The New Republic

Very well said . The narrative really hasn't made much sense for a long time in any event. This president inherited an Afghanistan policy that was in shambles and put considerable military resources into a repair of it . The drone program has been pursued with considerable vigor since this administration took office. This take down of OBL is huge . I think it has staying power . If there is a significant terror attack on US soil then there will be political ramifications . The Republican candidate will not in my view have much traction on national security grounds if things stay as they are .

- alanwilkov

May 14, 2011 at 12:27am

Americans' preference for an aggressive military policy is like Americans' preference for cutting the deficit: it's great in the abstract (American exceptionalism) but not in actual practice. And Republicans have been particularly adept at making (some say exploiting) this distinction, the 45 year stand-off with the Soviet Union serving as the perfect back-drop because actual engagement would have been catastrophic; indeed, actual engagement was limited to the (very deadly and unpopular) proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, both initiated by Democrats (Truman and Johnson). It was the panic following the September 11th terrorist attack that led GWB into the fiasco in Iraq, exposed the fecklessness of those who promote an aggressive military policy, and contributed to the election of Obama. I would say that the question shouldn't be whether the publics' perception of the Democrats as weak on military policy has been purged but whether the publics' perception of Republicans as feckless in both military policy and fiscal policy can be avoided with lots of bluster and deception. I'm sorry to say that the Republicans, with an assist from the national media, have largely been able to avoid the publics' perception as feckless even though Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of it.

- rayward

May 14, 2011 at 8:38am

At this point, there will likely be not one, but two libertarian candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, making constant trouble with their isolationist views, which—unlike in years past—are clearly finding some traction among Tea Party folk and other grassroots conservatives. ================================= Ron Paul's latest is that he would not have gone after OBL as the president did; he would have only done it in cooperation with the Pakistanis. Leaving aside the idiocy of his idea -- as we were choptering in, the Pakistanis would have been choptering OBL out -- Paul is taking the isolationist idea to an entirely new, counter-intuitive level. The next thing, Paul will ask we do all our military operations under the flag of the United Nations. Consider another of his moonbat ideas, legalizing heroin. How exactly would that work? Sell heroin at the 7-11? Make heroin part of the school lunch program? The first fully-attended Republican presidential debate will come across as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with Ron Paul as McMurphy and New Gingrich as Nurse Ratched. Dan Dan

- dbuck1

May 14, 2011 at 8:44am

As I see it, President Obama differs from other Presidents in the sense that they sell the problem (Insurance agents call this "creating the need") and then they sell the cure that they are selling. Carter Sold Energy Conservation. Clinton sold Social Security. Bush sold Military Action in Iraq. When President Obama sold Health Care he said, "I'm open to ideas on this." When President Obama sold the importance of the war in Afghanistan, he seems to rely on the military for answers. Maybe he is playing it safe. The Republicans, for their part, hope to leave town after getting paid and before they are caught.

- Nusholtz

May 14, 2011 at 8:58am

Let's go all in on this, and beginning casting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: Ron Paul: Randle McMurphy Newt Gingrich: Nurse Ratched Donald Trump: Charlie Cheswick Mitt Romney: Billy Bibbit Herman Cain: Max Taber Mike Huckabee: Martini And so on. Dan

