President's handling of the war in the Middle East

[drarnold]

jccooper- you are right about the date for the Columbine tragedy and I do apologize, but as for General McChrystal... Have you ever been in the service? Do you know about military law? Saying what McChrystal said is an act of Treason, and he could have actually been imprisoned or worse. From where I'm sitting he got off pretty easy. For the record he is the only General that felt as he did and he should have kept it to himself.

[jccooper]

The 9/11 attacks were not something cooked up over a short period of time. If you'll recall, Bin Laden and his cronies made an attempt to bring down the trade center on February 26, 1993.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/tradebom_022608.html

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the planners admits that the plan went as far back as 1996.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/443 ... -10-planes

Now did Bush have warning? Yes he did. Forty of them? Possibly, but I have found no evidence to support that. George Tenet, the acting director of the CIA at the time did warn the administration, but that was July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks took place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00282.html

As for Clinton having seven opportunities to apprehend Osama? Once again, its a possibility. It was confirmed that Clinton had SEVERAL opportunities to have the man brought to justice, but none of them were taken.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/P ... _laden.htm

But the mistakes that the Clinton and Bush administration made are not the topic of this debate. I once again ask that we keep to the debate "President's handling of the war in the Middle East" and that we keep the debate as impersonal and professional as possible.

[jccooper]

As for my understanding of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Yes I do understand it, and yes McChrystal did show an extreme disregard for the UCMJ. I am not condoning the actions of General McChrystal, I am merely stating that the acting commander of military operations in Afghanistan did NOT support how the war was being run.

[drarnold]

jccooper- What was the finding of the 9/11 Commission? It was, there was NO substancial evidence backing the claim that Clinton had ANY opportunity to catch or kill Bin Laden. And, further more the top secret documents released by Wiki Leaks stated in Aug. 2006 they had information that Bin laden and some of his top Generals were meeting on the Pakastan/Afganstan border, but Bush did not act on the information. Further more there would not be a need for this dicussion about Obama's handling of the Middle East war if Bush had done his job correctly.

[pullen978807]

Dr. Arnold's right, the Bush administration was warned.

Times Magazine Special Report (Clinton warns Bush passes on policy recommendations) (August 2002)

"I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject (Clinton’s National Security Advisers, 2001)."

In January of 2001, former President Clinton’s National Security team spoke with the Bush administration regarding the threat that Islamic extremists, specifically al-Qaeda, posed to the United States. The Clinton team handed the Bush administration a specific set of policy actions that would help weaken the ability of the terrorists to strike our nation.

An article in Times magazines says that the “proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.”

“By last summer, many of those in the know—the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries—were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.”

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

On Blaming Bush…

It is foolish to place sole responsibility for 9/11 on former President George W. Bush. It is even more absurd to try to blame former President Bill Clinton. It is safe to say that our defensive mechanisms failed us on 9/11 and that the steps taken since that date (by Bush and Obama) have prevented a similar catastrophe.

Liberals, Democrats, progressives (or whatever you want to call us) did not condemn Bush for making us vulnerable to a terrorist attack, or his inability to keep us safe. After 9/11 we all rallied behind Bush, until his actions warranted distrust. Can we do the same for Obama? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were authorized in a bipartisan manner. The wars became divisive when Americans were made aware of the falseness of some of the allegations the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

False Pretenses Iraq War

(1) Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld made approximately 935 false statements during the lead up to the War in Iraq. The statements continuously linked al-Qaeda to Iraq. Moreover the administration propagated the notion that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
(2) In at least 532 speeches, briefings, interviews, testimonies, etc., the Bush administration reported such falsehoods.
(3) Why did a majority of Americans support the war effort? Because we believed the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the administration was alleging. We actually thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

(1) Bush administration tortures detainees trying to force confession of Iraq – al Qaeda link

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... e-deepens/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/21/6 ... ed-to.html

(2) CIA: Bush knew before invasion that Iraq did not have WMD’s

http://whitehouser.com/war/cia-confirms-bush-wmd-lie/

(3) Bush was briefed 10 days after 9/11: the briefing suggested that there was no credible evidence linking al-Qaeda to Iraq

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/nj ... 122nj1.htm

Why did the Bush administration continue to use these falsehoods to persuade Americans to support the war cause? Why couldn’t they be straightforward with us? Transparency was what we needed, but the Bush administration failed to give it to us.

“I think his comments, his foreign policy efforts have weakened us in the eyes of the enemy — and that is derailing the military effort.”

65%? May I ask what comments and/or policies have Obama made that weakens us in the eyes of our enemies???

[jccooper]

drarnold- The 9/11 Commission also found that between 1998 and 2001, no policies were adopted that would even disturb the 9/11 plot. The same Commission goes on to say that the steps the Bush administration took after the attacks ensured that America became a safer place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3917703.stm

As for the Secret Logs, those same logs claim that there may be some tension in the Pakistan- U.S. relationship, and that the meeting place for Osama's allies was in Quetta, which is OVER the Pakistani border. If a raid had taken place and Pakistani casualties ensued, we could have an even larger crisis than is already on our hands.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html (Tense relationship with Pakistan)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10781413 (The location of Osama's meeting)

Furthermore, the topic of this poll was our opinions on how the war TODAY is being run. This war, which I will grant started under the Bush administration, has been passed on to the Obama administration. The topic of this debate is supposed to be our opinion of how the war is being run NOW, regardless of the choices and mistakes made by the previous administrations.

[pullen978807]

Jccooper, I agree completely. I just find it funny how the same people who criticize Obama for "making our country less safe", praised Bush's war effort. I felt that they need a reminder of just how terrible Bush's policies were. When you take an honest look at the previous administration track record, you can't help but feel that Obama is doing a great job. Many conservatives fail to make such an honest assessment. I just don't get it. Obama is scaling down the war in Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan, which has continue to be a safe-haven for al Qaeda. Obama's war policies actually involves doing what Bush failed to do; that is making Afghanistan the central front on the war on terror. That is why I feel Obama is handling the war effort pretty well. Again, many poll responders think that Obama is making us weak in the eyes of the enemy, but no one has actually stated what policies or comments, made by Obama, make the U.S appear weak.

[jccooper]

Pullen- I fail to see how the Bush Administration weakened our country when the 9/11 Commission (while pointing out errors in both the Clinton and Bush administration) find that our nation became a safer place once steps were taken after 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3917703.stm

As for Obama's administration weakening our country? His empty threats do that. The president has proven that he is incapable of backing threats he has made to our enemies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... redibility

Obama's ever changing timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is another weakening factor. Not only does he consistently fail to meet said timetable, but by providing it he enables our enemies to plan their strategies around it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/chi-i ... picgallery

[jccooper]

*Edit* The lies from Bush's administration served to undermine our countries integrity, but how have his policies directly weakened us?

[pullen978807]

@jccooper

Time-table does not = weakness

Obama campaigned on a 16-month timetable, and won with 60+ million votes; the voters tacitly approved the timetable. Obama’s prolonging/extending the withdrawal date is a testament to the pragmatic nature of his leadership. His foreign policy is not rigid/inflexible, like that of former President Bush; this, my friend, is a good thing.

“The troop plan drew both support and opposition from surprising quarters. During the presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly squared off with his main rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who considered the proposed withdrawal to be an irresponsible retreat. But after being briefed on Obama's timetable, McCain praised the decision, saying he believed the plan would "lead to success." (From your Baltimore Sun Source, above)

It is funny how conservatives condemn Democrats for wanting to bring about an end to a war that should have never been waged. Setting a timetable for the end of such a war does not “embolden our enemy.” Our occupation, military presence in the region is what emboldens our enemies.

