TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Could this war be Clinton's fault?

Could this war be Clinton's fault?

I've been reading a lot of article lately and although most people here label Bush as a terrible president, I think the root of the problem lies with the former administration. Bush is doing the job Clinton choose not to! Complied are some excerpts from articles I've read decide for yourself.

President Clinton is committed to backing Iraqi opposition forces toward eventually forming a new government in Baghdad, say Clinton administration officials. But they acknowledge that risky strategy could take years to bear fruit.

"You can't work this precipitously," says one White House official. "What we don't want is an ill-conceived, poorly prepared effort that will only cost innocent people their lives." Instead, he adds, the administration's long-term objective is "to build the opposition into a viable alternative to the current regime."

President Clinton on Sunday modified his own Iraq policy and moved closer to a Republican-led plan. Late last week, critics like Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., along with former Bush administration officials like Paul Wolfowitz, had urged the Clinton administration to adopt a long-run strategy toward ousting Saddam Hussein. On Sunday Clinton said that while the United States will continue its policy of containing Saddam by working to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, "over the long-term the best way to address that threat is through a government in Baghdad -- a new government -- that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region."

The last time any U.S. president talked like that was shortly after the Gulf War, when President George Bush called upon Iraqis to "force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside" and bring Iraq "back into the family of peace-loving nations." Though Bush's call quickly inspired mass insurrection in northern as well as in southern Iraq, the Bush administration merely stood by as Saddam crushed the insurrectionists with superior firepower that he had ingeniously saved from harm during the Gulf War.

"They were slaughtered," says Wolfowitz, now the dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, who, during the Bush administration, was a senior Pentagon planner. "I got chewed out by [Gen. Colin] Powell for fighting the decision [not to back them] even after it had been made," he adds. "It was wrong morally and we're paying for it now."

Clinton administration officials say they have no intention of repeating past mistakes. Instead, their policy is designed "so the next time this set of circumstances present themselves the results will be different," says the White House official.

For nearly six years, the Clinton administration followed Bush's lead of not getting too close to the Iraqi opposition. Last February, during the last dramatic showdown with Saddam, Clinton snubbed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, when he came to Washington to solicit the administration's backing on behalf of a loose coalition of opposition groups that make the INC.

Critics both within and outside the administration have long argued that the Iraqi opposition is too spent a force to play any effective role. In March, Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration national security advisor, told the Senate Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs that the Iraqi opposition was "weak and divided." He added: "Building a strong, united opposition is an uncertain proposition that at a minimum would take years."

But that didn't stop the Republican-led Congress from authorizing Clinton to provide the Iraqi opposition with $97 million in U.S. assistance. Though the president signed the bill two weeks ago, he did not encourage the legislation. "The administration has opposed any serious effort tohelp the Iraqi opposition in recent years," says Zalmay Khalizad, a Rand Corporation analyst who, during the Bush administration, was also a Defense Department planner. "The question now is, does he have a plan, a strategy, a will for moving forward?"

The Clinton administration began to rethink its Iraq policy back in February, U.S. officials say, when it became clear that Saddam's constant thwarting of the U.N. inspection team might render it an ineffective way to curb his ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. "If it hasn't worked for eight to 10 months," says another White House official, "then why would it work now?" So officials at the National Security Council and the State Department began reconsidering their options. "But you only have so many tools in your toolbox," says a State Department official.

The administration's three main tools have been U.N. inspections to monitor Saddam's ability to make weapons of mass destruction, unilateral bombing to enforce his compliance with the U.N. inspection team and multilateral economic and trade sanctions to maintain pressure on Saddam and his regime. Newsweek reported last week that in the face of Saddam's constant thwarting this year of the U.N. inspections, the administration had decided that sanctions, backed up by bombing, would be the best way to contain Saddam in the long term.

"We were not getting anything with the inspections," explains Andrew C. Winner, a former State Department political/military planner who is now with the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. "So sanctions were seen as the best lever."

Until Sunday, there was little indication that the administration was even considering another tool: the option of seriously backing the Iraqi opposition to eventually replace Saddam in power. Now, however, Clinton has flagged that goal as a stated objective of U.S. policy, though critics still complain that he fails to move toward it. "I see [Clinton's statement] as inching in the right direction," says ex-Bush planner Wolfowitz. "But what I think is needed is a very clear statement that we are committed to [Saddam's] removal."

Instead, the Clinton administration has said exactly the opposite. After Clinton stepped off the White House podium on Sunday, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Secretary of Defense William Cohen fielded questions from the press. In response to one journalist's query about whether the president's unusually strong language suggested that he was seeking to oust Saddam, Cohen said: "He was not calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. What he was saying is that we are prepared and will work with opposition forces or groups to try and bring about, at some future time, a more democratic type of regime."

Clinton administration officials deny that there is any inconsistency between longing for a new Iraqi government in the future and stopping short of calling for Saddam's overthrow now. "We are intensifying our efforts" in the support of the opposition, says the White House official. "There will be an effort to work with them more in earnest," he adds, choosing language that seems like an admission of the administration's failure to earnestly support the opposition before. Earlier this year, many State Department diplomats and other U.S. officials had privately dismissed the idea of backing the Iraqi opposition because, they said, it was ineffective. This week a few of the same officials who were reached for comment declined to discuss the matter. Others failed to return a reporter's calls.

Most of America's allies have yet to formally respond to the president's new words of encouragement for the Iraqi opposition. But during the standoff with Saddam last February, Saudi Arabia refused to allow American bombers to launch from its soil, fearing that the attacks might be perceived as taking a heavier toll on Iraq's civilians than its leaders. Now Arab diplomats say they are cautious about the administration's plan to back the Iraqi opposition.

Many of the front-line states around Iraq, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have long opposed any plan for Iraq that could potentially divide the country. U.S. officials have also long feared the same result. Though about one in five Iraqis are Sunni Arabs like Saddam Hussein, three out of five Iraqis are Shia Arabs who share their religion with the vast majority of Persian people along with the government in neighboring Iran. Nearly one more out of five Iraqis are Sunni Kurds who, to some degree, share an ethnic identity with Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Says one Arab diplomat, "We [have long] opposed any plan that could lead to the break-up of Iraq."

The Clinton administration now seeks to bring America's regional allies on board with the opposition. "We know we don't have it yet," says the White House official. "But we want to work with a broad range of [Iraqi] groups and build a base of support for them with countries in the region." But first the administration must convince its Arab allies, along with others, that the Iraqi opposition could be resurrected into a viable force. "After years of repression by Saddam Hussein, there is no recognizable Iraqi opposition out there yet," says the Arab official.

There was once. Back after the Gulf War, on March 1, 1991, the very day that Bush made his call for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, Shia clerics in southern Iraq called for insurrection, and within days, rebel forces had taken the Iraqi town of Basra near the Saudi border, while fighting had broken out as well in nearly every city in southern Iraq. On March 14, Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq followed suit by launching their own offensive. In less than a week, they liberated every town with a Kurdish-speaking population in northern Iraq. Journalists in northern Iraq at the time interviewed Iraqi army prisoners-of-war who expressed only contempt for Saddam, and they saw Kurds holding hands and singing and dancing in the streets.

This was the moment that the Bush administration chose to ignore. "We should have at least taken out [Saddam's] gunships," says Wolfowitz, adding that without the protection of helicopters his tanks would have found it riskier to advance. Instead, Bush officials did nothing as first Shia rebels in the south and then Kurdish guerrillas in the north were decimated. In As-Samawah in southern Iraq, fleeing witnesses reported that Iraqi troops shot Shia men on sight as they advanced behind a shield of captured Shia women. Outside Kirkuk in northern Iraq, journalists saw Iraqi forces drop a blanket of fire on fleeing guerrillas and civilians. Tanks only overran Kirkuk after multiple rocket launchers had softened the ground and rocket-firing gunships, along with smaller choppers, had destroyed most fixed targets.

There has been only weak and sporadic armed opposition to Saddam and his regime since. Most of it has been concentrated in northern Iraq, where the CIA, in the mid-'90s, provided at least $15 million in covert aid to the Iraqi National Congress. The INC's main goal was to unite two feuding Kurdish factions that have long differed over clan-based identification as well as ideology. But the effort collapsed in August 1996, when one of the Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani, invited Saddam to join forces with him against Iraq's other main Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabini. Saddam's forces moved in to destroy the CIA-backed operation, reportedly killing many detainees after capture.

Baghdad is the only other place where any significant military action against the Iraqi regime has occurred since the spring of 1991. In December 1996, a group identifying itself as Al-Nahdad, or the Awakening, attacked Saddam's eldest son, Uday, who was notorious for torturing suspected dissidents, leaving him a paraplegic. Meanwhile, in southern Iraq, though some fighting has occurred among its remote marshlands, no known urban confrontations have taken place since the 1991 revolt, known throughout Iraq as the intifada.

The impact of its demise -- throughout Iraq and the region -- is something that the Clinton administration now seeks to overcome. To be successful, says Wolfowitz, Clinton "would have to finish George Bush's war." But he and other observers doubt whether Clinton is any more committed to the task. "We would have to show people that we were serious about this, and reassure them," says Winner of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. "And that is a tall order."

I didn't read through your long post, sorry I'm scrapped for time. But to answer your quesiton. Yes Clinton is at fault for it. The problem with Clinton you see is he had the following attitude towards everything; Compromise.

If you have a baby, split it and two, and give a half to each and everyone will be happy - at least thats what he thought. Apparently it took people just a little realize that when you split a baby in two and get half, what you have is a half of a completely dead baby, and no one is actually happy.

This is one point; Another point completely off regarding the unpopularity of the war that I always point out. Many say it is just because of Bush that they don't like the war. The fact is, even the international superstar clinton was unable to encourage enough world support to invade Iraq, and simply sent an air campagin and let the problem be addressed by the poor guy in office after his presidency.

Clinton compromised and he was the man...constantly fucking interns and still running the country very well. The usa had a surplus when he left office btw.

Ok.. how the heck is it supposed to be Clinton's fault?!?!?!

Watch the news man, even though they aren't all right.. really, think about it. It's way more linked to been Bush the first faults then Clintons.. come on!! It's as if you are saying the economic problems now are CLinton's fault also.. psshh please!!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Ok.. how the heck is it supposed to be Clinton's fault?!?!?! Watch the news man, even though they aren't all right.. really, think about it. It's way more linked to been Bush the first faults then Clintons.. come on!! It's as if you are saying the economic problems now are CLinton's fault also.. psshh please!!

The economic problems are neither's fault. It's all part of the ebb and flow of the business cycle. The economic depression would have occurred even if the almighty allan greenspan were the president.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The economic problems are neither's fault. It's all part of the ebb and flow of the business cycle. The economic depression would have occurred even if the almighty allan greenspan were the president.

Dude, no one knows, you can't assure and say that it's the flow and stuff. I know that IT could be that, but there was also the chain of events that are leading to this, and WAR is not part of the flow, as well terrorism and corruption, they don't make part of the flow, take those things out (among other things) and the FLOW won't be as you say it is. No economic depression.. we are going deeper now into the depression thanks to war, not the flow.

In great part, thanks to our president now, whom actually hasen't really paid attention to the national problems, that also plays a role. My $2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Dude, no one knows, you can't assure and say that it's the flow and stuff. I know that IT could be that, but there was also the chain of events that are leading to this, and WAR is not part of the flow, as well terrorism and corruption, they don't make part of the flow, take those things out (among other things) and the FLOW won't be as you say it is. No economic depression.. we are going deeper now into the depression thanks to war, not the flow. In great part, thanks to our president now, whom actually hasen't really paid attention to the national problems, that also plays a role. My $2 cents.

Actually I can say for sure that an economic slowdown was coming. I'm going to use the past 80 years of economic data as proof. The theory of the business cycle is an accepted economic principle that will effect any economy no matter how strong it is. Take a look at GDP levels over the past 50 years, you clearly see the state of the economy functioning as a sine wave almost(http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm). Sure there are added effects that can influence the peak or the dip of the wave but that wave is going to happen. As a matter of fact, what we saw in 2001 was bound to happen as a result of the over speculation of the stock market and the IT industry. And actually we aren't even in a state of depression. The current change in GDP is 1.4%.

Clinton was more fun in office because someone was always accusing him of something. So many women, so much fun.

- I should have used "recession" instead of depression.

Yes I know, I just finished studing that economic flow, ripple effect and stuff. But, the effects can vary depending on how they are taken into consideration or handled. Clinton was in office for actually a long time, and yes, plain coincidence that when Bush took office, stock market got scared.. and everything else followed. What I should have said is how this lowdown is been handled. The dip wouldn't been that hard on us, at least it's showing that.

quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance Clinton was more fun in office because someone was always accusing him of something. So many women, so much fun.

See, when Clinton was in office, Republican's ruled the House or was it the Senate!?! if not both.. ( im blank on that now ). They made his presidency a game.. always refusing to his proposals. I mean, checks and balances are good, but when he was on, it was taken to extreme!!

