• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush Quotes on Need for Kosovo Exit Strategy

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
I came accross this as part of an unnamed author's Ten Myths About Iraq. Sorry I can't give the author credit but here are a couple of Bush quotes on the need for an exit strategy -- in Kosovo -- not in Iraq. Author points to the ThinkProgress.org site for the quotes but I've used links to more primary sources.

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. On Kosovo, Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999) WikiQuote (see 1999)

I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. Seattle Post-Intelligencer

But, on Iraq,

It doesn?t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you?re ? you?re conceding too much to the enemy.? White House Transcript 6/24/05

Why do they call him "W"? So he can spell it!



 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
In 1941 what was our exit strategy for Germany and Japan and what was our time line for when the troops came home?
How about the Civil War or Revolutionary War? Any time line or exit strategies there?

You make too much out of the exit strategy thing.
We have an exit strategy, win and then go home.

Now let's look at the WHOLE Bush quote on time lines, not just the part cherry picked by those who oppose him.
"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load."
Gee doesn't look so bad when you see the whole thing huh?
How about this Bush quote on Kosovo
I would define the mission as to restoring Kosovo so the Kosovoians can move back in and at the same time teach Mr. Milosevic that NATO and its allies and the United States will not tolerate genocide.
Seems that Bush supported the mission in Kosovo, but felt that if there needed to be a long term commitment of troops that the Europeans needed to be the ones doing that.
Seems reasonable to me.

Maybe you should try being a little more honest in your opposition instead of just trying to play ?gotcha? politics.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
What about:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
What about:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
Hey look, Don found a quote that shows Bush was right about something huh?

Good job :)

For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
We have definitely have over extended ourselves due to Iraq, not by plan, but by miscalculation.

Unfortunately we are in a situation that we can easily extract ourselves from. If we bring the troops home tomorrow we risk creating an Iraq and Middle East that is more dangerous than it was before. Even the Baker report that the left loves so much points this out.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,429
5,504
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
What about:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
priorities change.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
We have definitely have over extended ourselves due to Iraq, not by plan, but by miscalculation.
The world changed, in that it suddenly became necessary to oust foreign leaders who posed no threat to our safety? How about this one, then, from a man with greater wisdom than Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB combined:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America?s heart, her benedictions and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
I don't think much about his quotes on Kosovo. To me, they're quotes from a man who had no experience at foreign policy and put little to no thought in about it either.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
Originally posted by: Strk
I don't think much about his quotes on Kosovo. To me, they're quotes from a man who had no experience at foreign policy and put little to no thought in about it either.
If memory serves he did not hold a passport before becoming President and had only been abroad twice, which is startling considering his family's vast wealth and his father's many many trips abroad.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0

I just heard that the 82d has arrived in Kuwait. It was described as the quick response strike force of the Army. Obvious speculation about its proposed uses; not the type of force to be ordinarily used in inner city security duty, etc etc.

LOL!...snarf...

I will speculate that Bush will give a speech after the new year. He will announce a "new offensive" against "terror," centered on Baghdad, to be met by the proverbial "surge", and to act as the center of gravity for a greater effort against "extremists" and "radicals" everywhere, and particularly those who harbor and train terr'rists in the region, and who have chosen to interfere with Iraq's fragile democracy -- the "enemies of freedom."

Together with the heady threats against Syria and Iran, and the existential threats those two states pose to all of us, imminently, Bush will announce an enlargement of the Army, call for additional funds to "fight the enemies of freedom," announce the introduction of 20-30,000 additional troops into Baghdad -- the "central front in the war on terrorism" -- and call for a new urgency in "striking against our enemies before they can strike us," because our enemies "never rest" and are implacable enemies in our noble quest for global, democratic peace.

"We do this because we have no other choice, because we have been called to confront and defeat the forces of evil that threaten all that is dear to us, and because our failure in this mission shall mean the end of America's great march of freedom in the world." [How's that for a David Frum imitation?]
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
ProfJohn, haven't got time to answer you right now. Nice of me to put the links in so you can check things. How do you do at that? And, by the way, what does 1941 have to do with it. The thread was about lying out of both sides of his mouth. 1941 was about being attacked -- quite a different proposition.

Really, John, your mouth (and through that, your fingers that type) runs fine. The brain is hurtin' for certain. From statements that are apparently contradictory to the start of WW II without a moment's thought. The transition is breathtaking in scope.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Whoa, John! I just hit "win, then go home." What does it mean to "win?" Now please, let's not go back to the magna carta. Just tell us how we'll know when we've "won" in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction wasn't it. The goal posts were moved to "democracy." Then they were moved to "stable and can defend themselves." Also John, please tell us if Iraq will be on our side after we "win."

