|
|
Bush
Flip Flops
on the Topics of Iraq and Foreign Policy
|
Total
count to date = 61
[41 on Iraq and 20 on Other Foreign Policy]
To send flipflops,
feedback or comments, please click here.
[Thanks to the following blogs/sites, where I got some of these
links from: Atrios, Buzzflash,
Talkingpointsmemo,
Billmon, DailyKos,
Dwight Meredith (Wampum)
and Center
for American Progress (CAP)]
1. Iraq [41]
1.1 $87B Bill (and
Kerry)
1.2 Saddam and WMDs
1.3, 1.4 Effectiveness
of U.N. Sanctions Against Iraq
1.5 Finding WMDs
1.6 Disarming of Saddam
1.7 Second U.N.
Resolution
1.8 Saddam/Al Qaeda
Link
1.9 Providing Timelines
to Dictators
1.10 Looting, Rioting
and Insecurity
1.11 The People of
Iraq live in freedom, or do they?
1.12 Combat Operations
in Iraq
1.13, 1.14 Mission
Accomplished, Not, Yes
1.15 Force Strength
Required to Secure Iraq
1.16 American Armed
Forces' Return to the U.S.
1.17, 1.18 Aid
Required for Iraq and Amount from the U.S.
1.19 Darn Good
Intelligence
1.20 Independent
Commission to Investigate WMD hoax
1.21 Saddam's regime
is gone, NOT
1.22 Baathists
regaining power in Iraq
1.23 Iraq No Longer
Haven for Terrorists or a Place for them to get Arms
1.24 Fighting the
Enemy in Iraq rather than in the U.S.
1.25, 1.26 Waiting for
UN to Act; Asking UN for Help
1.27 You're Either
With the Terrorists or Against the Terrorists
1.28 Letting UN
Weapons Inspectors into Iraq
1.29, 1.30 Occupying
or Exploiting Iraq
1.31 Government/Democracy in
Iraq
1.32 Funding for Iraq
Operations
1.33, 1.34 Torture and Rape
Rooms in Iraq
1.35 Meetings with
Ahmad Chalabi
1.36 Attacking a Part
of the US
1.37 France
1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41
Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran, Fallujah I, Fallujah II
2. Other Foreign Policy [20]
2.1, 2.2 North Korea
2.3 China Spy-Plane
Incident
2.4 Democracy
2.5, 2.6 Nation
Building
2.7 Over-extending the
Military
2.8, 2.9 Middle-East
Policy and Clinton Administration
2.10 Middle-East
Policy and Bush Administration
2.11, 2.12 Humility
and Arrogance
2.13, 2.14 Funding
Corrupt Officials
2.15 War President,
Peace President
2.16 Torture 1
2.17 Torture 2
2.18 Geneva Convention
and War Crimes
2.19 Pre-empting
Threats to the U.S.
2.20 American Embassy
in Israel
1. IRAQ
1.1 $87B Bill
(and Kerry) (via the
Daily Howler)
FLOP
9/2/04
- [Bush]: "...My opponent and I have different approaches. I
proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding
needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent
and his running mate voted against this money for bullets and fuel and
vehicles and body armor...Then he said he was "proud" of his
vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated"
matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat..."
IN SHORT:
Anyone who was against having the $87B passed was against the troops and
this is NOT a complicated matter.
FLIP
10/26/03 Flashback - [Link]:
"...Last October, Blitzer interviewed Colin Powell—nine days after
Kerry voted “no” on a form of the bill he didn’t like. But by
now, Bush was saying he’d veto the bill if it passed in a form which he
disfavored. In particular, Bush said he would veto the bill if its
$20 billion in reconstruction money was made in the form of loans, not
grants. And Blitzer knew all about the threat. Indeed, he asked Powell
about it:
BLITZER (10/26/03): As you know, the
Senate wants half of that $20 billion to be in the form of loans, half
in grants. The House says all of it should be in the form of outright
grants. The president is threatening to veto the entire $87 billion
unless all of that $20 billion is a grant. Is that a
hard-and-fast position, as the House and Senate conferees resolve
this issue?
POWELL: Yes, it is. The president
feels very strongly that it should be a grant. We need to get this
country up and running quickly. And I was quite taken, at the Madrid
conference I attended, where the U.N. representative, Mark Malloch
Brown, from the U.N. Development Program, said it should be a grant.
We need this infusion of dollars as we structure, over a longer period
of time, the influx of grants and loans on a long-term basis.
Bush’s threat was “hard-and fast,”
Powell said! If the bill was passed with loans, Bush was going to kill
it..."
10/30/03
FLASHBACK - [Link]:
"...BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL OVER
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RESERVISTS AND VETERANS. As part of the $87
billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and
reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an
amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical
benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to
the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The
Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate
provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical
care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE
Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com,
10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA
legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ,
10/20/03]
BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING
GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course
yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for
Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate
negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion
request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had
threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay
some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03]..."
IN SHORT:
Someone could threaten to kill the $87B bill and NOT be against the
troops and this is not a simple matter.
1.2. Saddam
and WMDs
FLIP
10/11/00
- [Bush]: "...The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or
it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being
violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass
destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should
I be the president..."
2/24/01
- [Powell for Bush]: "...the fact that the sanctions exist -- not
for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of
keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of
mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies,
constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are
directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now
as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He
has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of
mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the
security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
7/29/01
- [Rice for Bush]: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there,
let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not
control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from
him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"
IN SHORT:
(a) We don't know whether Saddam Hussein is
developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)
(b) We know that Saddam
has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction
(c) We do know that we are able to keep Saddam's arms from him and that
his military forces have not been rebuilt
FLOP
10/5/02
- [Bush]: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical
and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the
regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including
mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas...And surveillance photos
reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to
produce chemical and biological weapons."
3/17/03
- [Bush]: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
7/2/03
- [Bush]: "...Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat. Such a threat that my predecessor, using the same intelligence in
1998, ordered a bombing of Iraq. I mean, so—he was a
threat..."
IN SHORT:
(a) We
know to a certainty that Saddam has WMDs.
(b) We know to a certainty that Saddam was developing WMDs given that Clinton used the "same
intelligence
in 1998" [as we had before the Iraq
invasion in 2003] to bomb Iraq
Compassiongate
Note: If the intelligence in 2003 was the
same as that in 1998, then surely the intelligence was the
same in October 2000
1.3, 1.4
Effectiveness of U.N. Sanctions against Iraq
FLIP
2/24/01
- [Powell for Bush]: "...the fact that the sanctions exist --
not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of
keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of
mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies,
constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are
directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now
as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have
worked. He has not developed any
significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the
neighbors of Iraq..."
5/15/01
- [Powell for Bush]: "The sanctions, as they are called, have
succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him [Saddam] from
moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that
direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It
doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been
contained...So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime,
I think has been reasonably successful."
