Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
White House Wanted 2002 Iraq War Resolution to Cover Entire Middle East
thinkprogress.org — In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East -- not just in Iraq -- in the fall of 2002.
Payson- 880 diggs
- digg it
- virushead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50Thanks for unearthing this. It shouldn't be in GQ - it should be on the front page.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27If anything, this shows that the administration not only wanted to, but still has intentions of starting military campaigns against other MidEast nations. Pauvre Iran.
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18can you imagine the ***** we'd be in if Bush had not only invaded Iraq but also Iran and Syria and who knows where else? Well I guess it wont be long before we find out.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38And he could of done it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Chuck Hagel tells it like it is again. He's awesome. Here his in action only a few days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cwQYx9hDU
- michaelblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Anybody else notice the "begrudgingly" at the start of the quote? Did Bush plan to invade Iraq and whoever else with no approval from anyone (apart from our Lord and Savior of course)...?!?!
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@saikhan,gardenrt1
No, it just shows he was trying to give his Generals as much latitude as possible. Maybe he just wanted his generals to be able to fight the war as they saw fit?
I'm not a military strategist, so I can't say whether this is right or wrong. It may have started WWIII and it may have greatly reduced the influence of other countries in Iraq. We can only postulate now. Also, what good does it do to bring it up now? Bush asked, Congress said no. Feel glad that the separation of powers did its job. - Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I try so hard to be civil and gracious and not say that I hate my president but what the hell? I wouldn't trust him to protect a tool shed let alone my country or, even worse, uphold the virtues of my country. By far one of the most incompetent, immoral, closed minded, and arrogant persons I have ever known. He has set us back decades in terms of our security and our values and has helped enhance the chaotic environment of the middle east to breed terrorism through despair.
Shame on congress for having no spine. The moment this proposition passed someones desk it should have been national news, shamed, and called into question his entire strategy for the middle east. - docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2If this is true, then why isn't it EVERYWHERE?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"I'm not a military strategist, so I can't say whether this is right or wrong. It may have started WWIII and it may have greatly reduced the influence of other countries in Iraq. We can only postulate now. Also, what good does it do to bring it up now? Bush asked, Congress said no. Feel glad that the separation of powers did its job."
I think its funny that a lot of people on Digg think they actually know MORE than the president's advisers and sometimes the whole congress. I'm glad you're able to tell the truth on what you know and what you don't know. Most of the comments on here are pure speculation.
On another note. Its good to see that the liberal left wing media site (ThinkProgress) has finally resorted to advertising on a popular community site (Digg). Free advertising, why the hell not!! Especially since its slanted news to a younger more impressionable generation. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Maybe he just wanted his generals to be able to fight the war as they saw fit?"
Don't get out much? His generals now say escalating the war will be a bad idea, and he yanked them so fast they got jet lag. Bush does what he wants to do, and only belatedly looks for excuses to hoodwink others. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@thcobbs
It's worth bringing up because our president is an insane and dangerous criminal. You might recall that the use-of-force resolution was to get inspectors back into Iraq.
Did the U.N. ASK to get their inspectors back in?
Did they go in?
Of course not, because there were no WMDs!
The whole thing was a lie and a criminal act from the beginning.
- SpudgeBoy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41This is the most important story that the "liberal" media isn't covering.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Shhh! You'll break the fragile walls some people around here have built around their brains!
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fragile? Those walls couldn't be penetrated by a bunker buster nuke!
- eekjedi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23When I saw this, my reaction was this:
0_0
>_<
0_0
...
...
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!
(congress [read: ALL of congress] needs to get their act together and do their part in system of checks and balances)- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They did. They denied it.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30The real question is, why did it take five years for this story to surface
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -38/+6No the real question is why congress didn't approve it. We were attacked by people who would hide themselves within regimes that "secretly" fund terrorist organizations with huge sums of oil money.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@data
You mean like Saudi Arabia? - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Maybe because it's a non issue?
The president asked; he was told no; end of story.
