President Bush's War Against Nuance

[tnitsuj]

from the Washington Post

 

[nutxo]

could ya quote it please? I don't want to register 🙂

 

[DealMonkey]

Bush's War Against Nuance

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19

To satisfy the hallowed journalistic tradition that there must be two sources for almost anything, I offer you Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Candy Crowley of CNN. They both are on record as having George Bush say that he doesn't do nuance. "Joe, I don't do nuance," the president supposedly told the senator. As for Crowley, she heard it this way: "In Texas, we don't do nuance." If these two sources don't suffice, I offer you the 7,932 words that make up the text of the president's interview with Tim Russert. There ain't a nuance anywhere in the whole mess.

At one time, this was bracing. To see things in black and white, to call evil by its proper name, to know your enemy and want him dead, was wonderfully liberating -- especially after years of Clintonian "on the other hands." That was a presidency that knew something -- maybe too much -- about nuance.

No one could ever say that about the Bush administration. Especially after Sept. 11, 2001, the one thing it had was certainty. From the president on down -- Dick Cheney to Donald Rumsfeld to even Colin Powell -- it had a hard-jawed pugnaciousness. It knew what it knew and because of that, on everything from tax cuts to going to war, Congress followed. The uncertain will always follow the certain. It is a rule of life.

But a rereading of the "Meet the Press" transcript suggests that Bush's most critical quality -- certainty -- has oozed from him like helium from a balloon. Here was a man who was continually trying to pump himself up. He used the word "dangerous" over and over again, applying it to Saddam Hussein without ever quite saying why. He repeatedly called the former dictator a "madman," which is to say that he was capable of anything. In fact, though, he was capable of very little and in recent years had attempted almost nothing.

After Bush's "Meet the Press" performance, countless commentators tried to figure out why he had done so poorly. Many of them focused on performance, political artifice -- the part of politics that looks so easy until, as Wes Clark did, you try it for yourself. Yes, Bush did not perform well. But even a brilliant actor needs material.

Others lamented Bush's verbal klutziness. If only he could talk like Tony Blair, one of them sighed. But the reason he cannot talk like Blair is because he doesn't think like Blair. The British prime minister can acknowledge an awkward fact, even a mistake, and keep on going. Bush can only insist that he is right. It doesn't matter that the facts have changed.

This had little to do with speech and a lot to do with thought. Once certainty is snatched from him, he seems in a state of vertigo where he grasps at certain words to steady himself. Dangerous. Madman. But if a madman does not have the weapons you said he did, then he is not dangerous, and if he did not have the weapons then maybe he was not as mad as we thought he was. There is much to ponder here.

Bush, though, will ponder not -- not on Iraq and not on taxes. He believes in minimal taxes, and he believes this no matter what the economic or fiscal conditions -- boom, bust, surplus, deficit. There is no play in the man, no notion that in economics, one size cannot fit all. "I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money," he told Russert. It is that simple.

There is something childlike about the "Meet the Press" transcript. The repetition. The simplistic thinking. "Saddam Hussein was a danger to America," the president said repeatedly. But how? He had no missiles that could reach our shores. He had no nuclear weapons program. He did not play ball with terrorist outfits or, for that matter, they with him. "The man was a threat," Bush said. How? How? How?

"He had a weapon," the president insisted. But he didn't, remember? That was the whole point of David Kay's report. Oh, but Hussein was a madman.

The president does not do nuance -- that we know. But the failure to come up with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not a nuance. It is a massive reversal of fact, hot turned into cold, tall into short. Bush's inability or refusal to come to grips with the new facts is not the product of a poor performance or an errant tongue, but of a troubling insistence that his beliefs cannot be wrong. That -- nuance be damned -- makes him look like a dope.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Bush's War Against Nuance

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19

To satisfy the hallowed journalistic tradition that there must be two sources for almost anything, I offer you Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Candy Crowley of CNN. They both are on record as having George Bush say that he doesn't do nuance. "Joe, I don't do nuance," the president supposedly told the senator. As for Crowley, she heard it this way: "In Texas, we don't do nuance." If these two sources don't suffice, I offer you the 7,932 words that make up the text of the president's interview with Tim Russert. There ain't a nuance anywhere in the whole mess.

At one time, this was bracing. To see things in black and white, to call evil by its proper name, to know your enemy and want him dead, was wonderfully liberating -- especially after years of Clintonian "on the other hands." That was a presidency that knew something -- maybe too much -- about nuance.

No one could ever say that about the Bush administration. Especially after Sept. 11, 2001, the one thing it had was certainty. From the president on down -- Dick Cheney to Donald Rumsfeld to even Colin Powell -- it had a hard-jawed pugnaciousness. It knew what it knew and because of that, on everything from tax cuts to going to war, Congress followed. The uncertain will always follow the certain. It is a rule of life.