7/29/01
- [Rice for Bush]: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there,
let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not
control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms
from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been
successful in containing him and preventing him from building any
significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.
FLOP
10/8/02
- [Bush]: 'After 11 years during which we have tried containment,
sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is
that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is
increasing his capabilities to make more...Clearly, to actually work,
any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to
be very different"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam have NOT been
successful in containing him and preventing him from building any
significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.
FLIP AGAIN
10/10/03
- [Link]:
"David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, presented a
different view in his congressional testimony last week. For example, he
said: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale
capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW [chemical weapons]
munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations
Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N.
inspections."...
"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been
successful in containing him and preventing him from building any
significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.
1.5. Finding WMDs [via Center
for American Progress, CAP]
FLIP
5/29/03
- [Bush]: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned
manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found
them."
IN SHORT:
Yay! We found the weapons of mass destruction.
FLOP
2/7/04
- [Bush]: "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And
when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and
there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been
destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed
them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been
transported to another country, and we'll find out."
IN SHORT:
Er, I guess we have NOT found the weapons of mass destruction.
1.6. Disarming of Saddam
FLIP
10/1/02
- [Bush]: "...Of course, I
haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq. I've made up my
mind we need to disarm the man...He's a threat to the United States of
America. And we're just going to have to deal with him. And the best way
to deal with him is for the world to rise up and say, you disarm, and
we'll disarm you. And if not -- if, at the very end of the day, nothing
happens -- the United States, along with others, will act."
IN SHORT:
If Saddam disarms that would avoid
war.
FLOP
2/5/04
after NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND IN IRAQ -
[Bush]: "...Knowing what I knew then, and knowing what I know
today, America did the right thing in Iraq..."
4/13/04
- [Bush]: "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of
weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam
Hussein."
IN SHORT:
Even though Saddam had no WMDs, meaning he had already
"disarmed" before the Iraq war - going to war against Iraq was
the right thing to do.
1.7. Second U.N. Resolution
FLIP
3/6/03
- [Bush]: "...No matter what the whip count is, we're calling
for the [U.N.] vote. We want to see people stand up and say what
their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United
Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people
to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand
when it comes to Saddam..."
IN SHORT:
We will ask the U.N. to vote
on a second resolution against Saddam regardless of the expected
outcome of the vote
FLOP
3/18/03
- [Link]:
"...After insisting for a week
that it would force a vote in the Council, the White House has over the
last few days waffled about its intentions Today, administration
officials did not rule out the possibility that the three leaders would
decide on Sunday to abandon the resolution altogether [New York Times,
3/15/03].
The United States, Britain and Spain
at the United Nations _ facing certain defeat in the Security Council _
announced they would withdraw their resolution setting a deadline for
full Iraqi disarmament and authorizing war. [Knight-Ridder, 3/18/03]..."
IN SHORT:
We will NOT ask the U.N. to vote on a second resolution against Saddam.
1.8. Saddam/Al Qaeda Link [via CAP]
FLIP
9/25/02
- [Bush]: "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam
when you talk about the war on terror."
IN SHORT:
It is impossible to distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda.
FLOP
9/17/03
- [Bush]: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved
in Sept. 11."
IN SHORT:
We have to distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda because we have no
evidence Saddam had any role in 9/11.
1.9. Providing Timelines to
Dictators [via CAP]
FLIP
10/3/02
- [Bush]: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of
passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the
resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in
other words, a military attack."
IN SHORT:
We have given a timeline to the dictator Saddam
FLOP
8/27/04
- [Bush]: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."
IN SHORT:
I don't think one should give timelines to dictators.
1.10. Looting, rioting and
insecurity in Iraq
FLIP
4/24/03
- [Bush]: "...I'm also
pleased by the fact that that level of — those riots, or whatever
you want to call them, released some steam, and now life
is returning to normal. Things have settled down inside the
country..."
4/03
[Rumsfeld]: "...It's untidy. And freedom's untidy.
And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes
and do bad things."
IN SHORT:
Iraqi looting and rioting is acceptable because it reflects the
fact that people are free and are releasing "steam" and
are "free" to commit crimes and do bad things
FLOP
6/5/03
- [Link]:
"...The troops are trying to thwart a wave of crime that Bush
blamed on Saddam, who he said emptied jail cells of "common
criminals" just before the war and left his people hungry and
desperate. The criminals "haven't changed their habits or
their ways," Bush said. "They like to rob, loot. ...
"We'll find them. Day by day the United States and our coalition
partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi
citizens."..."
IN SHORT:
Iraqi looting and rioting is NOT
acceptable because it reflects the fact that these people are
criminals
1.11. The
people of Iraq live in freedom, or do they?
FLIP
6/23/03
- [Bush]: "Fifty million people in those two countries [Afghanistan
and Iraq] once lived under tyranny, and now they live in freedom"
IN SHORT:
The people of Iraq live in freedom.
FLOP
7/1/03
- [Bush]: "These groups believe they have found an opportunity to
harm America, to shake our resolve in the war on terror and to cause us
to leave Iraq before freedom is fully established. They are wrong and
they will not succeed."
IN SHORT:
The people of Iraq don't live in freedom yet, because freedom has not
yet been fully established there.
1.12. Combat Operations in Iraq
FLIP
5/1/03
- [Link]:
"..."President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq
Have Ended." -- Headline on the White House Web site over May
1 speech by Bush..."
IN SHORT:
Combat operations in Iraq have
ended
FLOP
8/25/03 - [Bush]: "...we still have combat operations going on..."
8/28/03
- [Link]:
"...Now the White House is once again attempting to revise history,
albeit in a more subtle way -- by changing the title of a major address
the President gave about the end of combat operations in Iraq. In the
May 1 speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, the
President said, "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
The transcript
on the whitehouse.gov website and other references to it (here,
here,
and here,
for instance) are now titled "President Bush Announces Major Combat
Operations in Iraq Have Ended." As several blogs such as the site Likely
Story have noted along with Dana Milbank in the Washington
Post, when originally published, the speech and references to it
were titled "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq
Have Ended." The absence of the word "major" is a crucial
difference given ongoing combat in Iraq since the President's speech.
A Washington Post story
from last week confirms that the speech was originally titled as such,
as does numerous copies of the speech on other sites that have not been
changed, including Newspaper
in Education, GlobalSecurity.org,
and even the State
Department. In addition, the "event
backgrounder" on the White House website still has the old
title.
There's no way to directly verify now when the page was altered, but the
original title cited in the Post story indicates that it was on or after
August 18, as does this
screenshot of the White House website. It seems clear the White
House no longer wanted to give the impression that Bush had said all
combat operations were over on May 1."
IN SHORT:
Combat operations in Iraq have
NOT ended and are continuing
1.13, 1.14. Mission Accomplished, Not
Accomplished, Accomplished
FLIP
6/5/03
- [Bush]: "...I am happy to
see you, and so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent
you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an
oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished..."