It's like the old saying goes... if you don't ask, you're surely not going to get it. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2After the State of the Union address and the other one to suppor the "surge", it's obvious that the prez is looking to start another fight. It wasn't really news then, but it is very much news now. The prez keeps insisting he can start wars whenever US troops or interests are "threatened". This proves that even the 2002 Congress that Bush touts as being so agreeable to his policies wasn't giving him a "blank check" to start wars whereever he wants.
That's HUGE news now when he's basically pre-announced attacking somebody else. He DOESN'T... nay NEVER had blanket permission to "chase terrorists"... I got money on impeachement papers being drawn up secretly as we read this! - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes. Just like Saudi Arabia. Almost exclusively so...
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Think of what they'll dig up once the current administration is out of power.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Maybe that they were stuck in an impossible situation and did the best they could?
Maybe that they caused the impossible situation and really got inventive with ways of screwing themselves?
Maybe it doesn't ***** MATTER and we'll find out in 20 years. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Each and every story I hear about the admin makes me more angry. This morning as I was reading this, I was overcome with frustration until I remembered that I am a bit younger than Bush and Cheney and in much better health. I realized that I will have the opportunity to one day buy a couple of plane tickets, fly to each of their places of rest, and hawk a big ol' luggey on their headstones. And I grinned once again with anticipation.
- Hush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Generalfault, I'd imagine that's the only recourse you have with getting even with anyone.
waiting till they're dead....
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Maybe that they were stuck in an impossible situation and did the best they could?
- alecpriester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Board members include Cheney and Jeb Bush, and in the 90 some page report they say "a catalyzing and destructive event, such as another pearl harbor, would greatly speed up our agenda"
If you read the site you will be shocked- hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Don't forget Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Steve Forbes.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
And here is the report:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22Pearl%20Harbor%20site%3Anewamericancentury.org%22 - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5im looking at the site. can you help me locate exactly which report that is in. i would like to do a blog about it
edit: thanks for that link Hode. that is truly unbelievable. these people are very sick - Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11FYI, the 90 page report, entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Not trying to side with this garbage, but to be fair the context was a little more benign:
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - hode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@Phearce Allow me to translate.
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies."
Changing the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense is going to piss off the american people and our allies. Therefore...
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Nobody is going to buy this ***** unless we are attacked and it makes the news.
(This was written in September 2000) - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's taken most of a decade for anyone but we few internetistas to cover the Project for the New American Century. It was right there, in PDF form, for anyone to read. They weren't exactly hiding the Big Plan. The reorg of media really has taken its toll.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Phearse
If you are wondering why Saudis who have no connection to Iraq did 9/11...
Why Israelis danced about it...
And why Bush doesn't care where Osama is....
...just read that sentence about a "new Pearl Harbor" as part of the task list, not just idle speculation. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I said this from day 1 when the first Patriot act was pushed thru. While I don't buy into the conspiricy that they had anything to do with 9/11, it's sites like this that show clearly very sick people were planning to make thier move for power when the American people were the most vaulnerable. I find that so many in people planned to royaly screw us when their leadership was needed to be the biggest crime of 9/11. One day it will catch up with them and hopefully there'll still be a country left to hang them.
- hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Don't forget Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Steve Forbes.
- jdenzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Isn't that the plan of the 'New World Order'
- psyops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Isn't that the plan of the 'New World Order'"
see GB sr.'s speech on 9/11/1991 - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm
"... we must foster economic development for the sake of peace and progress. The Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region rich in natural resources with a wealth of untapped human potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be redirected to more peaceful ends. We are already addressing the immediate economic consequences of Iraq’s aggression. Now the challenge is to reach higher – to foster economic freedom and prosperity for all people of the region."
If that works, I'm all for it. So far, it hasn't. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@anonydigg
Quite so. You get fools who think opposition to the GWOT is "anti-Israel." Bah! It's anti-waste-trillions on ***** that ain't working.
- psyops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Isn't that the plan of the 'New World Order'"
- gregthebunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6oooooh, so that's what the additional 20k+ troops are for.
- PhilipMarlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Incredible.This presidency is like Alice in Wonderland: the further you go down, the crazier it gets. I'm actually sort of nostalgic for Monica Lewinsky at this point.
- michaelblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh, total Amen on that one!
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2First....
Lewinski: EWWWW
Secondly, I lost a little faith in the office of president when Clinton got up, wagged his finger at America, and knowingly lied to the nation as a whole. And this was followed up directly by him lying under oath. - CrankyPants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly! That story had a happy ending.
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5thcobbs Then this administration must make you a political atheist.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apparently he does not mind being lied to by people he agrees with...
- Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@thcobbs:
Why is it that every time some conversation about Bush comes up people pull out the "well Clinton lied!!!!" argument?
The guy got a blowjob. Give me a break. Yes he lied about it. So would I, and any other man I know. (and have you SEEN his wife? Of course he accepted the "service" he was offered.)
Guess what Presidents LIE! Nixon lied (watergate), Regan lied (Iran/Contra, hell he IGNORED Congress too), FDR lied ("we will NOT get involved in this war" (to the American people all the while telling the Brits "Yes, we are coming, I just have to find a way".). They ALL lie, the only one I can think of that didn't was Carter, and while he's a good, honest man, he was a horrid president.
If lying about a little head caused you to "lose faith in the office" I'd suggest you read a few history books and stop worrying about others sex lives. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@cronus
So, you're saying it's ok to LIE in a court of law.... as long as it's about sex? - bobthebruce123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ cobbs
So, you're saying it's okay to question someone about their sex life in a court of law in the first place? I'd like to see how you reacted to such a situation...
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8All part and parcel of the grand neocon plan -- we would topple Iraq, then go for Iran, Syria, and anywhere else they felt was in America's best interest. The amazing thing is that these guys still have any credibility whatsoever.
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only a bunch of chickenhawks could be such warmongers.
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/
People who have seen their friends dying in war are less enthusiastic about war.
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only a bunch of chickenhawks could be such warmongers.
- bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2
Why, then, didn't the New York Times report this. Hagel is full of it.
F-it. Let's send Iran the nuclear materials they need. While we're at it, let's send Syria them, too. You'd all like to think that they'll do nothing but simply sit on them, but read what they've said - they're willing to kill millions.
They will.
Would any of you stop them? No, because you see your political ideology as more important than the survival of your country and the ideals it projects throughout the world.
If you think Freedom of Speech is supposedly being threatened, wait until the world swells with Islamic Theocracies.- hode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"If you think Freedom of Speech is supposedly being threatened, wait until the world swells with Islamic Theocracies."
Now there is a solution! Surrender our liberties before someone else takes them.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if another country decided they want to be governed by a poodle in a tutu. It is non of our damn business. And your fear mongering isn't going to change that. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Why, then, didn't the New York Times report this"
They're good, but they're not friggin Superman. I think the Times is probably the most consistent, reliable international news source in the country, but I don't expect them to magically get every interview a statesman makes.
Your faith in them, perhaps, transcends the reality of a cash-strapped diminishing fourth estate. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@Kremvax
yep...all those plagiarized stories really make me feel good about their reporting capabilities. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We could send Iran all of the nuclear materials it needs for NUCLEAR POWER, but NOOOOOO that would make too much sense.
We could even do it for free, and avert the war with them that this admin wants extremely badly and it would still be cheaper. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@CraigB12
Umm, we tried. They wanted NOTHING to do with it!
They don't want ANY inspections of their plants.
They kept the program hidden for years untill they had reached the enrichment phase.
They insist it's only for peaceful means.
The export more fuel than they use, and it would cost more to power their country with Nuclear plants than with oil.
They want to do their own enrichment on an industrial scale.
Oh, and they call us the Great Satan and have vowed to wipe Israel off the map.
Sounds good to me.
- hode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"If you think Freedom of Speech is supposedly being threatened, wait until the world swells with Islamic Theocracies."
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3As much as I wish this story was on the front page of every newspaper, and that we were in the middle of some grand impeachment of Bush and Cheney -- there's a tidbit about Hagel's comment that he's leaving out: Bush asked Congress for the right to pursue forces across national lines in the Middle East because of the nature of the forces they were fighting early in the conflict. This was actually a reasonable request given that most of the Iraqi power structure fled to Syria (where they live today in fabulous wealth), and armed forces were constantly escaping from American troops by ducking across the Iraqi/Syrian (and Pakistan/Afghan) border.
Hagel is framing this "j'accuse" in 2007 terms when we're all worried about Iran, but that's really because Hagel wants to be president and he's drawing bold lines between himself and the current administration.- tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Given how much the Bush administration has tried to claim the AUMF allows them to do, e.g. Hamdam vs Rumsfeld, do you think your view of "reasonable" is well founded? The current Executive has a "give us an inch, we'll take a mile" view toward Congress.
Also, as someone who has been reading the PNAC material for some time, I think the "neocons want to rule the [mideast]" statement might be a nice simplifications of their more complicated plans. - djcgmcse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This was actually a reasonable request..."
Reasonable Request??? How can allowing our soldiers to chase enemies through all countries surrounding Iraq be reasonable. Don't you think those countries might be a little upset if "America's War" is being fought on their land? I understand that the enemy uses these crossover tactics to gain an advantage, but it still doesn't allow us to do as we will. If we crossover, then we might as well be declaring war on these countries too. And they just might see it that way. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@tpodr
Would you preffer that our military has to get EVERY action approved by Congress??? Who, by the way, don't have a say on how troops are deployed...
My father-in-law said it best 2 years ago. "This is going to end just like Vietnam. Politicians are trying to be Generals and direct war based on political correctness. Eventually, the war is going to go on long enough that the people won't want to stay in it and we'll withdraw just like in Vietnam."
And the funny part, this is exactly the strategy that our enemies are counting on. "Break the will of the American people." Honestly, we are soft and easily manipulated. Why go up against the military when all they have to do is cause trouble and we will quit? They can then point to their great victory to recruit INCREDIBLE numbers of "believers" and come after us. Welcome to the new generation of mollified Americans who would rather talk about what imaginary thing we did to these people than kill the enemies that seek to kill us. - hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@thcobbs
Golly, that is too bad we didn't stay the course and win in Vietnam. Imagine the possibilities: The Berlin Wall might have come down, the Soviet Union might have collapsed, we might have had prosperity and a balanced budget in the nineties. If only... - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@thcobbs: Your father-in-law might want to look a little further back than two years. He might want to remember when Bush and the republicans told everyone to shut up and let them "defend freedom" or whatever by removing Saddam without having any clue about possible aftermath or even keeping the peace. Hell, they seemed to get their post-war ideas from "Return of the Jedi," expecting toppling statues and dancing Ewoks.
Not to mention which party has run every branch of government for the last 6 years. This pooch was screwed long before even members of the GOP realized the idiocy they'd let loose. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"And they just might see it that way." MIGHT? There is no doubt that they would see it that way. You are spot on man.
- tableau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's pretty lame that this comment is getting dug down -- when it's a rather benign observation that if you take Hagel's supposed news in context it's not particularly controversial.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Hode
a few hundred thousand Vietnamese who were massacred when we left might disagree. - caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a nice theory, except that this resolution was drafted before the invasion. At the time, the administration was so certain the war would end with the routing of the standing Iraqi military that they made no serious plans for what to do afterward and shunted aside anyone who tried. They simply refused to believe that there would be an insurgency, guerilla war, or anything other than tickertape parades and oil industry bake sales to pay for cleanup.
Furthermore, it is clear from Hagel's comments that the administration didn't want to get a Congressional authorization of force to begin with-- probably because of their preoccupation with expanding (sorry, "restoring") executive power-- and when they "finally, begrudgingly" did, they just asked for Congress to give the President carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in the Middle East. In retrospect, I'm amazed that the Congress we had at the time didn't just completely abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities and give it to him. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@popothebright
There is another part you are leaving out: Use of force was for getting inspectors back into Iraq.
Did the inspectors ASK for the use of force?
Did they go back in to look for those non-existent WMDs?
Bush started the war illegally, and should be put on trial in an international forum for that crime.
- tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Given how much the Bush administration has tried to claim the AUMF allows them to do, e.g. Hamdam vs Rumsfeld, do you think your view of "reasonable" is well founded? The current Executive has a "give us an inch, we'll take a mile" view toward Congress.
- fujiyama17, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4our government is so friggen corrupt right now... wire tapping... anything they can possibly do for gratification towards themselves....
Sick.. I can't wait till 2006.- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You can't wait until last year?
- futureb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4he isn't who he would be if he wasn't who he is
- portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Funny how all of these people can just say they "Regret their vote" and they are given a free pass. If Bush came out and said that he wouldn't be treated the same.
You can't play both sides of the fence but wow they can sure do it and people suck it up.- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can as a Democrat.
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Funny how all of these people can just say they "Regret their vote" and they are given a free pass."
I wish we could stick Bush voters with the tab for the budget deficit and Iraq war. Take it out of their hide instead of all of us suffering for their lack of clarity in the voting booth.
If were up to me everyone who voted for Bush, and their family, would be in the draft lottery. You voted for the guy behind all this, you get to clean up his mess and pay his tab. And Karl Rove would be manning a machine gun in a Humvee driven by Paul Wolfowitz. Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera and Brit Hume would be in the next vehicle. Let's see how mouthy those pussies are after a leisurely drive around Baghdad.
But that's one of the wonders of Democracy. We all suffer for the stupidity of the 52% of votes counted by Diebold machines. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, cause everyone who voted for bush and says they regret it don't catch ANY flack here on digg..
Oh, and O'Reilly did go to Baghdad and meet the troops and see how they did their job. He even apparently turned down a chance to sit in Saddam's old throne. - fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1O'Reilly went to the Green Zone... a walled (numerous armed checkpoints, coils of razor wire, chain link fences, and surrounded by "T-Walls" (reinforced and blast-proof concrete slabs)) little America in Baghdad. This is also the location of Hussein's former palaces and complexes.
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society.....
- EsmeTrue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I know I don't have the ability to do it, but it would be funny to see someone take the State of the Union address, and put the Imperial music in when Bush walks to the podium.
Added bonus - add Darth Vader breathing to any pauses.
- EsmeTrue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I know I don't have the ability to do it, but it would be funny to see someone take the State of the Union address, and put the Imperial music in when Bush walks to the podium.
- qcfb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I hate Bush so much, but popothebright is totally right. The Bush Administration was taking a lesson from the Vietnam War. Guerrilla forces do not care about national boundaries and will use these against a larger enemy to limit their mobility. Of course, it is still an unreasonable request. Sending our army into Iran and Syria would stir up a hornets nest. Point is: this is a lot more complicated than "neocons want to rule the world."
- elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1
wrong place - elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gcfb
"..Sending our army into Iran and Syria would stir up a hornets nest..."
If by hornets nest, you mean World War III, then yes indeed. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2According to Bush, we were not going to be fighting gurrellas in Iraq, just the Iraqi army, which we defeated and disbanded. So there was no reason to ask congress for that authority unless we went to Iraq for other reasons than what we were told?...
- elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1
- paulbjensen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6A friend of mine strongly believed that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq in order to destabilise the whole region. This story seems to suggest that it wasn't that crazy a thought.
popothebright did make a good point, but here's the thing, Pakistan allied with the US during the war on terror, whereas Afghanistan did not, and hence the invasion of Afghanistan, which if I remember correctly was about getting Osama Bin Laden.
Now, with Iraq, if there was the same level of priority to catching the Iraqi regime when they fled the country, then why didn't the US make the same proposition to Syria as they did to Pakistan. I won't even mention Iran, international relations between them and the US is so bad the Swiss embassy is closest Iran will ever get to a US embassy in Tehran.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind readers that the CIA disbanded a unit who were tracking down Osama Bin Laden last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088
no wonder why so many people around the world are sceptical about US foreign policy... - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's a shame they didn't get it.
- skoles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think I read about this back in Middle School. What was it called.....oh, The Crusades??
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Except we're TRYING to leave Iraq with a Government of their own chosen by the Iraqi people.
We aren't trying to take over all of the middle east and subjugate/convert everyone to Christianity. Although, if the Wahabists have their way, anyone who doesn't convert to Islam will be killed. As you must first show the "mercy" of allowing your enemy to convert. - skoles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Replace Christianity with Democracy and Western Culture and it's just as bad.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What part of western culture are we trying to push? Choice of who governs you??
How is that just as bad as the Crusades? Please, enlighten me!
And if you utter the phrase "values are relative" you'll just show what a moron you are. Go read some philosophical books by Kahnt, Nietchze, etc.
Yes, I probably spelled those wrong.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Except we're TRYING to leave Iraq with a Government of their own chosen by the Iraqi people.
- RadicalPathways, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, directly regarding the need for a catalyzing event ala Pearl Harbor in order to overhaul our military defenses --read: exploiting a tragedy in order to put the defenses on high level of steroids-- the desire to implement this type of strategy is far from new.
In fact an "independent" company headed by Wolfowitz, sent a large document to Bill Clinton during his tenure in the ninety's pleading with him to do the same. It was rightfully dubbed the Wolfowitz doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
Don't be fooled into thinking that the currently problems we are facing are only the direct result of the Bush administration. They certainly have been able to enact a lot of the ideas the neocons have been building in the past few decades, but the type of thinking involved with this malarkey goes back one hundred years.- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2OK, digg spends all day talking about who ***** dumb Bush is.....
And now he's supposed to be a member of a secret cabal that is engineering a New World Order and doing it all with the utmost secrecy.
Come on people... Make up your ***** MIND. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A PART of the cabal--not the mastermind. And, no, it's not secret.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3TCobbs,
A person does not need to be bright to be ambitious or evil. In fact it is because Bush is such a fool that the PNAC has become so visible.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2OK, digg spends all day talking about who ***** dumb Bush is.....
- asmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interview at style.com. Only partial unless you've got a login, but contains the mentioned quote
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326 - atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah i don't think so. Buried for inaccuracy...
- tableau, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That would have made more sense when you consider US troops are restricted by physical boundaries insurgents/terrorists/Iran are not. I realise Digg is Bush-hating land, but this goes way beyond that -- similar, though seemingly smaller-scale, problems existed during the Clinton years in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. So any declaration of war probably should have been broader than Iraq (or afghanistan for that matter) because the fight unfortunately really does span huges swaths of the earth. That's pretty much the predicament, isn't it?
The West is fighting against a movement, and I guess the strategy for Iraq was/is to establish a better, more equitable state where secularism and moderation prevails, and for that to be a sort of example. I credit Bush for making this goal public, but condemn him for empasizing lesser concerns (i.e. WMD) as the primary reasons for going to war. It's really a fight for modernity and open, representative societies against theocracy.
It's a little like the Cold War when the US attempted to counter the USSR in countries all over the earth. Only occasionally did this mean overt military action (which was usually not successful for either side). It took a huge, almost endlessly faceted effort and the military component was a leading but not sole factor in the outcome.
It follows that the US and the Western world needs people of all stripes too at least agree on the current state of affairs and a general concensus on how to counter it. But we're not at that point, as evidenced by the fact that "White House Wanted 2002 Iraq War Resolution to Cover Entire Middle East" is considered by some to be some kind of revelation. - LloydDobbler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In response to all this discussion of 'catastrophic, world-changing events' like Pearl Harbor by some (RadicalPathways, & others too far back up the page for me to take time to croll & find them), I think we all would do well to remember something:
The day December 7, 1941 lives in infamy not only because we were attacked...but because we were attacked by a known enemy, whom Congress & the President (FDR) had done nothing to deter. We knew the threat was there...in fact, there were warnings that the attack might come...and yet we did nothing. We masked all of these facts with outrage at the act of the attack, and never got around to assigning blame.
Some might say one can draw parallels to our behavior towards al Quaeda & the radical Islamic world under the Clinton administration, pre-September 11th. Some may take it even further back, to Bush-41 not going all the way to Baghdad and deterring Saddam Hussein back in the original gulf war. Some (myself included) may say the act of September 11th was unjustified, no matter how many "would have, could have, should have" scenarios you go through, because people like that (I shudder to even call these terrorists "people", but there's no way I can describe how low on the totem pole of life they are) set out to do an evil deed, and convince themselves of their worthiness.
(And before some radical-types take issue with my calling these murderers 'evil,' before you try and draw moral comparisons between them and the US troops, I'll point this out - at the very least, the US and its allies are going to great lengths to avoid killing civilians while achieving their objectives. Those particular terrorists, on the other hand, don't care if you've raised arms against them - their only intent is to kill those who are unlike them. Still don't believe that? Ask Daniel Pearl.)
Back to Pearl Harbor, though, has it not crossed anyone's minds that perhaps the reason so many Congresspeople, Left and Right included, authorized the war was to avoid another 'day of infamy' from an enemy that all our intelligence told us was there? Has it not occurred to you that war never goes as planned? War doesn't confine itself to state lines anymore. We don't line up on a battlefield and march at the other armies. It's not pretty. That's the reason for the request for more troops. And if you can't see that grim reality, seems to me that you're living in fairyland - covering your eyes and ears, thinking that, "if I wish it away, it won't be real."- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, you don't understand.
We did things to them in the past. That's why they hate us. We can go negotiate with the insurgents and everything will be fine.
You'll see. - RadicalPathways, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Funny, I was never implying that one needs to make direct contrast/compare analyzation of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Although a great many were ready to take additional information as simply Bush-bashing.
The Wolfowitz doctrine itself, the version sent to the Clinton administration, in fact stated within the document that in order to enact their proposals there was in need of an event similar to Pearl Harbor in order to sway public opinion to accept the radical changes the document purposed.
Again, it --that being the Wolfowitz doctrine-- directly stated that a catastrophic, world-changing event, ( I.E. Pearl Harbor ) was needed in order to proceed with the recommendations.
That's not my words or contrasting and comparing, that's theirs.
When 9/11 happened the Wolfowitz doctrine was minorly edited and became the Bush doctrine.
I was simply pointing out that the theories and philosophies of the current leaders of the U.S. extend much further back than W. Again history points towards little over a hundred years of this particular philosophical incubation. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Still don't believe that? Ask Daniel Pearl."
President (Musharraf) dubs alleged Pearl killer MI6 spy:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=110171&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23
Journalist Pearl Was Also An Israeli Citizen Says Israeli Media:
http://www.rense.com/general20/iscit.htm
"The Terrorists said clearly from day one that Mr. Pearl was a Mossad agent. Our 'news' media did not report it, the Arab news media, did."
The situation is always more complex than the emotional pleas of the mainstream media would have you believe. In this case, even more so.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, you don't understand.
- Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Let me get this straight...haven't all the people saying that IRAQ had nothing to do with Terrorism been saying that IRAN is the greater evil? Pointing out that the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? Stomping their feet about the Egypt connection?
Soooooo shouldn't a war resolution been open to action in those countries where all the "go after the terrorists where they are" said they were? The countries that were more of a threat?
Naw.....why would THAT make any sense....- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yah sure, we want another war (GWWIII) started by an incompetent leader at a time when a draft would be guaranteed due to the strain of another failed war on our military.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yah sure, we want another war (GWWIII) started by an incompetent leader at a time when a draft would be guaranteed due to the strain of another failed war on our military.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What do middle east countries have that Bush and friends want?
1. Oil?
2. Land?
Fellow Americans, impeach Bush. As stated in the U.S. Constitution:
"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1 - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We've been lied to, lost our liberties, seen laws pass secretly, sacrificed our friends and loved ones, etc. Do we want to put up with this for another 2 years? Is this not treason and high crimes?
- ironpirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Way too many liberals on digg. Taking away my freedom, oil, war criminal.....bs. Same old dance and song.
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If we're "liberals" then 70% of the country is too because they agree with everything being said here.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sucks to hear the truth over and over again doesn't it?
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Liberals?"
I'm only a "liberal" in that I want more liberty. Do you see ANYONE on Digg arguing for, say, expanded government? Hell I can't find any Republicans anymore that think the war is still a good idea, and I go to Republican fund raising events.
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I can't wait until the investigative reporters from GQ magazine show us the resolution, which should be easy enough to find since it is a public record. I'll be waiting, but I won't hold my breath.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by