A Proper President
What would a real President do in the situation that the US faced after 911?
Remember the Cuban Missle crisis? The US faced REAL WMDs and the means to deliver them 90 miles away in Cuba. JFK got those WMDs and missles out in short order with a loss of life of less than 10. And he did this while Cuba had the support of a "World Power".
The current appointed self proclaimed "War President" in a similar situation would probably ... Well your guess is as good as mine.
The point of this post is that the president must be sharp, smart and strong. The current President is lucky that there is no other world power to obstruct and interfere in Iraq.
A strong President can get the US out of a lot of trouble, a GWB type can get a lot of soldiers killed and not solve the problem.
Remember the Cuban Missle crisis? The US faced REAL WMDs and the means to deliver them 90 miles away in Cuba. JFK got those WMDs and missles out in short order with a loss of life of less than 10. And he did this while Cuba had the support of a "World Power".
The current appointed self proclaimed "War President" in a similar situation would probably ... Well your guess is as good as mine.
The point of this post is that the president must be sharp, smart and strong. The current President is lucky that there is no other world power to obstruct and interfere in Iraq.
A strong President can get the US out of a lot of trouble, a GWB type can get a lot of soldiers killed and not solve the problem.
Comments
Of course, we were all duped, so it's pretty irrelevant.
Originally posted by iSushi
In all fairness, this is not merely the same world as it was in 1962. We had nothing to offer Saddam Hussein like we did Khrushchev. The Bush administration could not offer conclusive proof like that of JFK. Operating under the mindset that Saddam Hussein possessed significant amounts of WMD, it was the only course of action.
Of course, we were all duped, so it's pretty irrelevant.
it's a shame the administration had no conclusive proof.
Originally posted by iSushi
The Bush administration could not offer conclusive proof like that of JFK.
What relevance is 1962 to 2002 to this? If anything, I would think we would have more conclusive evidence. But there was none. The president allowed himself to see what he wanted to see, to hear what he wanted to hear. He is not a natural leader.
Originally posted by iSushi
The difference was that you can tell what a giant nuclear missle is from a bird's eye view and can't see what's in a building from a bird's eye view.
you are full of it, did you listen to colin powell at the U.N.?
there were no "maybes", no " were not sures",
it was all conclusive, according to the secretary of state.
I don't think so... the analogy doesn't work...
The point is that intelligence can be inaccurate. Even if the Iraqis possessed significant amounts of WMDs, they didn't let photographers near it. While what Stevenson presented at the UN was incontrovertible and indisputable, what Colin Powell presented depended on you trusting CIA intelligence in the first place--thus why it had little diplomatic/political significance.
Originally posted by ROFF
A strong President can get the US out of a lot of trouble, a GWB type can get a lot of soldiers killed and not solve the problem.
Or make the problem worse.
Originally posted by ROFF
What would a real President do in the situation that the US faced after 911?
Remember the Cuban Missle crisis? The US faced REAL WMDs and the means to deliver them 90 miles away in Cuba. JFK got those WMDs and missles out in short order with a loss of life of less than 10. And he did this while Cuba had the support of a "World Power".
The current appointed self proclaimed "War President" in a similar situation would probably ... Well your guess is as good as mine.
The point of this post is that the president must be sharp, smart and strong. The current President is lucky that there is no other world power to obstruct and interfere in Iraq.
A strong President can get the US out of a lot of trouble, a GWB type can get a lot of soldiers killed and not solve the problem.
Kennedy's handling of the cuban missle crisis was a near disaster. The only reason he's considered a hero for it is that we miraculously avoided nuclear war. It was Kruschev that backed down and averted war. Kennedy was behind the Bay of Pigs disaster and escalated the US presence in Vietnam. Militarily, he was a nightmare. Don't tell that to a liberal though.
I just love threads that begin with "what would a real President have done". More importantly, what would you have done? It's obvious you disagree with the Iraq War, but what did Bush do immediately after 9/11 that you disagree with? Should we not have invaded Afghanistan? Or is it the evil Patriot Act you oppose?
People like you have no real soutions or answers. If one is unahppy with the President's actions, one must propose a better solution. Debating ideas is fine. Disagreeing with policy is fine. I for one cannot take people like you seriously, with all due respect. Propose some better ideas that don't start with "The Bush Administration.....". Then you'll have my attention.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Kennedy was behind the Bay of Pigs disaster.
Wrong. Very very wrong. Don't know mid-century history do you? Not a big surprise...
Bay of Pigs was planned during the Eisenhower administration. It was one of the first things that Kennedy signed off on, but it wasn't his plan, and he was basically told that there was no other option. It would have happened even if he had lost to Nixon.
As far as getting us involved in Vietnam, yeah, he is responsible for that, and so is Johnson, and Nixon. The cold war was not an easy time for american policies. Knowing what we know about the soviet's perception of US aggression in mid-century, there is basically no way the Soviet's would have launched those missiles preemptively. Kennedy had to convince Kruschev that he wasn't going to attack Cuba and he did, and he averted the unthinkable. No one backed down. Soviet missiles were already capable of hitting targets in the US...
"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than?I say more Muslims?a lot of Muslims have died?I don't know the exact count?at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill." GW Bush.
Thanks for that deep insight george.
More importantly, what would you have done? It's obvious you disagree with the Iraq War, but what did Bush do immediately after 9/11 that you disagree with? Should we not have invaded Afghanistan? Or is it the evil Patriot Act you oppose?
1. Expand the UN wepons inspectors search. Use ground penetrating radar, Magnetometers(SP?) and other technology.
2. Try to get the rest of the major nations to support US actions. Build a coalition similar to what Bush SR had in the first Gulf War.
3. Make sure that the CIA info was solid. Don't cherry pick.
The connecting of 911 and Iraq together was wrong. I have no argument about Afghanistan, if they would not hand over Osama, invade.
It is fine and dandy that the US is THE World Power but that power comes with a terrible burden. The citizens of the US have a responsability that the man with his finger on the button has a few useable brain cells.
Originally posted by Scott
Nothing to read here folks. No UN violations here. Proceed with Bush Bashing
that doesn't change things much.
We all know that Iraq violated some of the UN security council resolutions. I, however, find it odd that you keep citing these well accepted facts, especially considering the fact that only a year ago you were essentially calling the UN a lame duck institution. So either they are a lame duck and the resolutions mean nothing, or they aren't a lame duck; their resolutions mean something. If there resolutions mean something doesn't that lend credence to the ability of the UN to act appropriately on its resolutions?
Or are they only able to judge correctly some of the time and not the others?
Basically, I sense the republicans are acting purely hypocritical with respect to the UN and I am waiting for someone in a higher power to call them on it. You really can't have the UN both ways...
if the evidence of WMD's was all 100% bona fide i still would be disagreeing with the president (dissent is not bashing, and is our right as americans) because the administration cocked everything up!
bad planning, bad implementation followed by total denial of responsibility.
if there were no iraq war and we stood where we stand now in afghanistan (or further along because of the absence of the iraq sideshow) i might be compelled to vote for the president......ah but then there's the economy, stupid.
Iraq was in violation of 1441 and the only solution was to get rid of Saddam and his people. Now the UN is failing to deal with Iran. The UN has learned nothing and is a failure.
or maybe instead of pulling out, the administration could advocate the passing of a constitutional amendment to the problem, you know, a little more blue smoke?