IN SHORT:
Mission Accomplished
FLOP
10/28/03
- [Bush]: "...The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course,
was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that
their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how
to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't
that ingenious, by the way..."
[Compassiongate NOTE: The above statement itself was false.
See here].
IN SHORT:
Mission NOT Accomplished
FLIP AGAIN
4/30/04
- [Bush]: "A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier,
saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd
accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein.
And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms
or mass graves in Iraq."
IN SHORT:
Mission accomplished
BONUS:
9/27/04
- [Link via Americablog/Atrios]:
"President Bush
said he had no regrets about donning a
flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq
in May 2003 and would do it all over
again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television
interview released on Sunday.
When asked by Fox News if he still
would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in
Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."
When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the
war. Since then more than 900 have died."
1.15. Force Strength Required to
Secure Iraq [via
Billmon]
FLIP
7/2/03 [Bush]:
"...There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are
such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.
We've got the force necessary to deal with the security
situation..."
7/2/03
[Bush]: "..."Anybody who wants to
help, we'll welcome the help," Bush said. "But we've got plenty
tough force there right now to make sure the situation is
secure."..."
IN SHORT:
Bring it on! We've got the
forces needed to secure Iraq.
FLOP
9/7/03
- [Bush]: "...Two multinational divisions, led by the British and
the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to
share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a
third multinational division to serve in Iraq..."
IN SHORT:
We don't enough forces to secure Iraq and an additional multinational
division is needed in Iraq.
1.16.
American Armed Forces' return to the U.S. [via Needlenose/Atrios]
FLIP
7/9/03
- [Link]:
"Rumsfeld said the division's 3rd Brigade has already reached
Kuwait and will be heading home this month. The 2nd Brigade, which had
been in the region for 10 months, will be home in August and the 1st
Brigade will return in September."
IN SHORT:
The 2nd Brigade will be home in August 2003 and the 1st Brigade
will return in September.
FLOP
7/14/03
- [Link]:
"The Army said Monday that
thousands of 3rd Infantry Division soldiers have had their deployment in
Iraq extended, dashing hopes that the troops would be home by September.
. . . Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount III, the division's commander, said
last week he hoped the division's 1st and 2nd Brigade Combat Teams of
roughly 9,000 soldiers could return home to Fort Stewart within the next
six weeks.
But homecomings for those soldiers, as well as the division's 3rd
Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, have now been postponed indefinitely,
Fort Stewart spokesman Richard Olson said Monday.
"Now, that timeframe has basically gone away, and there is no
timeframe," Olson said."
IN SHORT:
The 1st and 2nd Brigade will NOT be coming home indefinitely.
1.17, 1.18. Aid Required for Iraq
and How Much Would Come from the U.S.
FLIP
Various
Bush
administration officials
speaking for Bush [prior to the war]:
[Daniels for Bush]: "...Iraq
will not require sustained aid..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don’t know that there is much reconstruction
to do..."
[Wolfowitz for Bush]: "...we are dealing with a country that
can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively
soon..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don't believe that the United States
has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense..."
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...I don't believe it's our job to reconstruct
that country after 30 years of centralized, Stalinist-like economic
controls in that country..."
[Natsios
for Bush]: "...The American part of this [Iraq war] will
be $1.7 billion...we have no plans for any further-on funding for
this."
IN SHORT:
(a) Iraq will not require sustained aid
(b) There is not much for the U.S. to do by way of paying for or doing
reconstruction in Iraq
FLOP
3/18/04
- [Link]: "...On April 23,
2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S.
taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will
be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any
further-on funding for this."
That turned out to be off by orders of magnitude. The
administration, which asked Congress for another $20 billion for
Iraq reconstruction five months after Natsios made his assertion,
has said it expects overall Iraqi reconstruction costs to be
as much as $75 billion this year alone.
The transcript of that interview has been pulled from the USAID Web
site, the agency said, "to reflect current statements and
testimony on Iraq reconstruction." The earlier $1.7 billion
figure was "the best estimate available at the time, based on
very limited
information about the conditions inside of Iraq."
Natsios was far from the only one to offer low-ball figures. Similarly,
a report by the White House Office of Management and Budget in late
March 2003, said: "Iraq will not require sustained aid."
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, in February 2003,
dismissed reports that Pentagon budget
specialists had put the cost of reconstruction at $60 billion to
$95 billion during the first year -- in retrospect, relatively
accurate forecasts. In testimony to Congress on March 27, 2003,
Wolfowitz said Iraq "can really finance its own
reconstruction, and relatively soon." In fact, the
administration has already sought more than $150 billion for the
Iraq effort..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Iraq and the Iraq operation will require sustained aid to the
tune of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars
(b) Most of those funds will have to be paid by the U.S.
1.19. Darn good intelligence
FLIP
7/14/03
- [Bush]: "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence
and the speeches I have given are backed by good intelligence"
IN SHORT:
The pre-war intelligence on Iraq was darn good and my speeches were
backed by good intelligence
FLOP
2/6/04
- [Bush]: "...Today, by executive order, I am creating an
independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck
Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence
capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass
destruction..."
[Link]:
"...Under strong political pressure, President Bush on Friday
established a bipartisan commission to investigate failures in
intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and gave it until well after
the November election to submit its conclusions..."
9/12/04 - [Powell for Bush]: "...Secretary
of State Colin Powell said the intelligence that led the U.S. to
conclude Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction before the war
``did not stand the test of time.''
``Some of the sources were weak, some of the sources didn't hold up.
They failed,'' Powell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``And some parts
of the intelligence community knew that some of these sources probably
shouldn't have been listened to.''..."
IN SHORT:
The pre-war intelligence on Iraq was NOT darn good
1.20. Independent Investigation
into "Intelligence" leading WMD hoax
[via
CAP]
FLIP
Prior
to Feb 2004 - [Link]:
"...The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and
many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head
off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond
reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the
Central Intelligence Agency..."
IN SHORT:
Not in favor of a non-Congressional panel (WMD commission) for
investigating the "intelligence failures" on Iraq
FLOP
2/6/04
- [Bush]: "...Today, by executive order, I am creating an
independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck
Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence
capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass
destruction..."
[Link]:
"...Under strong political pressure, President Bush on Friday
established a bipartisan commission to investigate failures in
intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and gave it until well after
the November election to submit its conclusions..."
IN SHORT:
In favor of a non-Congressional panel (WMD commission) for
investigating the "intelligence failures" on Iraq
1.21
Saddam's regime is gone, NOT
FLIP
5/1/03
- [Bush] :"...Because of you [U.S. military] the tyrant has fallen
and Iraq is free..." "...the [Iraqi] regime is no
more..."
3/23/03
- [Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...The outcome is clear. The
regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It’s over."..."