1. “defeatist”
2. “embolden the enemy”
3. “not supporting our troops”
4. “lack of resolve”
5. “demoralizing our troops”

Each of the words and/or phrases have been used by right-wingers as an attack against those who oppose their hawkish military agenda (against Iraq), which only hinders our ability to use our military against greater threats, with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan taking their toll on our troops.

http://www.alternet.org/world/75646/

Bush policies weaken America

1. Emboldening the enemy

“On Monday, President Ahmadinejad said foreign military presence in a number of regional countries had only fueled insecurity in the region. The Iranian president has long warned the world powers that their military adventurism in the oil-rich Middle East would spell the end of their empires.”

2. Unilateralism, which only alienates our allies

“The Bush policy, like that of Ronald Reagan twenty years ago—and it is no coincidence that Reagan era veterans populate the new Bush team—is based on the notion that America's allies and adversaries alike are passive actors.”

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2001/ ... ordon.aspx

3. Iran grows stronger as U.S is preoccupied with Iraq

"The radical group headed by Iran, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas (are) gaining more and more power each year," Mofaz told reporters following a meeting in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”

"And we have to find the weaknesses and change this situation because we see more influence of Iran in our region," Mofaz said, adding this was the main point of discussion during his talks with Rice.”

“President Bush's policies helped to increase Iranian influence in the Middle East and accelerate its uranium enrichment program (Sen. Evan Bayh).”
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsD ... 3A0009C510

4. Bush Policies Weaken National Guard

Leaders of both parties have suggested that too many National guardsmen and equipment had been sent to Iraq leaving Americans at home less safe from threats posed by natural disasters.

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/politics/27govs.html

5. Growing Anti-American Sentiment Abroad

“Moreover, there is considerable evidence that the opinion many Muslims have of the United States has gone beyond mere loathing. In this year's Pew survey, majorities in seven of eight predominantly Muslim nations believe the U.S. may someday threaten their country.”

You see Bush’s foreign policy has caused widespread panic to individuals, who collectively represent a quarter of the world’s population. This is dangerous, and something that Obama has worked to fix. Only a small percentage of those who practice Islam adhere to the jihadist tradition.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=77

Obama’s Foreign Policy

“For the first time in almost a decade, we have an American president who approaches the security threats facing our country from a standpoint of pragmatism, not ideology. Barack Obama's young presidency has blended realism with fidelity to American ideals in a way that has not only kept us safe but represents a fundamentally better approach than the discredited unilateralism of the recent past.”

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/arti ... urity.html

➢ Build-up of troops in Afghanistan to help train Afghan forces
➢ Increased number of strikes on al Qaeda safe havens in the Middle East
➢ Making Pakistan more accountable for al Qaeda and Taliban activity in the border region
➢ Abandoning unilateral policies that have left us less safe and less secure
➢ Support of diplomacy-first strategies with nations like Iran, and N. Korea (majority of Americans support)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114586/major ... -iran.aspx
➢ Support of foreign countries, rebuilding ties
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66I5WR20100719

Empty Threats?

Republicans like to throw out phrases like "empty threats" as if they expect nothing less than a full-fledged military invasion of Iran. I can tell you this much, that is certainly not going to happen, not on a Democratic watch. Iran is no tremendous threat to the United States of America. Most other nations know this; therefore, they will be unlikely to support a preemptive military strike against the nation. Our concern about Iran has a lot to do with the Israelis worry over Iran coming into possession of nuclear weapons (funny though, see article below about the possibility of Israel using tactical nukes on Iran). When and if the country comes close to possessing an atomic weapon, countries around the globe will have the capabilities to stave off any potential threat.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62O2HI.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/p09s02-coop.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... 2f8e26.fd1
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ahmad-aleh ... revolution

I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is dangerous; however, we have multiple thousands of warheads. Israel is believed to have a couple of hundred nukes. Are you in favor of a preemptive strike against a nation trying to possess what we have in abundance? When Iran becomes a true threat to the United States that is when we attack. Don’t be overrun by fear and paranoia. What happened on 9/11 was tragic. Have faith in our leaders ability to protect us, rather than anticipating a future attack. Obama has kept us safe so far. Right?