Doesn't it embarass you to add "Prof" to your tag?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
...
No, it didn't. That's just the phrase people use to try and justify stupid ideas that can't stand up on their own merits. Despite lacking any sense or logic, people wave that phrase around like a magic wand. What Iraq had to do with 9/11 will apparently remain a mystery, but damn it all if "the world change on 9/11" isn't used over and over to justify what was a stupid idea carried out in a remarkably stupid manner.

But you know what, maybe the rest of us can take advantage of this rhetorical power. Next time I forget and turn my rent in late, instead of apologizing for forgetting, I can just respond that "the world changed on 9/11". And when asked why I support gay marriage, I can say that once it was a taboo idea, but "the world changed on 9/11". And instead of paying that photo ticket I got for speeding in DC, I can just mail them a letter stating that I had to drive fast because "the world changed on 9/11". Such is the power of that phrase that it works in any situation, as an explanation for anything, even if it makes no sense at all. Of course the downside is that I'd sound so pathetically submissive that anybody with a lick of common sense would want to punch me in the face, but that's the price you pay for being able to argue without having to actually THINK.

Seriously, I realize that you are probably NOT an idiot, but you really do seem to go out of your way to try and SOUND like one.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 1941 what was our exit strategy for Germany and Japan and what was our time line for when the troops came home?
How about the Civil War or Revolutionary War? Any time line or exit strategies there?
In 1941 we made our exit strategy well known. Unconditional Surrender of the Axis powers.

Against Japan our strategy was first stabilize all the Pacific fronts. Then a massive army/navy/marine buildup. Then to island hop in the Pacific, while at the same time depleting Japans sea, air and land forces. Then if necessary an invasion of the Japanese islands. Defeat of the Japanese forces and surrender of the Japanese people.
It was estimated it might take as long as ten years, yet it was done in a little over 4.5 years.

Against Germany our strategy was to supply material support immeditately to our new Allies to stabilize all the fronts in the Euro/African/Middle Eastern fronts.
Train and equip an army and air force. Then strategically bomb the Axis powers. As troops and material became available aid in driving the Axis out of Africa, then the Middle East. Next invade Italy. Finally invade France and march to Berlin and demand Unconditional Surrender.
It was estimated this would take between 7 and 12 years. It was accomplished in about 4.5 years.


 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 1941 what was our exit strategy for Germany and Japan and what was our time line for when the troops came home?
How about the Civil War or Revolutionary War? Any time line or exit strategies there?
In 1941 we made our exit strategy well known. Unconditional Surrender of the Axis powers.

Against Japan our strategy was first stabilize all the Pacific fronts. Then a massive army/navy/marine buildup. Then to island hop in the Pacific, while at the same time depleting Japans sea, air and land forces. Then if necessary an invasion of the Japanese islands. Defeat of the Japanese forces and surrender of the Japanese people.
It was estimated it might take as long as ten years, yet it was done in a little over 4.5 years.

Against Germany our strategy was to supply material support immeditately to our new Allies to stabilize all the fronts in the Euro/African/Middle Eastern fronts.
Train and equip an army and air force. Then strategically bomb the Axis powers. As troops and material became available aid in driving the Axis out of Africa, then the Middle East. Next invade Italy. Finally invade France and march to Berlin and demand Unconditional Surrender.
It was estimated this would take between 7 and 12 years. It was accomplished in about 4.5 years.
None of what you just described is an exit strategy... that was our strategy for defeating the enemy.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
...
No, it didn't. That's just the phrase people use to try and justify stupid ideas that can't stand up on their own merits. Despite lacking any sense or logic, people wave that phrase around like a magic wand. What Iraq had to do with 9/11 will apparently remain a mystery, but damn it all if "the world change on 9/11" isn't used over and over to justify what was a stupid idea carried out in a remarkably stupid manner.
Add some water to that truth - it's dangerously strong undiluted!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 1941 what was our exit strategy for Germany and Japan and what was our time line for when the troops came home?
How about the Civil War or Revolutionary War? Any time line or exit strategies there?

You make too much out of the exit strategy thing.
We have an exit strategy, win and then go home.

Now let's look at the WHOLE Bush quote on time lines, not just the part cherry picked by those who oppose him.
"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load."
Gee doesn't look so bad when you see the whole thing huh?
How about this Bush quote on Kosovo
I would define the mission as to restoring Kosovo so the Kosovoians can move back in and at the same time teach Mr. Milosevic that NATO and its allies and the United States will not tolerate genocide.
Seems that Bush supported the mission in Kosovo, but felt that if there needed to be a long term commitment of troops that the Europeans needed to be the ones doing that.
Seems reasonable to me.