IN SHORT:
Saddam's regime is gone.
FLOP
5/14/03
- [Link]:
"The U.S. military commander in Iraq declared tonight that remnants
of Saddam Hussein's defeated government, who he said are challenging the
U.S. occupation, pose a greater threat to rebuilding the country than
the persistent street violence that has plagued Baghdad"
5/22/03 - [Wolfowitz for Bush]: "...said unrealistic
expectations had arisen from "a fundamental misunderstanding about
the nature of the security problem in Iraq, and, in particular, a
failure to appreciate that a regime which has tens of thousands of thugs
and war criminals on its payroll does not disappear overnight"..."
6/27/03
- [Wolfowitz for Bush]: "Almost because the regime failed so
quickly, the major remnants of the regime were around"
IN SHORT:
Saddam's regime is NOT gone.
1.22 Baathists
regaining power in Iraq
FLIP
2/23/03
- [Richard Perle for Bush] "...Reports claiming that a US military
governor would keep most of Saddam's
Baath Party officials in place and run the country on existing
administrative structures were inaccurate and absurd, Perle said.
'The idea that the US would simply issue orders to the same mob that
served under Saddam is ridiculous. This is not simply about
switching one mafia family for another. American policy after
Saddam's removal will be to assist the Iraqis to move as quickly as
physically and practically possible into positions of power.'
7/23/03
- [Bush]: "...Yesterday, in the city of
Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an
end. Saddam Hussein's sons were responsible for torture, maiming
and murder of countless Iraqis. Now more than ever all Iraqis
can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back..."
IN SHORT:
We will never retain Saddam's
Baath party officials in positions of power. The Baath regime of Saddam
is gone forever.
FLOP
8/24/03
- [Link]:
"
U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies
U.S.-led occupation authorities have
begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the
once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify
resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly
sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi
officials.
The extraordinary move to recruit
agents of former president Saddam Hussein's security services
underscores a growing recognition among U.S. officials that American
military forces -- already stretched thin -- cannot alone prevent
attacks like the devastating truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters
this past week, they said..."
4/30/04
- [Link]:
"Baath Party Members to Return to Jobs...Last week, the top
U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the new Iraqi
army would begin recruiting former high-level officers from Saddam
Hussein's disbanded military. He also agreed to allow thousands of
teachers and professors who were Baathists to return to work in schools
and universities..."
5/5/04
- [Link]:
"U.S. courts ex-Baath party members...Thousands of Iraqis
who swore allegiance to Saddam Hussein's political party may be
getting jobs under the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad as
the Bush administration - struggling to put down resistance -
undertakes a major shift in policy..."
5/1/04
- [Link]:
"Meet the New Boss III
The new Marine-approved
Iraqi force began taking up positions on Saturday on a few quiet
street corners in this embattled city amid reports that some residents
were celebrating its arrival as a victory over the Americans.
But the record of the man chosen to lead the force — a
commander in Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard — appeared
to be raising questions in the American command, which has appeared
somewhat confused over the sudden turnabout here in which old enemies
have become new allies.
Although some officials in the Pentagon told reporters on Friday
that Maj. Gen. Jasim Muhammad Saleh had not been a member of the
Republican Guard, intelligence and other Marine officers here
reconfirmed their own Friday comments that General Saleh had been a
ranking officer in the guard, one of the special units close to Saddam
Hussein, before being chosen to command the Iraqi Army's 38th
Infantry Division. (emphasis added)..."
IN SHORT:
We will retain Saddam's
Baath party officials in positions of power. The Baath regime of Saddam
is NOT gone forever.
1.23 Iraq no
longer a haven for terrorists or a place for them to get arms [via Billmon]
FLIP
5/1/03
- [Bush]:"...Because of you [U.S. military] the tyrant has fallen
and Iraq is free..." "...the [Iraqi] regime is no
more..."
6/5/03
- [Bush]: "We've made sure Iraq is not going to be used as an
arsenal for terrorist groups"
8/19/03 - [Bush]: "I like to remind people that a free Iraq
will no longer serve as a haven for terrorists or as a place for
terrorists to get money or arms."
IN SHORT:
Iraq will no longer serve as a haven for terrorists or as a place for
terrorists to get money or arms
FLOP
Later
on 8/19/03 - [Bush]: "Today
in Baghdad terrorists turned their violence against the United Nations."
Later
on 8/22/03 - [Bush]: "Iraq is turning out to be a
continuing battle in the war on terrorism."
10/26/03
- [link]:
"The discovery of thousands of arms caches — not only at military
bases, but also in schools, mosques, hospitals and homes — indicates
to U.S. commanders that there remain thousands more undiscovered caches
accessible to guerrillas.
Coalition commanders have various estimates for how much is stored in
those caches. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez cited an estimate of 650,000
tons, an enormous figure equal to about a third of the U.S. military's
vast ammunition stockpile. Brig. Gen. Robert Davis, the officer in
charge of a program to collect and destroy Iraqi weapons stocks, said
the figure could be closer to 1 million tons...
"We don't have any notion at this point where all of these sites
are," Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad last week. "We're
still finding ammunition in backyards. Every day we're finding it."
Central Command, the military headquarters responsible for U.S.
operations in Iraq, has been under pressure from Capitol Hill to explain
why it has not secured all of the conventional weapons caches found
since major combat was declared over May 1.
"There are so many different places where the forces on the ground
have discovered weapons caches, and to dedicate soldiers to guard them
before they are confiscated or destroyed is simply impossible,"
said a Central Command spokesman, Sgt. Danny Martin...
The combination of readily available small arms and explosives with
tactics that require relatively little use of ammunition indicates that
Iraqi forces will be able to sustain their ambush-style attacks
indefinitely, these two intelligence officials said."
IN SHORT:
Iraq is STILL serving as a haven for terrorists or as a place for
terrorists to get money or arms. Not only that there are large small
arms stockpiles that we have insufficient resources to root out and
destroy.
1.24
Fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in the U.S. [via Billmon]
FLIP
9/7/03
- [Bush]: "We have learned that terrorist attacks are not
caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of
weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to
engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in
Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own
streets, in our own cities."
IN SHORT:
We are fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in our cities - that is
why we have sent our forces over there to display our strength.
FLOP
9/7/03
- [Rumsfeld for Bush]:
"Q: My question is why not send in more troops?
Rumsfeld: Simply flooding the zone with two or three times the
number of foreign forces that are here, it would increase the number of
targets for the handfuls of criminals and the handfuls of terrorists,
for the handfuls of Ba'athist remnants."
Earlier
note from Dan Drezner, 8/21/03:
"In terms of the broader neocon vision of transforming the Middle
East, Iraq needs to be an oasis of stability, not a grand opening for
Terrorists 'R Us...