But a rereading of the "Meet the Press" transcript suggests that Bush's most critical quality -- certainty -- has oozed from him like helium from a balloon. Here was a man who was continually trying to pump himself up. He used the word "dangerous" over and over again, applying it to Saddam Hussein without ever quite saying why. He repeatedly called the former dictator a "madman," which is to say that he was capable of anything. In fact, though, he was capable of very little and in recent years had attempted almost nothing.

After Bush's "Meet the Press" performance, countless commentators tried to figure out why he had done so poorly. Many of them focused on performance, political artifice -- the part of politics that looks so easy until, as Wes Clark did, you try it for yourself. Yes, Bush did not perform well. But even a brilliant actor needs material.

Others lamented Bush's verbal klutziness. If only he could talk like Tony Blair, one of them sighed. But the reason he cannot talk like Blair is because he doesn't think like Blair. The British prime minister can acknowledge an awkward fact, even a mistake, and keep on going. Bush can only insist that he is right. It doesn't matter that the facts have changed.

This had little to do with speech and a lot to do with thought. Once certainty is snatched from him, he seems in a state of vertigo where he grasps at certain words to steady himself. Dangerous. Madman. But if a madman does not have the weapons you said he did, then he is not dangerous, and if he did not have the weapons then maybe he was not as mad as we thought he was. There is much to ponder here.

Bush, though, will ponder not -- not on Iraq and not on taxes. He believes in minimal taxes, and he believes this no matter what the economic or fiscal conditions -- boom, bust, surplus, deficit. There is no play in the man, no notion that in economics, one size cannot fit all. "I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money," he told Russert. It is that simple.

There is something childlike about the "Meet the Press" transcript. The repetition. The simplistic thinking. "Saddam Hussein was a danger to America," the president said repeatedly. But how? He had no missiles that could reach our shores. He had no nuclear weapons program. He did not play ball with terrorist outfits or, for that matter, they with him. "The man was a threat," Bush said. How? How? How?

"He had a weapon," the president insisted. But he didn't, remember? That was the whole point of David Kay's report. Oh, but Hussein was a madman.

The president does not do nuance -- that we know. But the failure to come up with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not a nuance. It is a massive reversal of fact, hot turned into cold, tall into short. Bush's inability or refusal to come to grips with the new facts is not the product of a poor performance or an errant tongue, but of a troubling insistence that his beliefs cannot be wrong. That -- nuance be damned -- makes him look like a dope.

Bush's lack of nuance has only cost 500+ soldiers lives. :disgust::disgust::disgust:

 

[smashp]

Bush is One of those Flat Earth Types. "I Believe the Earth is flat" Bush Says. Even if he sails around the Globe, he would still claim the Earth is Flat

 

[Zipp]

There is something childlike about the "Meet the Press" transcript. The repetition. The simplistic thinking. "Saddam Hussein was a danger to America," the president said repeatedly. But how? He had no missiles that could reach our shores. He had no nuclear weapons program. He did not play ball with terrorist outfits or, for that matter, they with him. "The man was a threat," Bush said. How? How? How?

How was Saddam a threat? Of course he didn't have missiles that could reach us and everybody knew that. I think the main concern was that Saddam had "tons" of unaccounted WMD's and everybody agreed with that. Now he made a deal after losing the 91 Gulf War to completely disarm but never followed through with it and after so many resolutions and 9/11 just happening, The USA decide it had enough of this...We couldn't just be a paper tiger and not enforce the "Cease fire" agreement that was put in place after the War.

Now I think the concern was that if Saddam was to sell/give any of these unaccounted WMD's to any terrorists,that could become a real problem. And yes I know he didn't really align himself with these groups but I think they all pretty well much felt the same about the USA. After 9/11,the administration decided it wasn't going to take any chances and decided it was time to put the hammer down and rightfully so. "In my opinion" I wish they would have moved alot faster and I think that's why we have this issue with missing WMD's.

Look at this way,Saddam was boxed in for years and you know he was getting restless(he was constantly firing on coalition aircraft) and then he see's the country that has been boxing him in get hit hard from a terrorist organization...You don't think that put any idea's in his head? Or his 2 crazier sons?

The United States couldn't just stand by and take that gamble.


Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Zipp

There is something childlike about the "Meet the Press" transcript. The repetition. The simplistic thinking. "Saddam Hussein was a danger to America," the president said repeatedly. But how? He had no missiles that could reach our shores. He had no nuclear weapons program. He did not play ball with terrorist outfits or, for that matter, they with him. "The man was a threat," Bush said. How? How? How?

