Comment by The Dana with hurt feelings — 12/27/2008 @ 9:58 am

    Well, as long as we’re going to be “lawyering up”, in an ideal world, I would choose someone such as Cyrus Sinai, who might not prevail in the end (he doesn’t seem to have that well of a track record), but he has demonstrated a remarkable record at creating great diversions and just being able to piss everyone off, create “paper blizzards”, and make things go away through the time-honored principle of just wanting the headache to stop.

    But, being the gentleman I am, I would request the assistance in this matter of DRJ, whom I find as fair, reasonable, and knowledgeable (plus, she has a good sense of humor, a feature that a tort of this nature requires).

    …more snickers (and we’re not talking candybars here) ….

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (56c081)

  157. the hypocrisy of the MSM regarding BO is everywhere.

    And expect tons and tons of it over the next few years, because Obama is — in the world of neurotic political correctness (and liberalism) run amok (which is perceived as AOK by many in the MSM) — not only (1) a Democrat, and (2) a liberal, he’s (3) a minority too.

    Mark (411533)

  158. Drew will be changing his name,
    Things just won’t be the same
    Will the Truth that was Icy
    Still be as feisty
    Now that Texas is part of his name?

    The Limerick Avenger (556f76)

  159. I think that AD
    Should have stayed Another Drew
    Too complicated

    The Haiku Avenger (556f76)

  160. 159 & 160…
    Well, nothing is written in stone,
    including limericks (thank goodness).

    Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (56c081)

  161. All of my royalty payments will be filtered through my ex-wife’s attorney’s office.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  162. A snatch and grab of Osama or othewr terrorist leaders might have been indicated which could have involved troops.

    After the NIE warning he was “intent on attacking” America? Yeah, I’d have to think so. There was there no NIE or any other sweeping strategic assessment on al-Qaeda between 1997 and 9/11. Bush should have sacked Tenet, not given him a medal.

    The initial burst of activity after 9/11, gallingly, was arranging exit flights for various Saudi royals.

    steve (f17a26)

  163. “The initial burst of activity after 9/11, gallingly, was arranging exit flights for various Saudi royals.”

    Geez steve, I thought a bunch of people were planning an invasion of Afghanistan.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  164. “There was there no NIE or any other sweeping strategic assessment on al-Qaeda between 1997 and 9/11.”

    steve – You still haven’t answered any questions related to your expectations related to the Obama Administration’s policy on the use of American military force. Why are you dodging when you expect others to answer your questions?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  165. steve — 12/26/2008 @ 11:18 pm:

    I used the Soviet Union because I was trying to compare American influence and standing during a time when there was another world superpower.

    And I replied it’s fundamentally incomparable; the United States could crush any foe, quickly and at little cost.

    I disagree. There was doubt in many quarters that the U.S. could crush any significant foe after Vietnam, and we rarely used military force to solve problems. In any event, I thought the point of this discussion was to evaluate U.S. economic and aid-related influence, not its military influence.

    Unaccountably, we launched an invasion with barely a third of the force we had used during Desert Storm to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

    We did that because Rumsfeld realized the paradigm of war has shifted to terrorism and attacks by enemies that we will have a hard time blaming on any one nation. He also realized it is unlikely the U.S. will ever have a draft again, which means the U.S. will fight every war with a relatively small volunteer military force.

    The Iraq and Afghanistan wars proved the U.S. military can win wars with small, fast responses from troops on hand, and that we don’t have to mobilize 500K troops over a 12-month time period. The surge proved we can win the peace, too. If those two things hadn’t occurred, instead of discussing the Bush Doctrine, we would be discussing why the U.S. military will never be used again except as a defensive force to protect the mainland.

    Once Saddam fell, Dick Cheney promised Tim Russert, “a good part of the world, especially our allies, will come around to our way of thinking.”

    Did it?

    Absolutely. Terrorists have far fewer friends in the capitals of the world than they had before 9/11. Being Osama bin Laden’s friend is a lonely job in today’s world.

    DRJ (30954e)

  166. You still haven’t answered any questions related to your expectations related to the Obama Administration’s policy on the use of American military force.

    Then pose a hypothetical.

    I doubt he’ll use pre-emption the way Bush did, nor indulge notions of invincibility.

    steve (ec116b)

  167. Being Osama bin Laden’s friend is a lonely job in today’s world.

    Like he had many friends hiding in caves in Tora Bora – where the U.S. should have finished him off.

    Rumsfeld realized the paradigm of war has shifted to terrorism and attacks by enemies that we will have a hard time blaming on any one nation.

    Huh? This was about overthrowing a regime in a country of 27 million. Re-read the sentence.

    Yes, the “paradigm of war” has shifted. That’s precisely why the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of military strategy is not being refurbished. Nullifying terror cells and combating proliferation – excuse the hokum – Takes a World.

    steve (ec116b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1334 secs.