Bush on military intervention during the 2000 debate

Jergen · 09-27-04, 01:03 PM

Over the weekend, I checked out the cspan.org website where they have streaming video of the 2000 debates. In the first debate with Gore, Bush laid out a clear set of conditions where he would use our troops in any military action. Bush said we should only use force if it was in our "vital" national interest. Here were his conditions:

1. If our territory or people were under attack
2. If we had a strong coalition of allies
3. If we had a clear mission
4. If are troops are prepared and trained for a decisive victory.
5. If we have an exit strategy

Bush said he would be guarded in his approach to intervention. He said, "I believe we are overextended in many places" and we should stop extending our troops all over the world. He also said we should not be in business of nation building.

Now let's look at Iraq:

1. Iraq did not attack this country.
2. We have no strong coalition of allies. We are paying for 90% of the costs and have 90% of the troops.
3. Did we have a clear mission? First, we went in for WMDs because we might get nuked by Saddam. Whoops, nevermind...we went in to liberate the people, to protect human rights, women's rights, set up a puppet regime, blah blah blah.
4. Should the troops be considered prepared when families have to buy their kids body armor because the military won't provide the very best equipment?
5. Obviously we have no exit strategy.

His whole "guarded approach" bit was an outright lie. First we were overextended, but now we're not according to Bush. But we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq during the time Bush claimed we were overextended. We are not doing much of a job in terms of nation building in Iraq, so perhaps Bush is consistent on his "no nation building" position. Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that Bush himself is a big time flip flopper.

al_bundy · 09-27-04, 01:07 PM

opinions are like *&%$ everyone has one

mission was to get rid of terrorism. where do you think oil for food money was going?

raven56706 · 09-27-04, 01:07 PM

Wow..... what a way for your first post

Birrman54 · 09-27-04, 01:07 PM

I seem to remember something that happened in 2001 that may have changed his mind.

birrman54

raven56706 · 09-27-04, 01:10 PM

Jergen... tell me.... whats Kerry's approach....... Back in 1997, in an Interview......even without all this talk of WMD...... he said "Iraq is a real threat"....

What do you say then?

it is easier to say after the fact of someone else doing what they say.....

Nazgul · 09-27-04, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Birrman54
I seem to remember something that happened in 2001 that may have changed his mind.

nemein · 09-27-04, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nazgul

Something about a few hijacked airplanes but I can't seem to recall the details off hand

Or were you being serious?

bfrank · 09-27-04, 01:32 PM

Funny how some try and understand why a view could change with one side but not the other.

classicman2 · 09-27-04, 01:41 PM

9/11 had not occurred.

9/11 changed things.

IMO, it was a watershed event.

Tommy Ceez · 09-27-04, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bfrank
Funny how some try and understand why a view could change with one side but not the other.

I believe people are more supportive of changing your views after an earthshattering event as opposed to changing your views every 5 minutes

raven56706 · 09-27-04, 02:07 PM

Well said Tommy Ceez

Tsar Chasm · 09-27-04, 03:11 PM

Saddam Hussein and his army of playing cards piloted planes into large buildings killing many people. At the last moment, Saddam Hussein and his playing card pals used a Secret WMD Enabling Teleportation Device to whisk themselves back to Iraq where they were shoulder deep in their nukuler, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction planning thereby facilitating the 10 year old plan of George Herbert Walker Bush to assist the Iraqis that were opposed to Saddam Hussein during and after the first gulf war only to pull the rugs out from under them assuring that they would be mass slaughtered so badly as to give George Walker Bush plausible backup reasoning for invading a soverign nation that did nothing but (as 42% of the US populace continues to believe, but no.... Americans aren't fucking idiots) destroy the twin towers and crash into the side of the Pentagon killing upwards of 3000 innocent people.

What was the question?

Birrman54 · 09-27-04, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
Saddam Hussein and his army of playing cards piloted planes into large buildings killing many people. At the last moment, Saddam Hussein and his playing card pals used a Secret WMD Enabling Teleportation Device to whisk themselves back to Iraq where they were shoulder deep in their nukuler, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction planning thereby facilitating the 10 year old plan of George Herbert Walker Bush to assist the Iraqis that were opposed to Saddam Hussein during and after the first gulf war only to pull the rugs out from under them assuring that they would be mass slaughtered so badly as to give George Walker Bush plausible backup reasoning for invading a soverign nation that did nothing but (as 42% of the US populace continues to believe, but no.... Americans aren't fucking idiots) destroy the twin towers and crash into the side of the Pentagon killing upwards of 3000 innocent people.

What was the question?

al_bundy · 09-27-04, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
Saddam Hussein and his army of playing cards piloted planes into large buildings killing many people. At the last moment, Saddam Hussein and his playing card pals used a Secret WMD Enabling Teleportation Device to whisk themselves back to Iraq where they were shoulder deep in their nukuler, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction planning thereby facilitating the 10 year old plan of George Herbert Walker Bush to assist the Iraqis that were opposed to Saddam Hussein during and after the first gulf war only to pull the rugs out from under them assuring that they would be mass slaughtered so badly as to give George Walker Bush plausible backup reasoning for invading a soverign nation that did nothing but (as 42% of the US populace continues to believe, but no.... Americans aren't fucking idiots) destroy the twin towers and crash into the side of the Pentagon killing upwards of 3000 innocent people.

What was the question?

i bet it's horrible knowing things that others don't get

Venusian · 09-27-04, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jergen

1. If our territory or people were under attack

...

1. Iraq did not attack this country.

one could argue that our territory (the planes patrolling the no fly zone) and our people (Bush I) were attacked by Iraq.

Jergen · 09-27-04, 07:04 PM

Again, the right-wingers are trying to link 9-11 and Iraq. The 9-11 Commission has already shot this link down. 9-11 was a very good reason to go into Afghanistan, but a very poor reason to go into Iraq.

Jergen · 09-27-04, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raven56706
Jergen... tell me.... whats Kerry's approach....... Back in 1997, in an Interview......even without all this talk of WMD...... he said "Iraq is a real threat"....

What do you say then?

it is easier to say after the fact of someone else doing what they say.....

North Korea is a real threat. Iran is a real threat. Are we going to invade and occupy them anytime soon?

All Kerry was saying back then was we needed to continue being aggressive in the inspections process. I don't think he ever called for an invasion and occupation back in 1997.

Jergen · 09-27-04, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Venusian
one could argue that our territory (the planes patrolling the no fly zone) and our people (Bush I) were attacked by Iraq.

Oh, so that's now the reason we went to war? Great..."this man tried to kill my daddy."

classicman2 · 09-27-04, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jergen
Again, the right-wingers are trying to link 9-11 and Iraq. The 9-11 Commission has already shot this link down. 9-11 was a very good reason to go into Afghanistan, but a very poor reason to go into Iraq.

Your conclusion - whatever the 9/11 commissions says is gospel.

You're a trusting soul.

Jergen · 09-27-04, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by classicman2
Your conclusion - whatever the 9/11 commissions says is gospel.

You're a trusting soul.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that each and every member of the 9-11 Commission and the Commission Staff is an outright liar. Thanks for clearing things up.

bfrank · 09-27-04, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by classicman2
Your conclusion - whatever the 9/11 commissions says is gospel.

You're a trusting soul.

Or we could just continue to disregard the facts to suit our political views

johnglass · 09-27-04, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bfrank
Or we could just continue to disregard the facts to suit our political views

I thought that was required in this forum.

nemein · 09-27-04, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jergen
Again, the right-wingers are trying to link 9-11 and Iraq. The 9-11 Commission has already shot this link down. 9-11 was a very good reason to go into Afghanistan, but a very poor reason to go into Iraq.

It all depends upon what you mean by "link". Did Iraq have have anything directly to w/ 9/11? I don't think anyone here has seriously made that argument in a long time (if ever, I don't recally what people were saying after 9/11 first happened). However if by link you mean we are in Iraq because 9/11 happened, then I think many people would agree that is the case. Whether or not you agree w/ that reasoning is another story.

Snowball · 09-28-04, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jergen
Again, the right-wingers are trying to link 9-11 and Iraq. The 9-11 Commission has already shot this link down. 9-11 was a very good reason to go into Afghanistan, but a very poor reason to go into Iraq.

Just because there may not be a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 doesn't mean we shouldn't be there. I don't believe Bush ever said that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Iraq is a part of the WAR ON TERROR, not a part of "getting revenge" or "attacking those who attacked us" for 9/11.

The whole liberal mindset is that we should only respond after we are attacked. That doesn't prevent the initial attack though. 9/11 changed everything. We need to respond to these threats before its too late. Remember these people are like suicide bombers, responding after the fact does little good.

I think if liberals had their way, we'd have something like this:
Afghanistan attacks us on 9/11
We bomb Afghanistan and go home
Lybia attacks us
We bomb Lybia and go home
Syria attacks us
We bomb Syria and go home
Iraq detonates a nuclear bomb in Chicago
We bomb Iraq and go home
Sudan detonates a nuclear bomb in Washington DC
We bomb Sudan and go home

It would never end...

Snowball · 09-28-04, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jergen
North Korea is a real threat. Iran is a real threat. Are we going to invade and occupy them anytime soon?

North Korea and Iran have not invaded another country. North Korea and Iran have not defied the civilized world (read: "United Nations") for 12+ years by refusing to disarm. The diplomatic process is still going on to try and resolve both North Korea and Iran.

As far as Iraq goes, the international community was growing weary of perpetual sanctions on Iraq. We couldn't keep Saddam in the box we had him in forever. So our choice was either let Saddam crawl out of his box or take him out.

09-27-04, 01:03 PM	#1
Jergen Returning banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 391	Bush on military intervention during the 2000 debate Over the weekend, I checked out the cspan.org website where they have streaming video of the 2000 debates. In the first debate with Gore, Bush laid out a clear set of conditions where he would use our troops in any military action. Bush said we should only use force if it was in our "vital" national interest. Here were his conditions: 1. If our territory or people were under attack 2. If we had a strong coalition of allies 3. If we had a clear mission 4. If are troops are prepared and trained for a decisive victory. 5. If we have an exit strategy Bush said he would be guarded in his approach to intervention. He said, "I believe we are overextended in many places" and we should stop extending our troops all over the world. He also said we should not be in business of nation building. Now let's look at Iraq: 1. Iraq did not attack this country. 2. We have no strong coalition of allies. We are paying for 90% of the costs and have 90% of the troops. 3. Did we have a clear mission? First, we went in for WMDs because we might get nuked by Saddam. Whoops, nevermind...we went in to liberate the people, to protect human rights, women's rights, set up a puppet regime, blah blah blah. 4. Should the troops be considered prepared when families have to buy their kids body armor because the military won't provide the very best equipment? 5. Obviously we have no exit strategy. His whole "guarded approach" bit was an outright lie. First we were overextended, but now we're not according to Bush. But we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq during the time Bush claimed we were overextended. We are not doing much of a job in terms of nation building in Iraq, so perhaps Bush is consistent on his "no nation building" position. Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that Bush himself is a big time flip flopper.

09-27-04, 01:07 PM	#3
raven56706 DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Back in the Good Ole USA Posts: 18,835	Wow..... what a way for your first post __________________ There is a master key and a spare key for the office. Dwight has them both. When I asked, "what if you die, Dwight? How will we get into the office?" He said, "if I'm dead, you guys have been dead for weeks."

09-27-04, 01:10 PM	#5
raven56706 DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Back in the Good Ole USA Posts: 18,835	Jergen... tell me.... whats Kerry's approach....... Back in 1997, in an Interview......even without all this talk of WMD...... he said "Iraq is a real threat".... What do you say then? it is easier to say after the fact of someone else doing what they say..... __________________ There is a master key and a spare key for the office. Dwight has them both. When I asked, "what if you die, Dwight? How will we get into the office?" He said, "if I'm dead, you guys have been dead for weeks."

09-27-04, 01:32 PM	#8
bfrank Premium Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: So. Cal Posts: 20,613	Funny how some try and understand why a view could change with one side but not the other. __________________ B Be good humans!

09-27-04, 02:07 PM	#11
raven56706 DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Back in the Good Ole USA Posts: 18,835	Well said Tommy Ceez __________________ There is a master key and a spare key for the office. Dwight has them both. When I asked, "what if you die, Dwight? How will we get into the office?" He said, "if I'm dead, you guys have been dead for weeks."

09-27-04, 01:07 PM	#2
al_bundy DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: in da cloud Posts: 26,196	opinions are like *&%$ everyone has one mission was to get rid of terrorism. where do you think oil for food money was going?

09-27-04, 01:07 PM	#4
Birrman54 DVD Talk Platinum Edition Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Hoboken, NJ Posts: 3,067	I seem to remember something that happened in 2001 that may have changed his mind. birrman54

09-27-04, 01:41 PM	#9
classicman2 DVD Talk God Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 66,868	9/11 had not occurred. 9/11 changed things. IMO, it was a watershed event.

09-27-04, 03:11 PM	#12
Tsar Chasm DVD Talk Hall of Fame Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: PDX Metro Posts: 8,951	Saddam Hussein and his army of playing cards piloted planes into large buildings killing many people. At the last moment, Saddam Hussein and his playing card pals used a Secret WMD Enabling Teleportation Device to whisk themselves back to Iraq where they were shoulder deep in their nukuler, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction planning thereby facilitating the 10 year old plan of George Herbert Walker Bush to assist the Iraqis that were opposed to Saddam Hussein during and after the first gulf war only to pull the rugs out from under them assuring that they would be mass slaughtered so badly as to give George Walker Bush plausible backup reasoning for invading a soverign nation that did nothing but (as 42% of the US populace continues to believe, but no.... Americans aren't fucking idiots) destroy the twin towers and crash into the side of the Pentagon killing upwards of 3000 innocent people. What was the question?

09-27-04, 07:04 PM	#16
Jergen Returning banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 391	Again, the right-wingers are trying to link 9-11 and Iraq. The 9-11 Commission has already shot this link down. 9-11 was a very good reason to go into Afghanistan, but a very poor reason to go into Iraq.