There's also this little nugget of
information contained within today's
Los Angeles Times story regarding the U.S. decision to seek another
U.N. Security Council resolution in Iraq:
One possible compromise between the
United States and other Security Council members would establish a
separate contingent of UN forces that would report to a UN command
structure and provide security for humanitarian missions and some
reconstruction efforts. This might satisfy countries that want to help
but don't want their soldiers under U.S. command.
Washington also hopes the
resolution will call on Iraq's neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria,
to block the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, according to
diplomats in Washington. The influx of foreign forces has become a
leading U.S. security concern. (emphasis added)
If the flypaper hypothesis is correct,
then why would the administration be so concerned about border
protection?..."
IN SHORT:
We are fighting the enemy in Iraq rather than in our cities - but that
is why we NEED to limit our forces over there so as to not get more of
them killed.
1.25, 1.26. Waiting for the U.N. to
Act or Asking for U.N. Help in Iraq
FLIP
9/14/02 - [Bush]:
"...Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act?...Seems like, to
me, that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be
making decisions based on what's best for the United States...If I
were running for office...I'm not sure how I would explain to
the American people. You know, 'Vote for me, and oh, by the way, on
a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else
to act.'"..."
8/15/03
- [Link]:
"...The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving
the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as
sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for
their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials
say. Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security
situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that
it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the
United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager
to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Decisions relating to national security of the U.S. should not
be based on waiting for the U.N. to act
(b) We don't need the help of the United Nations for securing or
governing Iraq
FLOP
4/16/04 - [Bush]:
"...We welcome the proposals presented by the U.N. special
envoy, Brahimi. He's identified a way forward to establishing
an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi
people. Our coalition partners will continue to work with the
U.N. to prepare for nationwide elections that will choose a new
government in January of 2005. We thank the U.N. and Secretary
General Annan for helping Iraqis secure a future of freedom. We're grateful
that Mr. Brahimi will soon return to Iraq to continue his important
work...
[Responding to a question on who power will be
transferred to in Iraq on July 1st]
That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi. That's the
recommendation of Brahimi. He's in the process. You are
watching a process unfold, and you won't have to ask that question
on July the 1st..."
[Link]:
"..."That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi," President
Bush said Friday when asked what the [Iraqi] transition government
will look like on July 1..."
IN SHORT:
(a) Decisions relating to
national security of the U.S. (remember, Iraq is part of the "war
on terror") COULD be based on waiting for the U.N. to act
(b) We do need the help of the United Nations for securing and governing
Iraq
1.27. You're either with the
terrorists or against the terrorists
FLIP
4/4/02
- [Bush]: "...Since September
the 11th, I've delivered this message: everyone must choose; you're either with
the civilized world, or you're with the terrorists..."
IN SHORT:
You're either with the civilized
world, or you're with the terrorists
FLOP
8/24/03
- [Link]:
"
U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies
U.S.-led occupation authorities have
begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the
once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify
resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly
sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi
officials.
The extraordinary move to recruit
agents of former president Saddam Hussein's security services
underscores a growing recognition among U.S. officials that American
military forces -- already stretched thin -- cannot alone prevent
attacks like the devastating truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters
this past week, they said..."
4/30/04
- [Link]:
"Baath Party Members to Return to Jobs...Last week, the top
U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the new Iraqi
army would begin recruiting former high-level officers from Saddam
Hussein's disbanded military. He also agreed to allow thousands of
teachers and professors who were Baathists to return to work in schools
and universities..."
5/1/04
- [Link]:
"Meet the New Boss III
The new Marine-approved
Iraqi force began taking up positions on Saturday on a few quiet
street corners in this embattled city amid reports that some residents
were celebrating its arrival as a victory over the Americans.
But the record of the man chosen to lead the force — a
commander in Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard — appeared
to be raising questions in the American command, which has appeared
somewhat confused over the sudden turnabout here in which old enemies
have become new allies.
Although some officials in the Pentagon told reporters on Friday
that Maj. Gen. Jasim Muhammad Saleh had not been a member of the
Republican Guard, intelligence and other Marine officers here
reconfirmed their own Friday comments that General Saleh had been a
ranking officer in the guard, one of the special units close to Saddam
Hussein, before being chosen to command the Iraqi Army's 38th
Infantry Division. (emphasis added)..."
9/12/04
- [Link]:
"Amid Cheers, Terrorists
Have Landed in the U.S.
To curry favor with Cuban Americans, Bush turns a blind eye.
By Julia E. Sweig and Peter Kornbluh
...
A little-noticed but chilling scene
at Opa-locka Airport outside Miami last month demonstrates that the
Bush administration's commitment to fighting international terrorism
can be overtaken by presidential politics — even if that means
admitting known terrorists onto U.S. soil.
That's what happened when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso
inexplicably pardoned four Cuban exiles convicted of "endangering
public safety" for their role in an assassination plot against
Fidel Castro during a 2000 international summit in Panama.
After their release, three of the four immediately flew via private
jet to Miami, where they were greeted with a cheering fiesta organized
by the hard-line anti-Castro community. Federal officials briefly
interviewed the pardoned men — all holders of U.S. passports — and
then let them go their way.
The fourth man, Luis Posada Carriles, was the most notorious member of
this anti-Castro cell. He is an escapee from a prison in Venezuela,
where he was incarcerated for blowing up an Air Cubana passenger plane
in 1976, killing 73. He also admitted plotting six hotel bombings in
Havana that killed one tourist and injured 11 others in 1997. Posada
has gone into hiding in Honduras while seeking a Central American
country that will harbor him, prompting Honduran President Ricardo
Maduro to demand an explanation from the Bush administration on how a
renowned terrorist could enter his country using a false U.S.
passport.
The terrorist backgrounds of Posada's three comrades-in-arms are as
well documented as their leader's. Guillermo Novo once fired a bazooka
at the U.N. building; in February 1979, he was convicted and sentenced
to 40 years for conspiracy in the 1976 assassination of former Chilean
diplomat Orlando Letelier and his American colleague, Ronni Moffitt,
in Washington. (His conviction was subsequently vacated on a legal
technicality.) Gaspar Jimenez was convicted and imprisoned in Mexico
in 1977 for murdering a Cuban consulate official; he was released by
authorities in 1983. Pedro Remon received a 10-year sentence in 1986
for conspiring to kill Cuba's ambassador to the United Nations in
1980. These are violent men. Panamanian prosecutors said they had
planned to detonate 33 pounds of explosives while Castro was speaking
at a university in Panama. Had they not been intercepted by the
authorities, the blast not only would have killed the Cuban president
but quite possibly hundreds of others gathered to hear him speak
during the inter-American summit.
For a small but powerful minority in the Cuban American community, the
Posada gang are freedom fighters. But Sept. 11 taught the rest of us
about the danger of political fanatics who seek to rationalize their
violence. To uphold his oft-stated principle that no nation can be
neutral in the war on terrorism, shouldn't President Bush have
condemned Moscoso's decision to release these terrorists? To protect
the sanctity of U.S. borders and the security of Americans, shouldn't
the administration have taken all available steps to keep known
terrorists out of the United States?
But Florida is crucial to Bush's reelection strategy. Currying favor
with anti-Castro constituents in Miami appears to trump the
president's anti-terrorism principles. So far, not a single White
House, State Department or Homeland Security official has expressed
outrage at Panama's decision to put terrorists back on the world's
streets. The FBI appears to have no plans to lead a search for Posada
so he can be returned to Venezuela, where he is a wanted fugitive.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has rounded up and
expelled hundreds of foreigners on the mere suspicion of a terrorist
link, has indicated no intention to detain and deport Novo, Jimenez
and Remon.
In June, the White House seemed to have maxed out on pandering to
hard-line Cuban exiles when it virtually eliminated family visits and
remittances to Cuba as part of a new initiative to undermine Castro's
rule. But that policy has upset anti-Castro moderates in both parties
because it criminalizes efforts to build family ties across the
Straits of Florida, something a family-values president should
support. In response, Bush's decision to accept the repatriation of
the Cuban exile terrorists seems calculated to shore up support in the
Cuban American community.
"I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror
as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush
recently said in an interview.
But the decision to allow members of the Posada gang into this
country, and the televised spectacle of Miamians applauding their
return, sends a different and dangerous message: In a swing state,
some terrorists are not only acceptable but welcome."
IN SHORT:
You can be with the civilized world and with terrorists.
1.28. Letting U.N. Weapons
Inspectors into Iraq
FLIP
4/24/03
- [Link]:
"...The United States will not
permit United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, saying
the US military has taken over the role of searching for Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction. In simultaneous briefings in New York
and Washington, both the White House and the US ambassador to the
UN said they saw no role in postwar Iraq for the UN weapons inspection
teams. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in
Washington to "make no mistake about it. The United States and
the coalition have taken on the responsibility for dismantling
Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction]". Asked if the White
House saw any role at all for the UN's weapons teams and, in
particular, for chief inspector Hans Blix, Mr Fleischer said:
"Well, the President is looking forward, not
backward."..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. is not going to let U.N. inspectors come back inside Iraq
FLOP
5/21/03
- [Link]:
"...At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld said the U.S. military does not object to the return of UN
inspectors to Iraq. Rumsfeld said that General Tommy Franks, in
charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, has "no problem" with
inspectors returning. "I have checked with General Franks, the
combatant commander, and his attitude is that he has no problem
with their going in. And that's been communicated within our
government," Rumsfeld said...."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will let U.N. inspectors come back inside Iraq
1.29, 1.30. Occupying or Exploiting
Iraq
FLIP
5/1/03
- [Bush]: "...Other nations
in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and
exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to
return home..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will not occupy and
exploit Iraq. We will return home after the battle.
FLOP
4/13/04
- [Bush]: "[The Iraqis are] not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't
be happy if I were occupied either."
12/30/03
- [Link]:
"The Pentagon has frozen new funds approved for Iraqi
reconstruction amid growing allegations of corruption and cronyism
associated with the rebuilding process...The Pentagon's decision to
delay Iraqi reconstruction is another setback for a process already
hobbled by political insecurity and, increasingly, concerns over
corruption and misconduct. The success of the US-led bid to remake Iraq
politically depends largely on efforts to reverse the country's chronic
unemployment by repairing it economically. But lawmakers in Washington
and businesspeople in Iraq say the bidding process lacks transparency
and favors a growing class of monopolists and oligarchs that could
overwhelm the country's infant regulatory framework.
"Everyone is focusing on the capture of Saddam Hussein," said
Laith Kubba, a former Iraqi dissident who divides his time between
Washington, London, and Iraq. "But with Saddam gone the most
important thing is the country's political and economic transformation,
and that is being held hostage by vested interests."
Bids for 26 contracts were to be submitted by Jan. 5. But that date has
been postponed indefinitely.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced Dec. 18 that it would investigate a
controversial contract for an Iraqi cellphone grid, the second such
probe into Iraq-related reconstruction..."
11/7/03
- [Link]:
"...Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must
call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its
economic colonisation as well. That means reversing the shock
therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has
fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and cancelling
all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms.
How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that
Bremer's reforms were illegal to
begin with. They clearly violate the international
convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague
regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions,
both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own
code of war.
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect
"unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded
that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's constitution outlaws
the privatisation of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from
owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA
was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws,
and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally. On
September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It
announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised;
decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi
banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100%
of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules
a "capitalist dream"..."
4/20/04
[Link]:
"...according to a closely held Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March,
the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing
democracy succeed, according to the memo's author—a
U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote
this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a
senior CPA director—have been severely imperiled by a
year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and
the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering
Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the
memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment
rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil
war...
it is particularly pointed on the subject of cronyism
and corruption within the Governing Council, the provisional
Iraqi government subordinate to the CPA whose
responsibilities include re-staffing Iraq's government
departments. "In retrospect," the memo asserts,
"both for political and organizational reasons, the decision
to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the
greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men
choosing their sons and brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use
our prerogative to shape a system that would work . . . our
failure to promote accountability has hurt us."...the memo asserts
that the U.S. "share[s] culpability in the eyes of ordinary
Iraqis" for engendering Iraq's currently cronyistic state;
since "we appointed the Governing Council members . . . their
corruption is our corruption."...
"...[Gardiner:] Frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis
some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things
running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big
US companies go in with plans for major overhauls."..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. did occupy and
exploit Iraq and we are not returning home from battle anytime
soon.
1.31. Government/Democracy in Iraq
FLIP
2/26/03
- [Bush]: "The United States has no intention of determining the
precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi
people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by
another."
4/26/03
- [Bush]: "One thing is
certain: We will not impose a government on Iraq," Bush said.
"We will help that nation build a government of, by and for
the Iraqi people."
4/28/03
[Bush]: "..."As freedom takes hold
in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their
own government," Bush told a crowd that repeatedly interrupted
him with chants of "USA! USA!"..."
IN SHORT:
We have no intention of
determining Iraq's new Government, and we will not impose a
Government on Iraq. Iraqis will choose their own Government.
FLOP
5/17/03
- [Link]:
"...In an abrupt reversal, the United States and Britain have
indefinitely put off their plan to allow Iraqi opposition forces to
form a national assembly and an interim government by the end of
the month. Instead, top American and British diplomats leading reconstruction
efforts here told exile leaders in a meeting tonight that allied
officials would remain in charge of Iraq for an indefinite period,
said Iraqis who attended the meeting..."
6/1/03
- [Link]:
"...The U.S. occupation authority has decided to handpick
between 25 and 30 Iraqis to serve on an interim political council
to advise U.S. officials on day-to-day governance issues rather than
convene a large assembly where Iraqi delegates would debate the
form and membership of their transitional administration, a senior
U.S. official said today..."
6/2/03 - [Link]:
"...Mr. Bremer for the first time laid out an explicit
proposal to appoint a "political council" of 25 to 30
Iraqis to assist the allies in administering the country. He said
he would appoint the Iraqis to advisory jobs in government
ministries, according to an official who briefed reporters after
the meeting...a senior American official here made clear that
whatever role the Iraqis played during the period of occupation,
"the ultimate authority" would remain with the allies
until they were ready to turn over power to an elected Iraqi
government..."
6/27/03
- [Link]:
"...U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local
elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq,
choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and
administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders..."
5/13/04
- [Link]:
"...Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq's Ministry of Communications, but he no
longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq's
television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone
companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were
selected by Washington. The commissioners' five-year terms stretch far
beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government
that will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who
spent nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year.
He found out the commission had been formally signed into law only
when a reporter asked him for comment about it. "No one from the
U.S. even found time to call and tell me themselves," he says.
As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L.
Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that
will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every
important decision the interim government will make.
In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's
Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that
effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several
ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser
position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq's
new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog
institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and
allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that
coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries
after the handover.
In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear
terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations,
award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi
government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the
ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions
within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S.
officials and others familiar with the plan."
IN SHORT:
We did/will impose a
Government on Iraq. Iraqis did/will NOT choose their own
Government.
1.32. Funding for Iraq operations
FLIP
4/21/04
- [Link]:
"...Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request
last year, the administration has
steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be
sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget
request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money
for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said
no request would come until January at the earliest..."
IN SHORT:
No more money is needed for
Iraq in 2004
FLOP
5/7/04
- [Link]:
"...US President George W. Bush on Wednesday asked Congress
for an additional US$25 billion
to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, breaking a
pledge not to seek more money before the November election. The
White House had long insisted it would not need extra money until
next year..."
IN SHORT:
More money is needed for Iraq
in 2004
1.33, 1.34. Torture and rape rooms in
Iraq [via William
Saletan]
FLIP
10/8/03 - [Bush]: "Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers"
1/12/04
- [Bush]: "One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass
graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."
2/4/04
- [Bush]: "...Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture
chambers and rape rooms …"
IN SHORT:
(a) One thing is certain. There
are no more rape rooms or torture rooms in Iraq.
FLIP
3/23/03
[Bush]: "...we expect them [American prisoners in Iraq] to be
treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we
capture humanely ... If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will
be treated as war criminals"
[Rumsfeld]: "...[said that] "the Geneva Convention indicates
that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate
prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition
ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates
how they should be treated."...His statement came after interviews
with five captured U.S. soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television..."
IN SHORT:
(b) Prisoners of war will be treated humanely, not photographed,
embarrassed or humiliated. Doing any of these things constitutes war
crimes. We will follow the Geneva Convention and we expect our opponents
will as well.
FLOP
8/26/03
- [Link]:
"...More than 400 Iraqi women
have been kidnapped and raped amid the lawlessness gripping the
country
since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Organisation of Women’s
Freedom in Iraq said Sunday. “This violence is still a daily
occurrence, especially on the streets of Baghdad, without
attracting the least attention of the (US) soldiers.”..."
5/6/04
- [Link]:
"...According to a classified Pentagon investigation obtained
by CNN, U.S. Army soldiers have committed
"egregious acts" and "grave breaches of international
law" at the Abu Ghraib prison, once used to torture Iraqis
during the
regime of Saddam Hussein. (Widespread
reactions to news of abuse) The allegations include threatening
males with
rape; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a
broomstick; attaching wires to prisoners' extremities, including
the penis; and forcing detainees into compromising positions while
naked..."
A LOT MORE here
- and everyone knows, of course, how Iraqis being tortured by U.S.
interrogators were photographed, embarrassed and humiliated extensively.
IN SHORT:
(a) One thing is certain. There are still torture and rape rooms in Iraq.
(b) Prisoners of war in Iraq were NOT treated humanely and they were
photographed, embarrassed and humiliated, among other things.
1.35. Meetings with Ahmad Chalabi
FLOP
6/1/04
- [Bush]: "My meetings with him [Chalabi] were very brief. I mean,
I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of
working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of
leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him"
IN SHORT:
I had very brief meetings with him.
FLIP
[Link
via Dan Froomkin]:
"Walter
Pincus and Dana Priest write in The Washington Post: "National
security adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday promised Congress a full
investigation into allegations that an Iraqi politician supported by the
Pentagon told Iran the United States had broken the code it used for
secret communications, and U.S. officials said the revelation destroyed
an important source of intelligence. . . .
"The allegations against Chalabi have hit as controversy grows over
his role in helping to supply the United States with intelligence about
Iraq before the war, and over his efforts to position himself
politically in Iraq after the invasion."
Press secretary Scott McClellan studiously avoided any comment on
Chalabi yesterday in his gaggle, which you can read here.
Just how close were Bush and Chalabi anyway?
Tuesday in the Rose Garden (here's the text),
Bush distanced himself from Chalabi: "My meetings with him were
very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and
just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with
a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with
him."
But one of Washington Monthly blogger Kevin
Drum's readers noticed that in this transcript
from Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press,
he had noted that "right here in the Oval Office I sat down with
Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi. . . . "
And here's another Chalabi mention, from the text
of Bush's remarks to reporters in Air Force One on his way back from the
Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad:
"Q Mr. President, we were told you got to see Mr. Chalabi today?
"THE PRESIDENT: I did see Chalabi. . . . I shook a lot of hands,
saw a lot of kids, took a lot of pictures, served a lot of food and we
moved on to see four members of the Governing Council -- the names are
here. Talibani is the head of it right now, so he was the main
spokesman. But Chalabi was there, as was Dr. Khuzaii, who had come to
the Oval Office, I don't know if you all were in the pool that day, but
she was there -- she was there with him, and one other fellow, and I had
a good talk with them."..."
More
on Bush-Chalabi meetings here, including the fact that Chalabi
sat behind Laura Bush at Bush's State of the Union!
IN SHORT:
I had more than brief meetings with him and he was close enough to me
that I let him sit behind my wife at the State of the Union.
1.36. Attacking a Part of the
U.S. [via Liberal
Oasis]
FLIP
2000
- [Bush]: "I will not attack a part of this country, because I
want to lead the whole of it."
IN SHORT:
I will not attack any specific part of the country.
FLOP
March
2003 - [Bush]: "Obviously some people in Northern
California do not see there's a true risk to the United States posed by
Saddam Hussein."
July
2004 - [Bush]: "Senator Kerry is rated as the most liberal
member of the Senate, and he chose a fellow lawyer who is the fourth
most liberal member of the Senate. Back in Massachusetts, that's what
they call balancing the ticket."
July
2004 - [Bush]: "My opponent said that a bunch of
entertainers from Hollywood conveyed the heart and soul of America. I
believe the heart and soul of America is found in places like Duluth,
Minnesota."