- dbuck1

May 14, 2011 at 9:02am

Of the 5 hard core republicans I regularly discuss politics with, their only complaint about Obama on foreign policy is that it takes him a bit longer to reach the conclusion they want, but other than that, no complaints. He's solid in this area for 2012. It was interesting to hear Bolten/Rumsfeld talk a few weeks ago about Libya, and that Bush did NOT want to open that can of worms because of the heat he was already taking on the two wars. Ironically, Obama knows none of that heat will come, so starting more skirmishes in the middle east is easy for him. Similarly, can you imagine the world outrage (which I'd say is less than 'modest' today) if Bush had entered sovereign Pakistan and killed OBL? Bush probably would have been required to work with Pakistan AND would have taken him alive if possible. Ironically, Bush probably would have then waterboarded OBL, and been castrated for that by the left. Obama only shot him. I wonder what is worse: Hearing the helicopters you've been fearing for years, the bangbang in the courtyard, the doors being kicked open, more shots. Yelling. Radio crackles. Glints of flashlights washing the walls. The movement up the stairs. More doors being kicked open. More shots. And finally, you are face to face with a badass with strict orders to put a bullet in your eye. That. Or a long stint at Club Gitmo interspersed with some waterboarding sessions. I'd take the latter any day. But I digress. In a strange way, the most hawkish leaders will be the most careful when it comes to use force. The doves are generally quick to want to buck that label so they don't seem like pussies when faced with a threat. Nothing was funnier than hearing alpha-wannabee Gore go on and on about AQ. Actually, what was funnier was hearing that he paid a consultant to learn how to be an alpha male, and then watching him slip Tipper the tongue up on stage. I can hear the consultant now: "That's right, Al, you grab her by the arm, while her around, and stick your tongue down her throat like you are trying to taste her lunch", followed by Al's quizzical stare "Are you sure?" and the rebuke "Goddamit, Al, this is the crap I'm talking about. Just grow a pair and do it! Trust me!" But again, I digress. A while back, I asserted that every single likely dem president (Gore, CLinton, etc) would have invaded Iraq after 9/11, especially given the Clinton's CIA intelligence on the matter. That is now truer than ever. But the best part of this: We now know all the noise from the left was just that: Noise. The convictions have now all evaporated. The only one with any consistency is now Cindy Sheehan, and even the left portrays here as a sad loon these days.

- seattleeng

May 14, 2011 at 2:54pm

Papa Bush was rock solid in Foreign Policy (except for some minor criticism of his response to Tiananmen and his lackadaisical attitude towards the fall of the wall, neither which amounted to anything) and he still got crushed. Of course he was up against both Clinton (who got all the Dem. votes) and Perot (who siphoned off a lot of indies), I don't see anyone as formidable on the Republican side and a 3rd party indy would only hurt Republicans more, still though, the economy is far and away the issue.

- blackton

May 14, 2011 at 5:52pm

I cannot imagine how being smart about nailing Bin Laden proves that anyone not as stupid, pointlessly bellicose and incompetent as Bush and Cheney would have invaded Iraq based on non-existent intelligence that had to be lied about in public to make a case. But the right will be pushing this line for the next century, about like southerners claiming it was all about states' rights until some time past 1965.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2011 at 6:44pm

Kind of like the left pushes the "Bush Lied" meme, completely ignoring that it was Clinton's CIA that called the case a "slam dunk", and conveniently forgetting the entire world, including Blix himself, believed Iraq had WMD prior to Bush taking office. Bush didn't need to lie. It was a fait accompli even if Gore took office. Given 9/11 and Tenent saying it's a "slam dunk", and the consultant echoing in Al's head "You are not a pussy, Al. You are a man. A MAN! Now, you say it", you can bet Al would have puffed out his chest and done the exact same thing.

- seattleeng

May 14, 2011 at 7:42pm

Roid, it's fascinating to see you call Obama's nailing of OBL "smart". You commented at some length about Bush/Cheney and the Patriot Act here on TNR. You noted about Cheney in 2008: "Cheney is an authentic Fascist, much more than a mere "movement conservative." His ostensible asceticism is indistinguishable from that of other such before him or from Osama bin Laden for that matter. All Fascists, of both the left and right, share the belief that everything they are doing is for "great cause" so urgent that it "justifies" ignoring all legal constraint in favor of unrestrained personal power and violence. They wield their asceticism as evidence of their selflessness, but they are not really selfless at all. They just don't need material things or loud acclaim because their lust is only for power. Cheney is a ghoul, a type thankfully rare in American political life. It is a shame that he will almost certainly never be prosecuted for his war crimes." And you noted about the Bush and the Patriot Act in 2008: "he Democrats should have loudly condemned the Protect America Act as an Orwellian and unnecessary intrusion upon the Constitution and then proceeded to draft an entirely unrelated bill to address any genuine technical problems with FISA. Once they accepted Bush's premise that there was anything to renew, the were already in a losing PR battle. If you accept the bad guy's frame, you are screwed. It is that simple. When will the Democratic party every get some people with political smarts instead of a bunch of weak-kneed policy bureaucrats. The reason the Dems are timid is they have no one who knows how to play the political game -- except Obama. We Democrats will prove ourselves consummate fools if we don't seize the chance to nominate someone with his emerging political genius." How do you square these comments with Obama's continuation of Most Everything Bush (tm), and Obama's waltzing into a sovereign nation to assassinate OBL? Don't get me wrong. I think Obama's doing great in this regard. But I just wonder how you can call Bush/Cheney fascist and Obama "smart" for doing the exact same heavy-handed type of, er, diplomacy???? Obama is still permitting rendition. There are still charges of torture and abuse. There are military units going on killing sprees (per Rolling Stone). I just don't see much difference today and under Bush. Again, I can rationalize this. But how can you? Or this yet another example of "when my team does it, it's good, when the other team does it, it's criminal?" that you are so famous for?

- seattleeng

May 14, 2011 at 8:04pm

If there is extra-judicial rendition or torture going on under the Obama administration, I would condemn it loudly and him for permitting it. That simple. I am not aware of any authority, let alone credible authority, for your claim that this is ongoing, but I would be interested to know if you have any to cite. It seems to have escaped the notice of both the Times and TNR at least. You don't see the difference between killing Bin Laden, responsible for making war on the territory of the United States, and invading Iraq, where there were neither terrorists nor any genuine threat of imminent possession of nuclear weapons? You don't see the difference between killing this one war criminal and ourselves conducting an illegal and defensively unjustified war that has taken thousands of lives? Bin Laden was a war criminal outside our jurisdiction and by all accounts still engaged in making war on the United States. By any rational legal standard, Bush and Cheney are also war criminals for waging aggressive war. The war in Afghanistan was justified as it was harboring the very people who were making war on us. The pity is that Bush not only committed a war crime and a colossal strategic blunder by invading Iraq without cause but, as a result, failed to see the war in Afghanistan to its conclusion as a result. That was Obama's position, and I agree with it. But by the time Obama took office, the war in Afghanistan had already become a lost cause due to Bush's fecklessness. Some things cannot be rescued. As far as I can tell, Obama's efforts are directed at ending these conflicts at the lowest achievable cost to ourselves given that they were both, for somewhat different reasons, incredible disasters by the time he took office. I may not agree with every tactical decision, but I have no trouble supporting what I take to be his strategic goal intelligently pursued. Nor do I have the slightest qualms about his using predator drones to kill terrorists, combatants, who are presently engaged in making war upon us to the best of their ability. I am not a pacifist, far from it. But I do believe that there exists a law of war that deserves our respect after Nuremberg. And I believe that there are smart decisions and stupid decisions. Thus, contrary to your claim, my views have not the slightest thing to do with whether "my team" is doing it or not. They have to do with whether what is being done is both legitimate and in the best interests of the United States given the state of the world.

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 1:20am

The legitimacy of acts of war has exactly zero to do with whether the sovereignty of another nation is being violated. It sort of goes without saying that when you are engaged in war you are crossing sovereign boundaries that would have to be respected were you not at war, and sometimes those include the boundaries of third-party states with whom you are not at war. The question rather is whether there is a legitimate purpose rooted in self-defense (or authorization of the UNSC) and whether the means chosen and harm likely are not disproportionate to the legitimate military purpose. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to criticize the killing of Bin Laden on those grounds, quite the contrary. The goal was entirely legitimate and the means chosen were designed and succeeded in doing pretty much the least harm possible. As Bin Laden was in Pakistan, the sovereignty of Pakistan is quite irrelevant except as a diplomatic and geopolitical problem having nothing whatever to do with the law of war.

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 1:27am

By the way, I am quite proud upon reading both the passages you quoted from me. I almost feel that they were written by someone else. With my ever-growing frustration at the sheer, mind-numbing insanity and dishonesty of the right and its continuing ability to wreak havoc with our politics, our economy, and our security, I perceive that my writing has grown a lot less eloquent and carefully stated since I wrote those two passages. I don't have the patience now that I did then, and I was pretty short of patience then.