Maybe you should try being a little more honest in your opposition instead of just trying to play ?gotcha? politics.
None of those wars were occupations...The Iraq war lasted 3 weeks. This is an occupation, NOT a war...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DonVito
What about:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
Hey look, Don found a quote that shows Bush was right about something huh?
Too bad Bush didn't follow his own advice, huh!
For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
For those of you who forgot, 9-11 wasn't the first and only attack on the US or on US soil by ME terrorists.
We have definitely have over extended ourselves due to Iraq,
That only tok you 6 years to figure out? Good jub11 :laugh:
not by plan, but by miscalculation.
Still batting zero.
Unfortunately we are in a situation that we can easily extract ourselves from. If we bring the troops home tomorrow we risk creating an Iraq and Middle East that is more dangerous than it was before. Even the Baker report that the left loves so much points this out.
So let the idiots responsible for creating this meess clean it up. Well, they have 2 years and I wish them luck. :)

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
None of those wars were occupations...The Iraq war lasted 3 weeks. This is an occupation, NOT a war...
ummm let's look at history:
Germany: West Germany was an occupied state until 1949 when it officially became West Germany. That is 4 years after the war ended. Berlin itself was under 'formal military occupation' until 1990! ummm 45 years after the war ended.

Japan, was occupied by the Allied Power until April 28 1952, 7 years after the war ended and a total of 11 years after the 1941 start of the way. The occupation lasted longer than the war, and it was a peaceful occupation.

Would you like to revise your statement "None of those wars were occupations..."
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So let the idiots responsible for creating this meess clean it up. Well, they have 2 years and I wish them luck. :)
Please share with us your plan for solving the problem we now find ourselves in.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,662
3,138
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
Yeah, it sure did. Our "leaders" turned into inept sh!theads the very next day.
at least you admit that Bush is your leader...rofl
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,045
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
For those of you who forgot, the world changed on 9-11.
...
No, it didn't. That's just the phrase people use to try and justify stupid ideas that can't stand up on their own merits. Despite lacking any sense or logic, people wave that phrase around like a magic wand. What Iraq had to do with 9/11 will apparently remain a mystery, but damn it all if "the world change on 9/11" isn't used over and over to justify what was a stupid idea carried out in a remarkably stupid manner.

But you know what, maybe the rest of us can take advantage of this rhetorical power. Next time I forget and turn my rent in late, instead of apologizing for forgetting, I can just respond that "the world changed on 9/11". And when asked why I support gay marriage, I can say that once it was a taboo idea, but "the world changed on 9/11". And instead of paying that photo ticket I got for speeding in DC, I can just mail them a letter stating that I had to drive fast because "the world changed on 9/11". Such is the power of that phrase that it works in any situation, as an explanation for anything, even if it makes no sense at all. Of course the downside is that I'd sound so pathetically submissive that anybody with a lick of common sense would want to punch me in the face, but that's the price you pay for being able to argue without having to actually THINK.

Seriously, I realize that you are probably NOT an idiot, but you really do seem to go out of your way to try and SOUND like one.
Quoted for truth. Brilliant... simply brilliant. :thumbsup:
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
None of those wars were occupations...The Iraq war lasted 3 weeks. This is an occupation, NOT a war...
ummm let's look at history:
Germany: West Germany was an occupied state until 1949 when it officially became West Germany. That is 4 years after the war ended. Berlin itself was under 'formal military occupation' until 1990! ummm 45 years after the war ended.

Japan, was occupied by the Allied Power until April 28 1952, 7 years after the war ended and a total of 11 years after the 1941 start of the way. The occupation lasted longer than the war, and it was a peaceful occupation.

Would you like to revise your statement "None of those wars were occupations..."
Yes, you are right.

However, those were not U.S. occupations... they were occupations by all of europe and us together... not 99% U.S., 1% everyone else.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So let the idiots responsible for creating this meess clean it up. Well, they have 2 years and I wish them luck. :)
Please share with us your plan for solving the problem we now find ourselves in.
Why? Every time someone does so, it is ignored.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
None of those wars were occupations...The Iraq war lasted 3 weeks. This is an occupation, NOT a war...
ummm let's look at history:
Germany: West Germany was an occupied state until 1949 when it officially became West Germany. That is 4 years after the war ended. Berlin itself was under 'formal military occupation' until 1990! ummm 45 years after the war ended.

Japan, was occupied by the Allied Power until April 28 1952, 7 years after the war ended and a total of 11 years after the 1941 start of the way. The occupation lasted longer than the war, and it was a peaceful occupation.

Would you like to revise your statement "None of those wars were occupations..."
Yes, you are right.

However, those were not U.S. occupations... they were occupations by all of europe and us together... not 99% U.S., 1% everyone else.
Also, I'm fairly sure casualties were pretty damn low during those occupations. Like, non-existent.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY