Presidential critic out of line? [Archive]

Boom

09-23-2005, 05:40 PM

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

Is this a fair criticism, or should we trust that the President has a clear exit strategy even if he has not explained it to us?

Or, is it just altogether wrong, is it possible that it could be justified to send in troops without an exit strategy?

What about this next criticism?

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.

A fair criticism, or an ignorant statement which does not recognize that sometimes military action is called for even without a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy?

I'm not saying who stated these quotes because I want the quotes to be judged on their merits alone. I don't want these quotes to be judged based on who stated them. We all know that if I identify a Democrat as the quotee, the Dems here will defend it and the Repubs will trash it, and if it was a Republican who is quoted here, it will be vice versa.

Don't cheat and google the quotes. Just tell me if you think they are fair criticisms or if they are out of line.

Rooster

09-23-2005, 06:18 PM

I dont think anyone has to spell it out for the public, or even House reps, since we all know they can't be trusted with secure information - that gives the enemy a HUGE advantage - but yes, one should be in place...

spyder913

09-23-2005, 06:36 PM

Exactly. Those reasons and plans should EXIST but they don't necessarily need to be public...

Darko

09-25-2005, 11:50 PM

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.

Finding and removing Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. I saw some ultra clear top sikrit CIA pics of those in the news a couple of years back. It is imperative that Iraq be invaded and they be removed.

:cheese:

Swifty_Johnson

09-26-2005, 08:00 AM

Is this a fair criticism, or should we trust that the President has a clear exit strategy even if he has not explained it to us?

It has been explained to us, several times. As the Iraqi stand up and take over their own security, we will leave.

A fair criticism, or an ignorant statement which does not recognize that sometimes military action is called for even without a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy?

Clear on all points, the mission was to go into Iraq and remove Saddam from power, the mission and the goal were a success, now as the Iraqi stand up for their own defense, we are starting the plans for a withdrawal.

Swifty

Boom

09-26-2005, 10:38 AM

"As the Iraqi stand up and take over their own security, we will leave."

Seems like a pretty vague and open ended exit strategy to me, lacking essential details. Using that easy of a standard, every military conflict in history has had an exit strategy, like "once the peace is established, we leave." I think a exit strategy needs to be more than a general statement like that, huh?

"the mission was to go into Iraq and remove Saddam from power"

Really? I thought the original mission was to find WMD.

Figtoria

09-26-2005, 10:40 AM

I thought Bush started out looking for Osama Bin Laden. But that got too hard, so they decided he was hiding under a WMD.

Swifty_Johnson

09-26-2005, 02:21 PM

Seems like a pretty vague and open ended exit strategy to me, lacking essential details. Using that easy of a standard, every military conflict in history has had an exit strategy, like "once the peace is established, we leave." I think a exit strategy needs to be more than a general statement like that, huh?

How is it a general statement? There is a condition for departure that can be met. When Iraqi security forces can take over, we will leave. That is a pretty specific condition. Are you looking for an exact date? That will be hard to determine. Take a look at Kosovo, we are still there. Look at Korea, we are still there after 50 years, Germany, 60 years. Are you going to claim we lacked an exit strategy for WWII?

Swifty

Figtoria

09-26-2005, 03:17 PM

"As the Iraqi stand up and take over their own security, we will leave."

Seems like a pretty vague and open ended exit strategy to me, lacking essential details.

It's totally vague and it all depends on the fact that historically, large segments of the american public are quite happy to be patted on the head paternalistically and told "don't worry your little heads - we're taking care of everything."

Boom

09-26-2005, 04:17 PM

Actually, this thread is getting completely off topic and its totally my fault. I wasn't clear enough about what I was asking. I take full responsibility. ;)

My question is not, "Is this critic wrong in inferring that President Bush failed to meet these conditions?" That question is a total waste of time. We all know that Swifty thinks he did, and the rest of us think he didn't and that no one will be convinced to change their minds. To me, "when Iraq security forces can take over" is vague, to Swifty it is not. No amount of discussion will change that. I would see, "Training an Iraqi security force consisting of X amounts of Y types of units and Z amounts of Q types of units with this type of control structure and answerable to this body, with these units being responsible for this area and those units being responsible for that duty, etc, etc, etc," as examples of the types of details necessary for a fully fleshed out exit strategy.

Those are just examples of course, I think an exit strategy requires a lot more than what I listed above. That was just off the top of my head, I would expect a lot more from our military experts. But regardless, a mere statement that we will leave when Iraqis can do the job, without any more specifics, seems vague to me. Also, without the details to back it up, it seems like wishful thinking. You know, like "We will leave when the locals stop throwing candies and flowers at our troops." Since our original exit strategy was based on the candies and flowers scenerio, I have to find that strategy lacking. A good exit strategy would have anticipated the massive amount of insurgent activity. Ours clearly didn't. Heck, Cheney still isn't realistic about the insurgency, claiming months ago (and hundreds of deaths ago) that it was in its final throes. But let's not waste our time on that. I will never agree that Bush had an adequate exit strategy, and Swifty will never agree that Bush had anything less than a adequate exit strategy. Let's just move on. My question is not about Bush's exit strat in particular, its about Presidential responsibilities in general.

What I meant to ask was whether this critic is unfairly requiring more from a president than should be required? Is it right to demand that a president publicly explain his exit strategy before committing troops? Is it right to demand that the president give the people certainty about his mission, goal, and exit strategy before committing troops? Or is it enough that the president himself has this certainty?

Post

09-26-2005, 07:21 PM

"To me, "when Iraq security forces can take over" is vague, to Swifty it is not."

And that's why this will never get anywhere. Of course it is vague. When someone is stating some strategy is "vague", they're talking about that, for the most part, it's up to the person making the decision and not the strategy itself as to what is to be done. That's exactly what "when Iraq can take care of themselves" is.

Because there are no stipulations of what that is, we can technically leave now. If the insurgents end up taking it over, it can simply be blamed on the forces that we left in charge. If they don't, then the President can say "I told you so". And the same goes to if we wanted to stay there for 100 years. When it's pointed out that we can leave sooner, they can simply say, "Well, the only reason why it's working is because we're there."

Rooster, while I disagree with his opinion, answered it correctly. He's indirectly stating that it's vague and it should be. While I don't see it should be super-detailed, I definitely feel it should be more detailed than it is now. But regardless of that, the point is, that it's obviously vague.

My opinion is that it's not ok for it to be as vague as it is; others state is not. Either of us could be right. But since certain people will (or can) not get beyond that it's vague, the discussion with those certain people cannot continue.

Swifty_Johnson

09-27-2005, 09:40 AM

"Training an Iraqi security force consisting of X amounts of Y types of units and Z amounts of Q types of units with this type of control structure and answerable to this body, with these units being responsible for this area and those units being responsible for that duty, etc, etc, etc," as examples of the types of details necessary for a fully fleshed out exit strategy.

And what do we need to know this for? We do not. Why not just broadcast all our secrets to the insurgents and let them know what our playbook is? You think the exit strategy is too vague because you want to. What was Clinton's exit strategy in Kosovo and Bosnia?

When Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, he promised that the mission was clearly defined with a viable exit strategy and the troops will be there for about a year. Well they were there for over three when Clinton sent troops into Kosovo with more promises. That is what prompted Bush to say your first quote.

I guess you can figure out why Bush isn't placing any exact timetables on troop withdrawals.

Heck, Cheney still isn't realistic about the insurgency, claiming months ago (and hundreds of deaths ago) that it was in its final throes.

How much action is the insurgency doing? The lulls between significant action by the insurgency is growing and growing. The Iraqi are now starting to take over more and more of their own security. The latest actions in the western part of Iraq were heavily Iraqi, as opposed just just a few months ago when they were heavily U.S. with Iraqi troops tagging along. The media has totally missed this shift. One of the bases that my wife was stationed at was turned over to Iraqi control, another miss by the media. Baghdad is almost 100% patrolled by Iraqi troops, another point missed by the media. Soon, there will be another large spike in the violence to coordinate with the constitution vote, then another with next years elections, but the insurgency is dying as the counter-insurgency is taking on an Iraqi face.

Next year we will begin to see a draw-down of U.S. troops, as we will no longer need to maintain the force levels that we have today.

My opinion is that it's not OK for it to be as vague as it is; others state is not. Either of us could be right. But since certain people will (or can) not get beyond that it's vague, the discussion with those certain people cannot continue.

It's only vague to you because you want it to be. I know that he cannot put exact dates, I also know that when the Iraqi troops are able to take over for us, we'll leave. That's not vague, that's a pretty specific target. With a specific target, how can it be vague?

Swifty

Boom

09-27-2005, 11:20 AM

Well, I see you are only addressing the stuff which I said was pointless and not worthy of argument. I see you are not addressing my real question, which I made a point of clarifying.

I also see that you cheated and identified the source of the quote. Couldn't you just judge the quote on its own merits instead of having to find out who said it before deciding whether or not you want to agree with it?

Anyway, I will address what you said. First of all, I never said that stuff (my examples of things that should be in an exit strategy) should be broadcast to the public, or to our enemies, or anyone. I never ever said that. George Bush said that. Not me. So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with GWB. I merely gave those examples of exit strat tactics as examples (just examples) of the type of things that would make an exit strategy less vague. I never suggested they should be made public. Perhaps they could be part of a secret exit strategy, or a need-to-know strategy. I never said that stuff should be made public. In fact, I very strongly implied, several times, that the critic I quoted was wrong for saying that stuff should be made public. Do you agree? Well, you did agree, you said that we don't need to know that stuff. But I am sure you will somehow still defend Bush for saying that info should be made public, even though you have said it should not be public. And I am sure you will somehow defend Bush for demanding that Clinton do these things when committing troops and then refusing to do them himself when he commits troops.

You also keep bringing up timetables. Who are you arguing with? Have I ever asked for timetables? Yes, its a great argument that timetables are not feasible. Don't let the fact that everyone here agrees with you stop you from arguing it. Exit strategy does not necessarily mean timetables.

You also make a point that there are increasing lulls between insurgent strikes. Again, who are you arguing with? I never said there wasn't an decrease in insurgent activity, all I said was that the "throes" back in June were not the last "throes" like Cheney said. There have been hundreds of deaths since then. Within the last few weeks I have seen reports of carbombs causing dozens of deaths. Cheney was wrong about the activity in June being the last throes. Do you disagree with that?

Again, I ask my initial question, with a follow up. Was George Bush's 1999 statement that a president should make his exit strategy public before committing troops a fair criticism? And is he a hypocrite for doing the same exact thing that he criticized Clinton for doing?

Swifty_Johnson

09-27-2005, 12:46 PM

I also see that you cheated and identified the source of the quote. Couldn't you just judge the quote on its own merits instead of having to find out who said it before deciding whether or not you want to agree with it?

How did I cheat? The democrats were making hay of that quote in August, why do you assume that is the first time I saw that?

So you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with GWB. I merely gave those examples of exit strat tactics as examples (just examples) of the type of things that would make an exit strategy less vague.

No, I am arguing with you, not GWB. What was Clinton's exit strategy? As I pointed out before when he sent troops into Bosnia, he said they'd only be there a year, yet three years later they were still there. Does that sound like a viable exit strategy to you? What would you say if Bush said that the troops would be out when the Iraqis could take over, and that would be in 2006, would that make you happy? What would you do if something happened and they had to stay until 2007? You'd be all over the place calling him a liar.

Your examples have plenty of details that the insurgents would love to have. There is this thing called operational security that is needed to protect our troops, the less details we know about military operations the more safe our troops will be.

Perhaps they could be part of a secret exit strategy, or a need-to-know strategy. I never said that stuff should be made public. In fact, I very strongly implied, several times, that the critic I quoted was wrong for saying that stuff should be made public. Do you agree? Well, you did agree, you said that we don't need to know that stuff. But I am sure you will somehow still defend Bush for saying that info should be made public, even though you have said it should not be public.

Specific operational details should never be made public, and Bush never said that it should. Bush is following what he said, he gave us the exit strategy. You and I both know what it will take for the troops to come home. What we don't know is the exact details, we don't know what will trigger the withdrawal, how it will be done, what phases it will be in. We know the exit strategy, without all the details.

I also have to ask, what did you mean by this?

Seems like a pretty vague and open ended exit strategy to me, lacking essential details. Using that easy of a standard, every military conflict in history has had an exit strategy, like "once the peace is established, we leave." I think a exit strategy needs to be more than a general statement like that, huh?

On one hand you say "Perhaps they could be part of a secret exit strategy, or a need-to-know strategy. I never said that stuff should be made public." On the other hand you ask for more detail, so what kind of statements do you want?

You also make a point that there are increasing lulls between insurgent strikes. Again, who are you arguing with? I never said there wasn't an decrease in insurgent activity, all I said was that the "throes" back in June were not the last "throes" like Cheney said.

What will you consider a last throes? The last week of attacks? It is clear the insurgency is going through it's last throes. The attacks are becoming more and more difficult for them to wage, more and more Iraqi are starting to turn them in. The insurgency is dying, while it will have a few last gasps of violence, it will never attain the levels that it had in the beginning.

There have been hundreds of deaths since then. Within the last few weeks I have seen reports of car bombs causing dozens of deaths.

There also have been hundreds of murders in America, is the insurgency in America in full swing? It's really hard to stop someone in a car bomb, what we do have is the high level of coordination that they had before. They are also going after civilians more then ever in an attempt to derail the constitution. This is not unexpected.

Was George Bush's 1999 statement that a president should make his exit strategy public before committing troops a fair criticism? And is he a hypocrite for doing the same exact thing that he criticized Clinton for doing?

First point, he isn't doing the exact same thing Clinton did. Clinton claimed when the troops went into Bosnia, they'd be out in a year, when Bush criticized Clinton they have been in Bosnia for over three years. Does that sound like an exit strategy?
Bush is doing what Clinton should have done, put conditions on the troops leaving, otherwise we are left with an ever growing mission creep like Somalia that got some good U.S. troops killed.

Unlike when we went into Kosovo and Bosina we have a clear mission and exit strategy. It also looks like our troops will draw down in Iraq before they are out of Bosnia and Kosovo. There is a good chance that by 2007 the only U.S. troops left in Iraq will be manning permanent U.S. bases there. So who do you think have a better exit strategy?

Swifty

Boom

09-27-2005, 01:59 PM

How did I cheat? The democrats were making hay of that quote in August, why do you assume that is the first time I saw that?
Because you didn't mention it until your third post in this thread, after several days of discussion. But that is just circumstantial evidence. If you say you didn't cheat, then I will have to believe you.
Your examples have plenty of details that the insurgents would love to have.
Again, where did I say these details should be made public? Who are you arguing with? I said these types of details should exist, but they should be top secret. Did you miss that part? The only one suggesting this stuff should be public was GWB. He said the exit strat should be explained to the public. I think the public should be reassured that there is an exit strategy, but explaining the actual strat to the public would put our troops at risk. You agree with me. GWB apparently does not. Which is why I was asking if he was wrong.

On one hand you say "Perhaps they could be part of a secret exit strategy, or a need-to-know strategy. I never said that stuff should be made public." On the other hand you ask for more detail, so what kind of statements do you want?
I think I have made this clear, but I will try again. I am not asking for more detail to be made public. I am saying that the details should simply exist. I am not saying that those details do not exist, I don't have access to top secret files. If they exist I am satisfied. However, GWB would not be satisfied because he thinks the exit strategy should be explained to the public. Well, except when it applies to him.

What kind of statement do I want? I want the vague kind of statement that GWB and Clinton provided. That we will exit when peace is established and the locals can handle themselves. I do not ask for anything more than that to be made public. GWB did ask for more than that. I did not.

It is clear the insurgency is going through it's last throes.

Now? I thought that was happening in June?

I also have to ask, what did you mean by this?

Quote:
Seems like a pretty vague and open ended exit strategy to me, lacking essential details. Using that easy of a standard, every military conflict in history has had an exit strategy, like "once the peace is established, we leave." I think a exit strategy needs to be more than a general statement like that, huh?

You had said that "when the Iraqis take over their own security" was a sufficient exit strategy. I don't think it is. I do think its all the public needs to know. In other words, its a sufficient public statement of an exit strategy, but its not a sufficient exit strategy. I never said more details should be made to the public. But I certainly hope that the secret exit strat has more details than that. If that is the whole strategy, it is not sufficient. It needs a lot more details than that. But those details do not need to be made public. The president does not have to explain the exit strat to the public, as GWB suggested should be done.

First point, he isn't doing the exact same thing Clinton did. Clinton claimed when the troops went into Bosnia, they'd be out in a year, when Bush criticized Clinton they have been in Bosnia for over three years. Does that sound like an exit strategy?

Sounds about as good as this exit strategy...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

Swifty_Johnson

09-27-2005, 03:18 PM

Because you didn't mention it until your third post in this thread, after several days of discussion. But that is just circumstantial evidence. If you say you didn't cheat, then I will have to believe you.

Because I respected your wish that the source not be named. I felt that after a few days I could comment on it.

The only one suggesting this stuff should be public was GWB. He said the exit strat should be explained to the public. I think the public should be reassured that there is an exit strategy, but explaining the actual strat to the public would put our troops at risk.

Again, you are reading way to much into his statement. Clinton was pouring troops into the Balklands with no clear strategy at all. Bush wasn't asking Clinton to give all the mission details, but we are entitled to know just what in the heck we are trying to do there. Again, not in great detail. He already missed his deadline by a few years, so we did need an update.

I do not ask for anything more than that to be made public. GWB did ask for more than that. I did not.

How do you know the GWB asked for more detail? When Clinton put troops into the Balklands, he said they would be there for only a year, three years later he was putting in more, don't you think it was time he said something more?

In other words, its a sufficient public statement of an exit strategy, but its not a sufficient exit strategy. I never said more details should be made to the public. But I certainly hope that the secret exit strat has more details than that.

As we are the general public, it is the only statements that we will get. Neither of us will know what the details are, but by the leaks we can see they are starting to plan on bringing troops home. We are also seeing that the attacks on the insurgents are starting to be done by Iraqi troops, with U.S. support. So we can look and see progress being made.

Now? I thought that was happening in June?

I'll ask again, what do you think a death throe to be?

The president does not have to explain the exit strat to the public, as GWB suggested should be done.

He does not have to explain the exit strat in detail, but we do need to have some sort of idea when it's going to end, otherwise we'll end up with another Somalia where mission creep cost us lives.

Swifty

Figtoria

09-27-2005, 03:47 PM

Boom.

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

:cheese:

Boom

09-29-2005, 10:52 AM

Figgy you are the wind beneath my things.

Hey, if we are going to keep comparing Iraq to Kosovo, lets compare American military deaths from those two wars? Do you want to post the numbers, or should I? After all, the need for an exit strategy should be commensurate to the risk that our soldiers have to face. If no American soldiers are dying, I still want to get them out of there, but if dozens of American soldiers are dying every month an exit strategy is way more important. When American lives are at stake, our number 1 priority should be to protect them. If no Americans are dying, then its not such a horrible thing if they stay longer to keep the peace.

If you are going to keep comparing Kosovo to Iraq, compare the most important factor. American military deaths. Post the numbers.

I have a question. In your initial post, you act as if you believe the criticism was made towards Bush and you defend Bush against this criticism. I had not applied that criticism towards Bush. I had pretty clearly asked if it was a fair criticism of presidential responsibilites and did not mention Iraq (until you responded). Rooster and Spyder answered the question that I posed, whether or not it was a fair statement of presidential responsibilities, with no reference to Iraq. You did not answer my question at all in your first post, but defended Bush against the statement instead. If you really knew that it was Bush speaking and criticisizing Clinton why would you defend Bush against his own statement? It really appears that you jumped to the conclusion that this was someone complaining about Bush and rushed to defend him. It makes no sense that you would do this if you knew what the quote was really about. So what was it? Did you really know the source of the quote when you first posted, making your first post a very dishonest, game-playing exercise, or did you check up on it after making your initial reply? Be honest, as I have no choice but to believe you, since I do not have a key-logger on your computer.

Last point. On the last throe issue. I answered it last time we discussed it. I will answer it again. If something is in its "last throes" then it will soon cease to be a major threat. There can be minor incidences after the "last throes." If the attacks dropped off from 40ish-80ish deaths per month to 2 or 3 deaths per month, then I would say it is no longer a major threat and it is done with its last throes. If the insurgency is still attacking at that intensity, then it is not done with its last throes. Back in June it was debateable whether or not it was in its last throes, since we do not have a crystal ball. Cheney said it was in its last throes, Rumsfield said could be a threat for many years. Everyone on this forum (including the conservatives), except for you, agreed with Rummy and not Cheney (you tried to agree with both). Now, months later and hundreds of American deaths later, we can see that the insurgency is still a major threat and was not in its last throes in may/june. Perhaps it is in its last throes now. I doubt it, but I can hope, right? In a few months we will know. But it absolutely was not in its last throes in may/june. If it was, it would not continue to be a major threat today. It would not have been capable of killing 85 American soldiers in August.

We expect the insurgency to get weaker, but we expect it to get slowly weaker. It certainly didn't cease to be a major threat soon after Cheney's statement. Look at the numbers for this year.

1/5 - 127
2/5 - 60
3/5 - 40
4/5 - 52
5/5 - 88
last throes about now, right?
6/5 - 83
7/5 - 58
8/5 - 85
9/5 thus far - 47

It's not even back down to March levels. And President Bush has just made a statement that he expects the attacks to get worse soon, next month is supposed to be a particularly bad one. I am not saying that we aren't making any progress (although the numbers don't show any significant progress), but clearly the insurgency was not in its "last" throes in may/june. They are still a very real and significant threat. If they aren't such a threat, Bush wouldn't have to make public statements predicting huge numbers of upcoming attacks.

What is your definition of last throes? If there is any amount of progress against the insurgents, even if they continue to cause dozens of American deaths per month, for month after month after month? You are understanding the "throes" part but you aren't getting the "last" part. Tell me what was different about the 83 deaths in June and the 85 deaths in August that makes those in June part of "last throes" and makes those in August "post last throes."

Swifty_Johnson

09-29-2005, 11:39 AM

If you are going to keep comparing Kosovo to Iraq, compare the most important factor. American military deaths. Post the numbers.

That is not the most important factor. What was the importance of the U.S. presence there, and was it worth it? There is extremely poor return for our invest there, as a matter of fact our presence there has stimulated radical Muslims in the region, so we may be seeing an extremely negative return in the future.

You also keep ignoring the facts. When Clinton put the troops into Bosnia, he said it would last a year, they are still there, way past the date when he said they'd be gone. We aren't talking about troop deaths, we are talking about exit strategy.

I have a question. In your initial post, you act as if you believe the criticism was made towards Bush and you defend Bush against this criticism.

I responded to your words, as they were directed at Bush, not the quotes which came from Bush.

You made an attempt to try and claim Bush was being inconsistent, when in fact you are dealing with two different situations. Bush was criticizing Clinton as he was putting more troops into an area three years after Clinton said they'd be gone in a year. For Bush to be inconsistent the Iraqi would have to be in charge of their own security, he'd have to be sending more troops into Iraq, making threats at Iran, and refusing to issue another statement on what is going in in Iraq.

Did you really know the source of the quote when you first posted, making your first post a very dishonest, game-playing exercise,

The only person who was playing games was you. You expected people to slam the critic as being unfair, then spring it that it was Bush. I refused to play your game and addressed your statements instead of the quotes you published.

I doubt it, but I can hope, right? In a few months we will know. But it absolutely was not in its last throes in may/june. If it was, it would not continue to be a major threat today. It would not have been capable of killing 85 American soldiers in August.

And you base this statement on what? The numbers and intensity of the attacks are going down. The enemy is now mounting less assaults and more IED attacks then ever before. It doesn't take many people to set-up an IED, it takes many more to stage assaults.

There was over 300 murders in N.Y.C. for the first 6 months of the year, much more then this time last year. Do we now pull out of N.Y.C.? Is N.Y.C. a quagmire?

And President Bush has just made a statement that he expects the attacks to get worse soon, next month is supposed to be a particularly bad one. I am not saying that we aren't making any progress (although the numbers don't show any significant progress), but clearly the insurgency was not in its "last" throes in may/june. [/quote

Even in May/June they expected a peak in violence for the constitution vote and the elections. I even said as much before. The coming violence will primary target Iraqi citizens in an attempt to scare them. That does not indicate that the insurgency is a strong as it used to be.

[quote]Tell me what was different about the 83 deaths in June and the 85 deaths in August that makes those in June part of "last throes" and makes those in August "post last throes."

I'll point to the deaths last year over the same period where there was more deaths do you hostile fire from guns, mortars, RPGs vs a drastic decline in those deaths and more reliance on IEDs to cause American deaths this year.

Swifty

Boom

09-30-2005, 11:57 AM

I responded to your words, as they were directed at Bush, not the quotes which came from Bush.
Where? I didn't mention Bush or Iraq or anything before you responded. I posted the quote and asked if it was a fair presidential criticism. But whatever, its a minor point. You say you knew it was Bush, so you knew it was Bush, even if your first post makes absolutely no sense.

There was over 300 murders in N.Y.C. for the first 6 months of the year, much more then this time last year. Do we now pull out of N.Y.C.? Is N.Y.C. a quagmire?
Where have I asked to pull out? Who is talking about a quagmire? Once again, you are making up stuff to argue against. Ok, you win the argument against the imaginary poster who is asking us to pull troops out of the Iraq quagmire. Now can we get back to the real discussion?

The question was regarding last throes. If someone said that the crime in New York is in its last throes, they would be wrong. Just like Cheney was wrong. Are you saying the crime in New York is in its last throes? Of course not. Yes, our policemen in New York are very brave and do excellent work and are making constant progress, just like our soldiers in Iraq. However, unfortuntately, both the insurgency in Iraq and the crime in New York is an ongoing threat. We can hope they are in their last throes, but neither was in its last throes last June, as they both continue to be a huge threat today.

I thank you for bringing up the New York analogy. It's a perfect example of something that was not in its last throes last June, just like the insurgency in Iraq. If the New York chief of police came out today and said that the crime in New York was in its last throes, he would be fired immediately.

I'll point to the deaths last year over the same period where there was more deaths do you hostile fire from guns, mortars, RPGs vs a drastic decline in those deaths and more reliance on IEDs to cause American deaths this year.

So the insurgency is adjusting its tactics to counter our efforts. And pretty successfully too. Doesn't sound like last throes to me. I don't care how they kill our troops, either way it breaks my heart. As long as they are still killing dozens and dozens of Americans every month, they are a significant threat. When they stop being a significant threat, I will agree they are done with their last throes. You can tell the war mothers that their sons are dying from IED's and not from guns and then explain to them how that is somehow better. If an insurgency is in its last throes, it can't possibly continue to kill at similar rates for months and months afterwards. Again, what is your definition of "last throes?"

You also keep ignoring the facts. When Clinton put the troops into Bosnia, he said it would last a year, they are still there, way past the date when he said they'd be gone. We aren't talking about troop deaths, we are talking about exit strategy.
Where did I ever say that Clinton had a good exit strategy? Again, enjoy your argument against the imaginary retarded liberal poster, but then please come back to the real discussion.

How can you say that exit strategy is not related to American losses? Sure, that other stuff like "return on investment" is important too, but nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is as important as the lives of our heros. The most important reason "exit strategy" is such an issue for Iraq is because so many Americans are dying there. If we have a good exit strategy, then we have some reassurance that at some point in time we will stop hearing about American deaths.

Yes, Clinton's exit strategy appears to have been flawed. We were stuck in there much longer than initially anticipated (hmmm that sounds familiar). Anyway, we can thank God that Clinton's failure didn't result in any American deaths. How many American deaths have resulted by Bush's failed exit strategy. He certainly didn't plan on us being there this long did he? His exit strategy was based on...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

It has been a long, costly, and bloody battle with signifcant American casualties, hasn't it? Cheney was wrong, wasn't he? Clearly the Bush Administration was not expecting a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties at the time of the invasion. How could its exit strategy, at the time of the invasion, have been sufficient when it was based on this incredible misunderstanding of the situation?

Which leads back to the original question. Where does Bush get off demanding that Clinton publicly explain his exit strategy and put our troops at risk? All the public needs to know is that we will leave when the locals can handle the situation. It would be wrong for Bush to disclose more and it would have been wrong for Clinton to have disclosed more.

The fact that you think its a fair criticism when applied to Clinton, but an unfair criticism when applied to Bush really says it all. I think that its an unfair criticism for any president, yet I am the one with a double standard.

Bachanus

09-30-2005, 12:31 PM

Which leads back to the original question. Where does Bush get off demanding that Clinton publicly explain his exit strategy and put our troops at risk? All the public needs to know is that we will leave when the locals can handle the situation. It would be wrong for Bush to disclose more and it would have been wrong for Clinton to have disclosed more.

Exit strategies sound cool on paper. But as far as I can remember, the US primary exit strategy is ... Take over, establish military bases, watch the people to keep them inline. You just cant tell the public that. It doesnt matter who the president is... Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, Bush... What country did we take over and pull out? We're kinda like the Mother-in-law you invite to stay awhile, kinda hard to make leave.

If I strayed off your topic, apologies

Post

09-30-2005, 01:41 PM

Where? I didn't mention Bush or Iraq or anything before you responded...

Where have I asked to pull out?

Where did I ever say that Clinton had a good exit strategy?
What are the odds of these questions - non-confusing, direct, no-strings-attached - will actually get answered in a non-confusing, direct, no-strings-attached way?

^ I love doing stuff like that. The tear between the fact that there isn't a good answer to any of these beyond "my bad" (and we all know how often that happens), and me giving such a meaty chance to prove me wrong must be insurmountable.

To which I'll be told I'm wrong in that "must be" clause. But feh, there are lots of things stated on this board by people that I know are facetious. The problem with feelings on the internet is not only are they more difficult to show than facts, it's that you can say you feel one way and have them actually be entirely different.

Swifty_Johnson

09-30-2005, 02:22 PM

Where? I didn't mention Bush or Iraq or anything before you responded. I posted the quote and asked if it was a fair presidential criticism. But whatever, its a minor point. You say you knew it was Bush, so you knew it was Bush, even if your first post makes absolutely no sense.

Because I assumed that you were taking the standard liberal talking points that Bush demanded this from Clinton, but failed to come up with it when people asked.

Ok, you win the argument against the imaginary poster who is asking us to pull troops out of the Iraq quagmire. Now can we get back to the real discussion?

You missed the point entirely. You just cannot look at the number of deaths, there are more factors involved.

So the insurgency is adjusting its tactics to counter our efforts. And pretty successfully too.

No, the insurgency is adjusting it's tactics to counter the loss of it's ability to do anything else. This means they are loosing, and starting to loose big.

How many American deaths have resulted by Bush's failed exit strategy. He certainly didn't plan on us being there this long did he? His exit strategy was based on...

What failed strategy? We are still going through the process of it. MOST of Iraq greeted America as liberators. Are you going to claim that because some people took shots at rescue helicopters that the people of N.O. were savages that didn't treat the rescue crews right? When my wife went to a village outside Tikrit (you know, Saddam's home town) she said the troops were treated very well, and people invited them into their homes to share meals with. That is not a sign of hostility.

If an insurgency is in its last throes, it can't possibly continue to kill at similar rates for months and months afterwards. Again, what is your definition of "last throes?"

When something has peaked and their combat capabilities are ever decreasing. When do you consider Nazi Germany to have entered it's last throes? (I'm betting we'll have different answers.)

Where does Bush get off demanding that Clinton publicly explain his exit strategy and put our troops at risk?

Huh? Please try and be consistent here. You said

You had said that "when the Iraqis take over their own security" was a sufficient exit strategy. I don't think it is. I do think its all the public needs to know. In other words, its a sufficient public statement of an exit strategy,

So you say that Bush coming forward and saying When the Iraqi's take over their own security and we leave is a good public statement, so when Bush asked Clinton to do this, he's a bad guy? Please try and remain consistent here.

The fact that you think its a fair criticism when applied to Clinton, but an unfair criticism when applied to Bush really says it all.

Yup, it says you cannot accurately portray my views at all. It's fair criticism when applied to BOTH presidents, only Bush correctly responded to it. Do you understand now?

You meandered all over the place. We started talking about public statements the Presidents make. You then starting talking about secret exit strategies and tried to blend the issues together. This isn't about what the real exit strategy is, we won't know that until the operation is declassified, and that might not even be in our lifetimes. This is about what the President should be telling us the public in the time of war.

When a President sends troops into a situation, we the people don't need to know the details, but we do need to know what is going on, and what are the conditions for return. I had to deal with this myself, with my wife deployed in Iraq. When I was told, the troops will come home when the job is done, I was a little worried, that was too vague. I am a lot happier with the current statements.

All the public needs to know is that we will leave when the locals can handle the situation.

And that is where Clinton totally failed, in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. This is what you cannot, or refuse to understand. Clinton said, we'll leave in about a year, and three years later he poured more troops into the region and was rattling the saber at Serbia. Don't you think he should be saying something?

If the Iraqis took over security in their own country and Bush started to pour troops into Iraq and starting making threats to Iran, wouldn't you expect him to say something?

Swifty

Boom

09-30-2005, 07:06 PM

Hep was right. Well Swifty sort of addressed one of the questions, but not really.

I think I am done wasting my time talking to someone who responds to imaginary arguments instead of just sticking to arguments that I actually make. I should listen to all my friends here who keep telling me to stop wasting my time.

I mean who is crazier, the person talking to the imaginary friend, or the person trying to have a reasonable dialogue with the person talking to his imaginary friend?

He even did it in that last post. I clearly said that Cheney's statement was wrong because there was a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties. I never disagreed with the liberators part. But Swifty argues with his imaginary friend who apparently said that we weren't greeted as liberators by any Iraqis and ignores my argument, that Cheney was wrong in disagreeing that it would be a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties.

It's not just in this thread, the imaginary friend is posting all over the place. Like in the no-bid thread. Swifty makes an argument that KBR didn't have no-bid contracts, I ask who he is arguing with, he says he is responding to the claim that KBR had no-bid contracts, I ask him to show me where that claim was made, he ignores me. Just like he ignored the similar questions in this thread.

So I am done. It's not like Swifty will suffer. He doesn't need me to argue with, he has his imaginary friend.

Besides, in Swifty's last post he agrees with me. Part of the criticisms was that at the time troops are committed (not after they have been there for a year) there needs to be a good exit strategy. Swifty himself wasn't pleased with the exit strategy at the time Bush initially committed troops to Iraq. So the criticism applies to Bush as well as it did to Clinton. Perfect way to end this thread.

Post

10-01-2005, 12:50 AM

I just wish people like Murrie and Roo were more vocal on these boards. I mean, we all have separate opinions - mine sometimes differ with people who are "on my side", such as you (Boom), and Allison. Murrie's and Roo's opinions sometimes differ with what's typically "conservative". That makes me feel better, because it makes me think that they're putting together a collection of thoughts and then they're whatever they are politically after the fact, and not sourced by what name they've titled themselves, be it conservative, liberal, Republican, Catholic, or whatever.

Then we take a look at Swifty. I've literally never seen someone so vocally aligned with a President's actions short of working for them. Be it Republican or Democrat. Never.

Yes, I know he's disagreed with Bush before. I'm stating a consistency, not irregularities. I've participated in the debate club in high school and college, the local Toastmasters here in Phoenix, AZ, and have debated plenty within the realm of council meetings for my neighborhood, city, and county. I've seen a lot of political opinions.

It's just simply mind-numbing to be that aligned with someone else's political opinion, especially when that person is the President, where the unfortunate truth is you have to play the politics game more than anyone else in the US in order to gain that position. You have to give into atleast some corruption to be in politics, and the higher you go up the chain, the more you have to give into. Really, who can't see that?

Allison

10-01-2005, 01:11 AM

I hear you, Post. That's why I don't post here much anymore, because everything just turns into an everyone-vs-Swifty argument, and that's really just pointless. I wish we had a better collection of differing viewpoints to debate and explore, but we don't anymore. Kinda sucks.

Noleader

10-01-2005, 02:23 AM

because everything just turns into an everyone-vs-Swifty argument, and that's really just pointless.

I watch grass grow for entertainment now. It is more interesting then watching Swifty change is stance 5 times in 6 posts.

Swifty_Johnson

10-03-2005, 09:06 AM

Well Swifty sort of addressed one of the questions, but not really.

I answered all your questions.

I think I am done wasting my time talking to someone who responds to imaginary arguments instead of just sticking to arguments that I actually make.

What imaginary arguments? I guess your tried of talking to someone who just doesn't blindly accept what you say and actually challenges you.

He even did it in that last post. I clearly said that Cheney's statement was wrong because there was a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties. I never disagreed with the liberators part.

Twice you put that quote up, and only that quote up in an attempt to say that we were not treated like liberators. B.T.W. How could anyone at all claim that was an exit strategy?

Like in the no-bid thread. Swifty makes an argument that KBR didn't have no-bid contracts, I ask who he is arguing with, he says he is responding to the claim that KBR had no-bid contracts, I ask him to show me where that claim was made, he ignores me.

Gee, I don't know, maybe the title of the thread NO BID KATRINA CONTACTS would be your first clue.

Part of the criticisms was that at the time troops are committed (not after they have been there for a year) there needs to be a good exit strategy. Swifty himself wasn't pleased with the exit strategy at the time Bush initially committed troops to Iraq. So the criticism applies to Bush as well as it did to Clinton. Perfect way to end this thread.

Expect as I pointed out many times before, Bush responded to that criticism, and Clinton never did. You keep making these drive by points, and when they are challenged, you never respond, you just keep your head down and driving into the next point, never going back and supported your failed points and never acknowledging them at all.

I have asked you several point blank questions, and you never answered them, yet I am the "bad" guy.

Swifty

Boom

06-08-2007, 01:04 PM

Next year we will begin to see a draw-down of U.S. troops, as we will no longer need to maintain the force levels that we have today.

Unlike when we went into Kosovo and Bosina we have a clear mission and exit strategy. It also looks like our troops will draw down in Iraq before they are out of Bosnia and Kosovo. There is a good chance that by 2007 the only U.S. troops left in Iraq will be manning permanent U.S. bases there. So who do you think have a better exit strategy?

You made an attempt to try and claim Bush was being inconsistent, when in fact you are dealing with two different situations. Bush was criticizing Clinton as he was putting more troops into an area three years after Clinton said they'd be gone in a year. For Bush to be inconsistent the Iraqi would have to be in charge of their own security, he'd have to be sending more troops into Iraq, making threats at Iran, and refusing to issue another statement on what is going in in Iraq.

Ok, the parts about sending more troops in Iraq and threatening Iran is just creepy. How did he know? Funny that he was just coming up with imaginary examples of things that Bush might do that would be undefendable, and Bush went ahead and did them. The only part of that sentence that is wrong is the part about Iraq being in charge of their own security by now. I wish he had been right about that one.

And I still never understood how "NO BID KATRINA CONTRACTS" is a claim that KBR is involved in anything, but that is neither here nor there.

Bedpost

06-08-2007, 01:14 PM

I'm afraid that in the next couple months you're going to hear.

"We can't get Iraq stable because Iran is funding and sending too many insurgents in. So we are going to hit them at the source and attack Iran to help control violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people want peace, however, the Iranians are not letting it happen."

Or something like that. I really hope I'm wrong, but it sure does seem like that's where it's headed. Fortunately whoever is elected presdient I don't think would continue with that. So as long as Bush gets out of office before that happens I think that wont be an option

PoxTheSmall

06-08-2007, 01:35 PM

I'm going to bet that he's going to push towards war with Iran with every opportunity possible, until he leaves office.

Allison

06-08-2007, 03:16 PM

I just can't believe that anyone would want a war with Iran. It's inconceivable to me. I'd be shocked if it happened.

Of course, that's how I felt about war with Iraq. So what do I know?

Aelfwine

06-08-2007, 03:39 PM

They don't want war with Iran. War implies two sides fighting each other. If we do anything in Iran it will be just us bombing them back into the stone age. No way they put boots on the ground to fight the Iranians.

A nice fair fight. /sarcasm off

Bedpost

06-08-2007, 03:50 PM

If we bomb Iran, considering we have over 100k troops sitting next door. I see no way that we wont send troops over.

They'll announce that Iraq can now maintain itself and 70k troops will leave Iraq to stop the rest of the violence that's coming over from Iran

Aelfwine

06-08-2007, 04:17 PM

Noleader

06-08-2007, 05:04 PM

You think? Iran is a totally different animal then Iraq. They have a huge, well disciplined, army. Close to a million troops. You think 3000 dead in 4 years is bad? Wait to see the casualties if we engage Iran. Not exactly a smart move with a military that is overburdened as it is.

Based on other moves made by this administration maybe your right though. Armageddon here we come.

Truth be told Aelf the same thing was said about Iraq before the gulf war (first one). Granted we do not have the same generals in command but I would not expect it to be much different. Thing that we would need to do this time around though is get the world to assist us. This going it alone stuff when we are not defending ourselves is going to run our military into the ground.

Aelfwine

06-08-2007, 06:38 PM

Truth be told Aelf the same thing was said about Iraq before the gulf war (first one). Granted we do not have the same generals in command but I would not expect it to be much different. Thing that we would need to do this time around though is get the world to assist us. This going it alone stuff when we are not defending ourselves is going to run our military into the ground.

True. Saddam talked alot of shit and could not back it up. I don't think he thought we would ever go in (first or second time), so he talked a good game.

I do not think Iran is bluffing. Iran wants us to attack them.

Post

06-08-2007, 07:26 PM

Aelfwine

06-08-2007, 07:51 PM

From what I understand, Iran has a completely different social system compared to Iraq. While it's still religious-based, they have women's rights groups, newspapers are allowed to criticize, etc. The people don't care much for Ahmadinejad, but are so scared of the US from doing to them what we did to Iraq, that it's the primary way he's keeping power.

He is the reason we are talking about attacking. If they were so scared of us the Iranian people would remove him.

Also, Iraq was a secularist country under Saddam. Iran on the other hand is truly full of religous nuts and if their religous leaders tell them to resist a american invasion they will do it down to the last (religous nut that is).

Boom

06-08-2007, 08:00 PM

Um, I don't mind this getting hijacked for an Iran discussion...

But first, do we all now agree that in June 2005 the Iraqi insurgents were not, in fact, in their last throes?

Bedpost

06-08-2007, 08:21 PM

The thing is that the Iraqi resistance isn't really resisting us. For the most part they are bombing each other. Sure there are occasional attacks on US soliders but it's not like it's an everyday thing. I think the majority of the attacks on US soldiers at this point aren't even Iraqis.

Which is why I'm afraid of it going the path I suggested.

My guess is that if we invaded Iran we'd have just about as many surrenders as we did when we invaded Iraq. They know that we're far superior in military in every way. My fear would be that all those people would surrender and half of them would have bombs strapped to their chest and blow up after they get with a bunch of americans.

Post

06-08-2007, 08:58 PM

"He is the reason we are talking about attacking. If they were so scared of us the Iranian people would remove him."

How many of the reasons we go to war actually stand up after it's said and done? Whether it's true or not, most of the world thinks the US goes to war for reasons of economic and political gain, and they see Ahmadinejad as someone who is willing to stand up to the US trampling over Iran on its march to freedom (and Christanity, as far as they're concerned), in the Middle East.

That and their sense of patriotism is similar to ours (unlike in Iraq, which is a mish-mesh country). If we were told by another country that we cannot build nuclear reactors for power because that's a nuclear threat to the world, how would we treat a President that told that country to screw off?

"Also, Iraq was a secularist country under Saddam. Iran on the other hand is truly full of religous nuts and if their religous leaders tell them to resist a american invasion they will do it down to the last (religous nut that is)."

Look, the flat-out truth is that Iran has more freedoms than Iraq did, and while there maybe tons of religious wackos, that freedom allows the people who don't want to go to war to speak up. Which they do. They just get ignored when it looks more and more like war is coming by not much effort of their own (which is the story that Ahmadinejad is telling, and we're following the plot to the letter).