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 1:32am

Seattle: "Bush didn't need to lie" This is an interesting argument. I didn't need to eat breakfast; does that tell you whether I did or not? It's the sort of argument that indicates that all is not right with the position of those who are making it. After all, they could address the specific accusations and demonstrate that they were factual, or at least as factual as could be known at the time. Instead, in the revisionist history of the period, we are treated to arguments like that, and the "slam dunk", rather than what was discussed at the time. People who were alive in 2002 and 2003 will find the reasons put forward today as a little unfamiliar, as they weren't really part of the discussion in that period. Instead, the public was bombarded with the apparently completely accidental and unintentional co-mingling of "9/11... Iraq... AQ... Saddam... 9/11", and (aided and abetted by the "liberal" media) that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the citizens of the US. And that we would be in and out in weeks or months. And a few other things like that that didn't quite pan out. I do appreciate your honesty in getting the tenses right with "including Blix himself, believed Iraq had WMD prior to Bush taking office." However, since we are talking about events that occurred 2 years after Bush took office (unless he was talking about Iraq during the campaign?), and since we know what Blix's opinion had changed to by around February of 2003, this is more smoke and mirrors And lets not even get into Curveball, although I am interested to know how this is not another in a pantheon of examples of the administration ignoring evidence that ran counter to their preferred narrative, and instead is a failing of "Clinton's" CIA or similar. But what puzzles me the most is the whole point of the argument. Reagan, shall we say, dissembled regularly to get his preferred foreign policy actions, as did (and lets just start at WWII for the sake of brevity), FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford (at least not while president). Carter, HW Bush (at least while president), Clinton and Obama didn't/haven't overtly mislead in any way that immediately comes to mind (or that we yet know about), but they're in the minority. GW Bush was just getting back to the normal state of affairs, unpleasant as they may be. As for "can bet Al would have puffed out his chest and done the exact same thing." - only a true right wing fantasist would take this bet. In case anyone forgets, Gore actually went to a real war, unlike say Bush and Cheney. There is zero evidence that he would have invaded in the same way, or at all. But lets say he did; you can bet that he would have raised taxes to pay for it, that he would have done it after getting Afghanistan under control, he would have sent enough troops and he would have negotiated with the Iranians after the fall of Baghdad instead of deluding himself that Tehran was next and that negotiation was for Democrats or girls or something similar. So, even if our little flight of fantasy, Bush and Cheney still come out like failures. Oh well.

- Nari224

May 15, 2011 at 10:06am

Roid, the folks you normally agree with (Chomsky, UN, countless human rights organizations) seem to disagree with you on on the legality of this.

- seattleeng

May 15, 2011 at 11:39am

Nari writes: "and since we know what Blix's opinion had changed to by around February of 2003, this is more smoke and mirrors" LATimes disagrees with you: "Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday that until the final days before the war, he and U.S. officials -- and perhaps even Saddam Hussein -- believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But rather than taking the time to find out for sure, he said, the momentum of war preparations made the Bush administration deaf to evidence that contradicted their conclusions." Again, the entire world believed Iraq had WMD. Bush didn't need to lie to make the case.

- seattleeng

May 15, 2011 at 11:43am

Seattle: Indeed, I have misrepresented Blix's position. Lets see what he also said at the same time; your response looks a little like selective quoting: --- Although he is convinced that the war was "preplanned, but not predetermined," he wrote that he couldn't escape the feeling that the inspectors' work was meant to merely fill time until the U.S. military was ready. It was not simply a question of whether Iraq had an active weapons program, he wrote. It was more a question of, "We know the answers. Give us the intelligence to support those answers." He never did get that information. Then the clock ran out on March 16 of last year. "I could not say in the middle of March that there are no weapons of mass destruction," he said Tuesday. The lessons Washington should learn, he said, are to use more critical judgment and less reliance on defectors, and to "get off the spin." The administration's portrayal of its intelligence was meant to create "a far more ominous picture than there was," Blix said. "Saddam was not a threat to the region, he was not a danger to his neighbors," Blix said. "He was a horror to his own people. The rest was an oversell." --- So, our now star witness (who was vilified by the Bush admin at the time from memory) believed, but did not have any evidence to support statements made my the administration that contain "We know...". Perhaps you equivocate on calling stating an opinion as a fact as a lie, but it would be hard to characterize it as anything other than a misrepresentation. "Again, the entire world believed Iraq had WMD. Bush didn't need to lie to make the case." 1. Anyone who speaks for the world is a little suspect to say the least. It's also a gross misrepresentation of the conclusion most everyone else's intelligence services had come to based on what the Americans were telling them, and how they saw the Americans use the intelligence they themselves were providing. Here's one that states it pretty plainly: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html (Blix makes a show there as well) Australian troops were also told, days before the invasion, that there was no belief that Iraq had WMD, and that there was no threat to them from unconventional weapons. Fairly negligent of their chain of command if they "believed" they existed. 2. Again you decline to address the specifics of the charge and instead claim "he didn't need to... therefore he didn't". Unless you are able to tell me whether I did or did not have breakfast this morning based on my initial response to this, I am simply going to have to assume that you don't actually have an argument here. You clearly don't like the implication, and so continue to attempt to confused the issue. You might want to try some actual refutation rather than continuing with a clear logical fallacy as your primary argument.