How was Saddam a threat? Of course he didn't have missiles that could reach us and everybody knew that. I think the main concern was that Saddam had "tons" of unaccounted WMD's and everybody agreed with that. Now he made a deal after losing the 91 Gulf War to completely disarm but never followed through with it and after so many resolutions and 9/11 just happening, The USA decide it had enough of this...We couldn't just be a paper tiger and not enforce the "Cease fire" agreement that was put in place after the War.

Now I think the concern was that if Saddam was to sell/give any of these unaccounted WMD's to any terrorists,that could become a real problem. And yes I know he didn't really align himself with these groups but I think they all pretty well much felt the same about the USA. After 9/11,the administration decided it wasn't going to take any chances and decided it was time to put the hammer down and rightfully so. "In my opinion" I wish they would have moved alot faster and I think that's why we have this issue with missing WMD's.

Look at this way,Saddam was boxed in for years and you know he was getting restless(he was constantly firing on coalition aircraft) and then he see's the country that has been boxing him in get hit hard from a terrorist organization...You don't think that put any idea's in his head? Or his 2 crazier sons?

The United States couldn't just stand by and take that gamble.


Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

Give it up. This has been pointed out to the liberals and they just don't listen. They will just pass around fake pics of Bush doing coke and ignore any reference to reality.

 

[chess9]

Ya' gotta' love the way the conservatives throw around Clinton's name like he was GOD! All of a sudden, Clinton was right. Didn't hear a word about this from the right wing 3 years ago, but now Clinton is their SAVIOR.

What a hoot....

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Oh, and did anyone ever expect nuance from Bush? I didn't. He has been pretty much the person I figured he'd be-a grocery store bag boy pretending to be President. Bush has gone farther with less than any man on this planet, I'm sure.

500 Americans are DEAD SURE. 🙁

-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Give it up. This has been pointed out to the liberals and they just don't listen. They will just pass around fake pics of Bush doing coke and ignore any reference to reality.

You mean like the conservatives and their doctored photos of Kerry and Jane Fonda? Yeah, they won't pay attention to reality either.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Bush's War Against Nuance

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A19

To satisfy the hallowed journalistic tradition that there must be two sources for almost anything, I offer you Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Candy Crowley of CNN. They both are on record as having George Bush say that he doesn't do nuance. "Joe, I don't do nuance," the president supposedly told the senator. As for Crowley, she heard it this way: "In Texas, we don't do nuance." If these two sources don't suffice, I offer you the 7,932 words that make up the text of the president's interview with Tim Russert. There ain't a nuance anywhere in the whole mess.

Too bad lots of Americans don't read. This op-ed is devastating.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

And look at the positive side: Unlike Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands of soldiers for no good reason, in Iraq our brave men and women fought for the noblest cause of all: The liberation of human beings from the grip of tyranny.

Now let's just hope the politicians don't f8ck it up by allowing an Islamic state to take hold.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

And look at the positive side: Unlike Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands of soldiers for no good reason, in Iraq our brave men and women fought for the noblest cause of all: The liberation of human beings from the grip of tyranny.

Now let's just hope the politicians don't f8ck it up by allowing an Islamic state to take hold.

Jason

We weren't given that reason for going to war in Iraq and if we were the Public wouldn't have supported it. The common Iraqi isn't our friends. Did you see those Wags dancing in the street after 9/11? If we weren't BS'd about Iraq being a dangerous threat to United Statesd there is no way6 in Hell the public would have supported Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq which has cost over 500 Americans lives, maimed thousands of American Soldiers and cost the American Taxpayer Billions of Dollars..not to mentio the damage it has done to our credibility as a nation..all this in under a year. Lord knows what the toll and cost will be if we end up mired in that sh!thole for 9 years like we were in Nam.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

We weren't given that reason for going to war in Iraq and if we were the Public wouldn't have supported it. The common Iraqi isn't our friends. Did you see those Wags dancing in the street after 9/11? If we weren't BS'd about Iraq being a dangerous threat to United Statesd there is no way6 in Hell the public would have supported Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq which has cost over 500 Americans lives, maimed thousands of American Soldiers and cost the American Taxpayer Billions of Dollars..not to mentio the damage it has done to our credibility as a nation..all this in under a year. Lord knows what the toll and cost will be if we end up mired in that sh!thole for 9 years like we were in Nam.

A) we were in 'nam from 1959 until 1973. That's 14 years, not 9.

B) We WERE given that as *A* reason, though admittedly not as the primary reason, which I have always said was a huge mistake on the part of ol' Shrub.