If it's anyone's fault, it's the Bush senior's fault. He had an opportunity where large masses of Iraqis rebelled against Saddam, and he didn't support them at all. So now those forces Bush hoped would be of help are either scared or dead. Besides, Clinton's way of compromise was imo better than the current either with us or against us way. Bush's way has only alienated america from it's allies and multiplied a number of it's enemies. There are already over 4000 conscripts from all around the muslim world in Iraq. Also, there was a poll in the newspaper here yesterday. More than 30% of the people consider Bush to be just as bad as Saddam, about equal number consider Saddam to be worse, while about 15% consider Bush to be worse. Not saying that those people are right or wrong, but a similar situation is in whole of Europe, while in other parts of the world, Bush's position is even more undesireble.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 If it's anyone's fault, it's the Bush senior's fault. He had an opportunity where large masses of Iraqis rebelled against Saddam, and he didn't support them at all. So now those forces Bush hoped would be of help are either scared or dead. Besides, Clinton's way of compromise was imo better than the current either with us or against us way. Bush's way has only alienated america from it's allies and multiplied a number of it's enemies. There are already over 4000 conscripts from all around the muslim world in Iraq. Also, there was a poll in the newspaper here yesterday. More than 30% of the people consider Bush to be just as bad as Saddam, about equal number consider Saddam to be worse, while about 15% consider Bush to be worse. Not saying that those people are right or wrong, but a similar situation is in whole of Europe, while in other parts of the world, Bush's position is even more undesireble.

I'll agree with you on that one ... we should have taken care of business in 1991. I also agree that Clinton would have handled teh diplomacy of this whole mess a whole hell of a lot better. He did a pretty good job of building up a coalition to bomb Serbia. Although I disagree that the stock market got "scared" as a result of Bush coming to office. THe market was already slowing down before Bush was even in office long enough to implement any economic policies. Yes the actions of world events can bumb the business cycle either up or down, I'm just refuting the remarks that Bush is the reason why we're in a state of recession.

tiger woods is 56% thai and rest black

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg tiger woods is 56% thai and rest black

hahaha word

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I disagree that the stock market got "scared" as a result of Bush coming to office. THe market was already slowing down before Bush was even in office long enough to implement any economic policies. Yes the actions of world events can bumb the business cycle either up or down, I'm just refuting the remarks that Bush is the reason why we're in a state of recession.

I don't know if you remember, but I do remember that because of the lack of knowledge of Bush as first time president, and because of the elections of seen Clinton leaving ( whom had the country stable economically ) that began right before the elections the slow down on the stock market, and I remember the comments of why that was the reason and so on. I which to find some info on that, I may place a link or something if I find anything, IM relying here with what I remember hearing back then..remember, majority of people didn't want Bush, which also does have en effect on the stock market believe it or not.

To blame Clinton for Bush's faults are completely stupid. First of all, Clinton is the reason why our economy was strong during the majority of the last decade. Now look at it. Bush has attempted to divert our attention to war and other things that he feels are more important than that which will directly affect most Americans at home. By the way, Bush was rated the worst president of the past 100 years by some news station, with his father immediately above him. Clinton was in the top 4 with JFK, Nixon and Carter I believe. So don't go saying Clinton is the reason for all these problems. If you were to blame anyone its our current administration's own doing.

quote:

Originally posted by EbolaCola To blame Clinton for Bush's faults are completely stupid. First of all, Clinton is the reason why our economy was strong during the majority of the last decade. Now look at it. Bush has attempted to divert our attention to war and other things that he feels are more important than that which will directly affect most Americans at home. By the way, Bush was rated the worst president of the past 100 years by some news station, with his father immediately above him. Clinton was in the top 4 with JFK, Nixon and Carter I believe. So don't go saying Clinton is the reason for all these problems. If you were to blame anyone its our current administration's own doing.

Don't be so quick to associate the state of the country's economy with the president in office at the time. If you think that an economy is shaped by mere fiscal policy alone, nevermind the fact that there's a significant recognition lag, then you're dreaming. Fiscal policy just gently nudges the economy in a particular direction. The reason for the economic upside during Clinton's term was more so the development of computers and the internet boom rather than his economic policies. The reason for the turmoil now is because of the overspeculation of the stock market during Clinton's term (not saying its his fault just that the problem was developing during his term), and the American loss of confidence in business as a result of the corporate scandals. Bush has barely had enough time to implement his economic policy for it to have had a significant impact.

Pardon my rudeness (gets flameshield on), but what economic policy does Bush have exactly? I haven't seen any so far and his term is up next year.

quote:

Originally posted by EbolaCola Pardon my rudeness (gets flameshield on), but what economic policy does Bush have exactly? I haven't seen any so far and his term is up next year.

Most people don't even notice the economic policies of a President unless it's a widely announced policy designed to change the state of the economy (a recession for example). For example, do you remember any significant clinton economic policies? Everybody knows of Bush's economic stimulus package through a tax cut program, and Regean's supply side economics policy though.

Here's one viewpoint on Bush's economic policies:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...44/b3806035.htm

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.