- Nari224

May 15, 2011 at 12:07pm

Nari, That piece from the former ONA officer is quite a condemnation of the rightwing line that "based on the intelligence at the time" there was any bona fide claim that Iraq was in imminent possession of nuclear weapons (deceptively conflated with biological and chemical weapons although the "mushroom cloud" was the reason given for invading Iraq).

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 12:54pm

One hopes Robert Powell is reading along.

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 12:55pm

He also rather likes the line that "Bush didn't have to lie because the polls where in favor."

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 12:55pm

Roi: I was thinking of RP as well, but his line of thinking (to me) appears to be more that the invasion was right and legal, rather than whether it was misrepresented at the time. I'm not so convinced by his arguments (especially the more recent ones about how historians are telling us it was all ok), but at least they're arguments. The same can't be said for certain people's fixation on how the "left" "pushes" (bonus points for double scare quotes?) the Bush lied meme. However I know how he views the article and its contents; he previously dismissed a similar article in the Melbourne Age as "natterings of some minor Australian paper" (or words to that effect). This for the primary paper of a city of 4 million people, making it on par with Pheonix in size (6th largest US city). So this time I went with the Sydney Morning Herald (pop ~ 5 mill). The beauty is that they are both owned by Murdoch!

- Nari224

May 15, 2011 at 1:26pm

I can assure you that RP has no truck with the notion that the Bush administration lied in fact or needed to lie in order to sell the Iraq war politically. As for legality, I think I fairly present his view to be: (1) based on the intelligence the WMD threat was imminent and (2) the war was authorized by the UNSC in 1991 and that authorization was still in effect because Hussein had never fully complied. Needless to say, I don't agree with RP's view of the facts, the politics, or the international law. Most notably, I think it was for the UNSC to decide that non-compliance justified further and immediate military intervention, not for the US so to decide unilaterally (even with the support of the so-called "coalition of the willing"). In my opinion, the assassination of OBL falls well within the inherent right of self-defense and hence required no other legal basis. By being unable or unwilling or both to arrest OBL, Pakistan lost whatever rightful objections it might have had regarding violation of its sovereignty. It was a de facto accomplice to OBL's jihad.

- roidubouloi

May 15, 2011 at 2:46pm

Seattle: On a different topic, and one of a more personal interest: "Of the 5 hard core republicans I regularly discuss politics with" From the sentence construction, I'm assuming you don't consider yourself a "hard core republican". What policy positions do you not share with them?

- Nari224

May 15, 2011 at 4:34pm

"every single likely dem president (Gore, CLinton, etc) would have invaded Iraq after 9/11" This is a completely delusion statement. Take a look at how the "likely dem president(s)" responded at the time. There were only 2 candidates in the Democratic Primary - Gore and Bradley. Gore was opposed to going into Iraq early on, and went so far as to endorse Howard Dean when he had no need to endorse anyone. He frequently cited Dean's opposition to invading Iraq as one of the main reasons he endorsed him. Bill Bradley was strongly opposed to invading Iraq, and was also an early Dean supporter. When you refer to "Clinton" I assume you mean Hilary (Bill Clinton was opposed to invading). Hilary was in NO WAY a"likely dem president" in 2000, or even 2004 for that matter.