C) 500 lives is NOTHING in the history of war. READ a little.

D) The cause of Liberty is a just and moral and noble cause, and this world will NEVER know peace until Liberty and respect for the rights of human beings as INDIVIDUALS spreads to every corner of this...sphere. (OK, OK, so it's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere, but you get the point 😉

E) We should stay as long as it takes to make the idea that all men are created equal take root in Iraq; then and only then will there be a chance for the idea to spread to the rest of the middle east.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

We weren't given that reason for going to war in Iraq and if we were the Public wouldn't have supported it. The common Iraqi isn't our friends. Did you see those Wags dancing in the street after 9/11? If we weren't BS'd about Iraq being a dangerous threat to United Statesd there is no way6 in Hell the public would have supported Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq which has cost over 500 Americans lives, maimed thousands of American Soldiers and cost the American Taxpayer Billions of Dollars..not to mentio the damage it has done to our credibility as a nation..all this in under a year. Lord knows what the toll and cost will be if we end up mired in that sh!thole for 9 years like we were in Nam.

A) we were in 'nam from 1959 until 1973. That's 14 years, not 9.

I was talking about actual combat, not having advisors stationed there.

B) We WERE given that as *A* reason, though admittedly not as the primary reason, which I have always said was a huge mistake on the part of ol' Shrub.

C) 500 lives is NOTHING in the history of war. READ a little.

500 in a little under one year. hardly time to make an absolute conclusion

D) The cause of Liberty is a just and moral and noble cause, and this world will NEVER know peace until Liberty and respect for the rights of human beings as INDIVIDUALS spreads to every corner of this...sphere. (OK, OK, so it's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere, but you get the point 😉

E) We should stay as long as it takes to make the idea that all men are created equal take root in Iraq; then and only then will there be a chance for the idea to spread to the rest of the middle east.

Jason

Who's next, China, North Korea or some other country where liberty doesn't exist? Who's going to pay for it? WHy should we sacrifice ourselves when they don't make the sacrifice themselves?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

And look at the positive side: Unlike Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands of soldiers for no good reason, in Iraq our brave men and women fought for the noblest cause of all: The liberation of human beings from the grip of tyranny.

Now let's just hope the politicians don't f8ck it up by allowing an Islamic state to take hold.

Jason

You really believe this stuff do you?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

We weren't given that reason for going to war in Iraq and if we were the Public wouldn't have supported it. The common Iraqi isn't our friends. Did you see those Wags dancing in the street after 9/11? If we weren't BS'd about Iraq being a dangerous threat to United Statesd there is no way6 in Hell the public would have supported Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq which has cost over 500 Americans lives, maimed thousands of American Soldiers and cost the American Taxpayer Billions of Dollars..not to mentio the damage it has done to our credibility as a nation..all this in under a year. Lord knows what the toll and cost will be if we end up mired in that sh!thole for 9 years like we were in Nam.

A) we were in 'nam from 1959 until 1973. That's 14 years, not 9.

B) We WERE given that as *A* reason, though admittedly not as the primary reason, which I have always said was a huge mistake on the part of ol' Shrub.

C) 500 lives is NOTHING in the history of war. READ a little.

D) The cause of Liberty is a just and moral and noble cause, and this world will NEVER know peace until Liberty and respect for the rights of human beings as INDIVIDUALS spreads to every corner of this...sphere. (OK, OK, so it's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere, but you get the point 😉

E) We should stay as long as it takes to make the idea that all men are created equal take root in Iraq; then and only then will there be a chance for the idea to spread to the rest of the middle east.

Jason

B) We the people haven't given the fed the power to "shed light on the benighted." It's an unlawful act. You should care about that.

C) ONE life is too many in an illegal, unjustified attack on a sovereign nation. Iraq never was a threat to the US. Also, if the Iraqi people are so important, why did the US insist on 12-years of what may be the most punishing sanctions regime in history? They didn't hurt Hussein personaly and the FED knew it all the time.

D) We don't even LIVE those ideals here at home, but we can EXPORT them like Coke(tm)? If it gets you so buttery to mouth platitudes like: "The cause of Liberty is a just and moral and noble cause, and this world will NEVER know peace until Liberty and respect for the rights of human beings as INDIVIDUALS spreads to every corner of this...sphere." you'd be better served by making them a reality HERE. The truth is that the ideal of world peace is a VERY complex animal, and can't summed up in a catch-phrase.

E) We can't FORCE them to behave in a way that we ourselves can't even fathom. We're just one country with limited resources. We simply CAN'T rework the hearts and minds of 25 million people like we're sowing seeds. Especially when MOST of those same people (justifiably) hate our guts and just want us to leave them alone.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

What number is too big? 1,000? 10,000? More? Don't forget the 200+ "coalition" troops also killed so far. Don't forget the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we "liberated" into the afterlife. At what point do we say the loss of life is too great?

And look at the positive side: Unlike Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands of soldiers for no good reason, in Iraq our brave men and women fought for the noblest cause of all: The liberation of human beings from the grip of tyranny.

Isn't that more or less why we were in Vietnam, at least officially?

Now let's just hope the politicians don't f8ck it up by allowing an Islamic state to take hold.

What if the Iraqis want an Islamic state? Do we replace the old tyranny with a new tyranny?


It's easy to look back and say the end justifies the means. I can't agree. This invasion wasn't sold to America as a liberation. It was sold to a fearful public as Iraq being an urgent threat to our safety and a country connected to 9/11. Those were lies. Those lies taint the invasion and any good that comes from the invasion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zipp
[ ... ]
Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

Note that this was before Clinton's famous -- and quite effective -- bombing raid, the raid that apparently convinced Hussein to destroy his few remaining WMD capabilites according to David Kay. Clinton said he was willing to act alone, and he did. He did without killing over 10,000 people including 530 American soldiers, without alienating the rest of the world, and without miring us in a $200 Billion and counting quagmire.

That's the difference between a marksman and a cowboy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zipp
[ ... ]
Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

Note that this was before Clinton's famous -- and quite effective -- bombing raid, the raid that apparently convinced Hussein to destroy his few remaining WMD capabilites according to David Kay. Clinton said he was willing to act alone, and he did. He did without killing over 10,000 people including 530 American soldiers, without alienating the rest of the world, and without miring us in a $200 Billion and counting quagmire.

That's the difference between a marksman and a cowboy.

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

You call a "marksman" someone who shoots a couple hundred times and then doesn't see if he even hit the target?

ROFLMAO!!!

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zipp
[ ... ]
Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

Note that this was before Clinton's famous -- and quite effective -- bombing raid, the raid that apparently convinced Hussein to destroy his few remaining WMD capabilites according to David Kay. Clinton said he was willing to act alone, and he did. He did without killing over 10,000 people including 530 American soldiers, without alienating the rest of the world, and without miring us in a $200 Billion and counting quagmire.

That's the difference between a marksman and a cowboy.

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

You call a "marksman" someone who shoots a couple hundred times and then doesn't see if he even hit the target?

ROFLMAO!!!

CkG

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha yourself. Not only is your premise wrong, but the results speak for themselves.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zipp
[ ... ]
Bill Clinton with Jim Lehrer "pre 9/11"

Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example.
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

January 21, 1998 President Bill Clinton

Note that this was before Clinton's famous -- and quite effective -- bombing raid, the raid that apparently convinced Hussein to destroy his few remaining WMD capabilites according to David Kay. Clinton said he was willing to act alone, and he did. He did without killing over 10,000 people including 530 American soldiers, without alienating the rest of the world, and without miring us in a $200 Billion and counting quagmire.

That's the difference between a marksman and a cowboy.

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

You call a "marksman" someone who shoots a couple hundred times and then doesn't see if he even hit the target?

ROFLMAO!!!

CkG

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha yourself. Not only is your premise wrong, but the results speak for themselves.

I don't see any "marksman" results. Care to provide them?

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

And look at the positive side: Unlike Vietnam, where we lost tens of thousands of soldiers for no good reason, in Iraq our brave men and women fought for the noblest cause of all: The liberation of human beings from the grip of tyranny.

Now let's just hope the politicians don't f8ck it up by allowing an Islamic state to take hold.

Jason

I'm sure you would like to say that to the families of those 500 men?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

What number is too big? 1,000? 10,000? More? Don't forget the 200+ "coalition" troops also killed so far. Don't forget the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we "liberated" into the afterlife. At what point do we say the loss of life is too great?

not sure why hardly anyone is posting the numbers of military casuatlies on the Iraqi side; but from what i understand its at least another 45,000 people who were simply trying to defend the sovernty of their nation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
without downplaying the importance of each of those soldier's lives, 500 is an *incredibly* small number of lives lost in the history of war.

What number is too big? 1,000? 10,000? More? Don't forget the 200+ "coalition" troops also killed so far. Don't forget the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we "liberated" into the afterlife. At what point do we say the loss of life is too great?

not sure why hardly anyone is posting the numbers of military casuatlies on the Iraqi side; but from what i understand its at least another 45,000 people who were simply trying to defend the sovernty of their nation.

Excellent point. Many (most?) were unwilling conscripts, forced to defend a leader they didn't really support.