- Attrill

May 15, 2011 at 5:09pm

I had overlooked seattle's comment that those I usually agree with, Chomsky, the UN, and human rights organizations, disagree with me about this. For the record, if I am ever in agreement with any of the above, it is because they are in agreement with me. In the case of the UN, which is a forum for state actors and not a coherent body, I don't even know what "agreeing with the UN" would mean. On the specifics, I see no reason at all why an illegal combatant ought to gain more rights than either a criminal or a legal combatant by virtue of violating the law of war. That is an absurd outcome and one that many people have allowed to them into knots. We cannot prosecute legal combatants except for war crimes and we must accord them certain rights not accorded to criminals. On the other hand, we do not have to accord them trial by jury in order to hold them as prisoners of war until the end of a conflict. My view is that in the case of illegal combatants we have the perfect right to treat them either as criminals or as combatants, as convenient to us, so that they gain nothing form their conduct of war illegally. However, if we choose to treat them as criminals, we must accord them the rights of criminals. And if we choose to treat them as combatants, we must accord them the rights of combatants. One of the rights of a combatant is the "right" to surrender, to cease being a target by visibly surrendering arms and ceasing to be a threat. Then the combatant can be imprisoned until the end of the conflict although accorded the rights of POWs under the Geneva Conventions. The reason for this has to do with the law of proportionality. Once there is no longer a military rational for killing a combatant, we cannot kill him anymore than we can kill anyone without a bona fide and plausible military need and objective. In the case of Bin Laden, I don't think that there could be any way of rendering him no longer a military threat so long as he was alive. Indeed, even a gravesite in his case represents a military threat. Accordingly, I don't think we were obliged to capture him. Nor, since he was a combatant, albeit an illegal one, were we obliged to bring him to trial. I have written in the past that the way out of our mess with Guantanamo is to codify in positive statute law that we can elect to treat illegal combatants as criminals or combatants, when and how the election can be made, what follows from that election, and what procedures will be used to determine whether someone is properly classified as a combatant.

- roidubouloi

May 16, 2011 at 10:51am

I should add that Bin Laden was killed on the battlefield of his own choosing, one in which the US forces who killed him were under threat, while still engaged in hostilities against the United States. In my opinion, there is no human rights argument to be made on his behalf.

- roidubouloi

May 16, 2011 at 10:53am

Nari224 writes: "What policy positions do you not share with them?" Pot. Gay marriage. Religion. Abortion.

- seattleeng

May 16, 2011 at 3:59pm

Roid writes: "I should add that Bin Laden was killed on the battlefield of his own choosing" I'm proud of you, Roid. In this one instance you put personal convictions aside and went with what was right for America instead of your normal socialist mumblings and erection over international law :) You, me, Bush and Sarah Palin are as ONE on this issue. Keep on rockin' in a free world, brotha.

- seattleeng

May 16, 2011 at 4:02pm

Attrill writes: "This is a completely delusion statement. Take a look at how the "likely dem president(s)" responded at the time." Hardly. Left leaning leaders all aroudn the world signed onto UNSCR 1441. Polling in teh US was 60-70% FOR the war. During his time, Gore was more hawk than dove. He fought against defense spending cuts. He lambasted Bush Sr in the early 90's for being soft on Iraq and terrorism. Clinton's plans under Zinni for invading Iraq in 1998 called for 400K troops--much larger than Bush's efforts Clinton (and Gore's) CIA (not Bush's) built the intelligence case that this was a "slam dunk". That is a massive amount of momentum Gore would have to reverse on. And yet you believe he would???? In other words, Gore woudl have refuted Tenents CIA claims, bucked the polling data, ignored world opinion and said "No?" Hardly. That man is a blade of tall grass in the wind. He has been his entire career. He sways as it suits his needs.

- seattleeng

May 16, 2011 at 4:13pm

"That is a massive amount of momentum Gore would have to reverse on. And yet you believe he would???? In other words, Gore woudl have refuted Tenents CIA claims, bucked the polling data, ignored world opinion and said "No?" Excuse me, but in what planet would, in a Gore Administration, the preceding sentence be the case? That only happens in a world where there was a Bush Administration up to February 2003, and then a Gore one. The Bush Administration came up with the idea that Iraq was a threat that required regime change and the kind of invasion we saw there. Gore was a hawk in Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the strikes on Iraq in the late 90s. However, each of those cases were reactions to something (Iraqi Invasion, Ethnic Cleansing, Kicking out inspectors). In no world was there a precipitating act by Saddam or the Iraqis in 2002. A Gore Administration wouldn't have invaded Iraq because it wouldn't have been on the table (indeed, a McCain Administration probably wouldn't either--he supported the war, but again, the generating idea was from the Bush team.) It doesn't matter what Tenet said: There could be a WMD slam dunk--and a Gore/Bradley/McCain Administration could have knocked it around again a la 1981/1998 without necessitating full scale invasion and occupation. To insist that any President would have marched to Baghdad is rightly delusional.

- Crock1701

May 16, 2011 at 6:07pm

Crock writes: "The Bush Administration came up with the idea that Iraq was a threat that required regime change and the kind of invasion we saw there. " You aren't this clueless about history are you? Do you seriously not know about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? You know, the one where Clinton and Gore called for regime change in Iraq? Tell me, how many times has the US signed something calling for regime change? Not that often. This was an almost unprecedented declaration, and you aren't aware of it? The act said that moving forward, it was the policy of the US to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq" Please do just a bit of research before typing.

- seattleeng

May 16, 2011 at 9:43pm

Yeah, I know about the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." I'm also aware that, in the two years after the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" Clinton and Gore did jack squat to, you know, liberate Iraq. They certainly weren't marching to Baghdad with the US Army. Indeed, the act says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act." (Section 4(a)(2) let them train Iraqis and/or give them arms, but that's it) It was a feel good bill to put the US on the side of pro-democracy forces that meant absolutely nothing as an actual policy directive or commitment to invasion. It has nothing to do with the course of action of Spring 2003: in fact, it specifically forbids it! Unless I missed the actual liberation of Iraq in 1999-2000, I think we saw exactly how much Clinton/Gore cared about the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." Not much.

- Crock1701

May 17, 2011 at 10:27am

And so it was done to distract from Monica? Why did they do it? We don't just write these every week, like national tortilla month. And in fact, it was cited in our Iraq War Resolution. Words mean things. Either Clinton was reckless, or he was serious about this. Which? You seem to arguing that "yeah, they wrote it, but they didn't mean it, and yeah, these things are never written, so doing all this extra work was just done, well because". And no, the Clinton war machine was not on idle after '98. Albright, Rockefeller, Gore, Clinton and the entire cast were busy STILL talking about the threat of Iraq. Don't let your leaders off the hook so easily. It makes you look like a ideologue.

- seattleeng

May 17, 2011 at 12:00pm

Again: The Armed Forces were explicitly NOT TO BE INVOLVED in the 1998 Act. The Act said, yeah, encourage and train pro-democracy Iraqis to overthrow their regime. It did not say invade, take over the country, and install a new democratic regime. Read the act instead of making foolhardy comparisons between it and the Bush actions in 2002-2003. You can cite the act all you want. It's delusional to believe that invasion and occupation, or anything close to what happened under Bush were on the table or part of the plan that came out of that act. It didn't happen from 1998-2000. It just wasn't. To pretend otherwise is to pretend there are no steps in foreign policy between being friends with someone and occupying them. It's like saying Captive Nations Week or supplying Polish dissidents with fax machines authorized marching to Moscow.That's nonsense.

- Crock1701

May 17, 2011 at 2:53pm

I've not stated anything about military. I'm simply asking why clinton signed the declaration of regime change. Was he not serious? Did he not believe Iraq to be a threat? Do we sign a lot of these regime change proclamations? At the root here, is whether or not the world as a whole believed Iraq had WMD before Bush took office. The answer there is "Of course". Next, is whether or not Gore was a hawk towards Iraq. Of course. There is a long history there. Next, is whether Gore's CIA would look like Bush's CIA. The answer is "of course". Bush took Clinton's CIA, why wouldn't Gore? Next, is whether Gore wants to be seen as a firm and powerful man. The answer is "of course", becuase most men do. But we also know Al hired women to teach him this. Next, we have 9/11 and the nation's thirst for blood. Would Al Gore have responded differently? I don't think so. His CIA would have told him this was a "slam dunk" and Gore would be getting tired of reading that he's a flaccid leader. If not Iraq, what would he have done instead? Just start the hunt in Afghanistan for OBL?

- seattleeng

May 18, 2011 at 10:58am