IN SHORT:
I will attack any specific part of the country I want in order to win
political points with my base.
1.37. France
FLIP
4/25/03
- [Link]:
"United States President George
W Bush says French President Jacques Chirac won't be dropping by soon to
his Texas ranch even if bilateral tensions over Iraq eventually melt
away. Invitations to his beloved "Prairie Chapel" property are
extended only to a handful of world leaders.
Bush and Chirac fell out over Paris's stated determination to bury a new
United Nations security council resolution authorising military action
against Iraq, which inflamed anti-French sentiment in the United States.
Bush said: "There are some strains in the relationship, obviously,
because it appeared to some in our administration and our country that
the French position was anti-American.
"Hopefully, the past tensions will subside and the French won't be
using their position within Europe to create alliances against the
United States, or Britain or Spain or any of the new countries that are
the new democracies in Europe," he added...
Leading US lawmakers have renamed "French fries" as
"Freedom fries" and Bush's Air Force One aircraft now serves
"Freedom Toast" instead of "French toast."..."
IN SHORT:
No ranch invitations to French President Chirac. France's behavior has
been considered by some in my administration as anti-American. I will no
longer have French Fries or Toast - only Freedom Fries or Toast.
FLOP
6/3/04
- [Link]:
"Kudos to Elaine Sciolino of The New York Times, reporting
from Paris, who today systematically compares what the president is
saying and doing now with what he said and did last year, when France
and Germany withheld support for military action in Iraq. "His
remarks [in an Oval Office interview with the weekly magazine Paris
Match]," writes Sciolino, "seem calculated to rewrite the
tortured history of almost two years that has been marked by the most
serious divide between the United States and Europe in decades."
Sciolino begins by telling us that in an effort to repair the rift with
France over Iraq, Bush is describing himself and France President
Jacques Chirac as "friends" who agreed to disagree about the
war. "I've never been angry at the French," Bush told Paris
Match, apparently with a straight face. "France has been a
longtime ally." Bush even assured the magazine that Chirac was
welcome to his ranch outside Crawford, Texas.
That, Sciolino notes, is a far cry from "his anger that built up
last year, leading Mr. Bush to say that Mr. Chirac would not be a guest
at the ranch soon" -- not to mention the punitive measures that
both the White House and the Pentagon sought to employ against France.
Sciolino notes that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called France and
Germany part of "an old Europe" that did not matter any more,
and further that French companies were explicitly excluded from
reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Now that "Bush needs the help of
Europeans, both in rebuilding Iraq and in remaking his image ... as a
president who has not alienated some of America's most important
allies," she writes, he's practically shopping for berets and
reaching for the steak frites..."
IN SHORT:
Hey, yo! Chirac-Me buddy-buddy!
1.38, 1.39,
1.40, 1.41 Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran, Fallujah I, Fallujah II
Here,
I will simply quote Martin Sieff's piece in UPI (via CAP)
- since I simply DO NOT have the time to separately document every one
of the countless Bush flip-flops on Iraq! :-)
Coming up to the first
anniversary of President Bush declaring "Mission
Accomplished" in Iraq, U.S. policy there has degenerated into a
series of confusing flip-flops.
First, Coalition
Provisional Authority chief administrator L. Paul Bremer was adamant
that U.S. troops were going to arrest firebrand Shiite Muslim cleric
Moqtada Sadr. Now, they are not.
Second, President
George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld were adamant that the United States was not going to
the United Nations to seek more support in Iraq at the expense of
delegating any authority there. But in his nationally televised press
conference last week, the president took pains to praise the mission
of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and emphasize his determination to back
it to the hilt.
Indeed, on Monday Bush
named Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte as his first ambassador
to an at least titular independent Iraq after the scheduled handover
of sovereignty on June 30. This move has also been widely taken as a
sign that eschewing previous Pentagon-run policies, Bush is finally
prepared to let the world body have more of a say in helping restore
that country.
Third, in his 2002
State of the Union speech, Bush boldly condemned Iran along with Iraq
as a fellow member of the so-called "Axis of Evil." Yet now,
Bush is eagerly courting Iran as a key facilitator in negotiations
with the Shiite rebels in Iraq. Washington has eagerly sought Iran's
good offices to get hostages released in Iraq and to reach a
compromise consensus in dealing with the militias in the Shiite holy
city of Najaf.
Fourth, after the
murder and mutilation of four U.S. civilian employees in Fallujah in
central Iraq a few weeks ago, U.S. officials in the country were
adamant that overwhelming force would be applied to go into Fallujah
and impose law and order, U.S. style. But now, U.S. forces are holding
back from Fallujah and U.S. Marine forces have been given the go-ahead
to return to their old "softly-softly" policy that senior
officials angrily repudiated after the killings.
Fifth, U.S. military
commanders gave a grim ultimatum to rebel forces in Fallujah to
surrender all their weapons or be crushed. But now that ultimatum has
already been watered down. Only heavy weapons are to be surrendered.
The rebels will be allowed to retain their light weapons, including
automatic rifles. That is a crucial concession to any militia or
guerrilla force as possession of such weapons gives them the power to
continue to enforce or even extend their political control over their
subject population.
Sixth, the
Pentagon and the CPA surrounded the Shiite holy city of Najaf with
2,500 troops. But then they reined those troops in and for the moment
are doing nothing with them...
2. OTHER
FOREIGN POLICY
2.1, 2.2
North Korea [via MWO
and Wampum]
FLIP
12/7/01 - [Bush]:
"...said Wednesday that if North Korea responds "affirmatively"
to improved relations, Washington
would expand "efforts to help the North Korean people, ease
sanctions and take other political steps..."
IN SHORT:
Willing to engage with/talk to
North Korea and ease sanctions to help the North Korean people
FLOP
April
2003 - [Bush] : "...President Bush said North Korea
was "back to the old blackmail game", and that the US
would not be intimidated. "This will give us an opportunity to
say to the North Koreans and the world we're not going to be threatened,"
he said.
August
2003 - [Bush admin]: "...After six nations completed
talks in Beijing over the Korean nuclear crisis, the Bush
administration harshly criticized North Korea and made clear that
it doesn't intend to bargain for peace. Joanne Prokopowicz, a
spokeswoman for the State Department, spoke Friday from prepared
remarks, saying North Korea's statement to negotiators in Beijing was
"an explicit acknowledgment" that North Korea "has
nuclear weapons, but the U.S. will not respond to threats or give
in to blackmail."
IN SHORT:
NOT willing to engage with/talk to North Korea or ease sanctions
FLIP AGAIN
September
2003 - [Bush admin]: "...The Bush administration has
dropped its insistence that North Korea meet U.S. nuclear
disarmament demands before it can be offered economic assistance and
other benefits. A senior State Department official outlined the more
conciliatory U.S. position on Thursday in reviewing the outcome of
six-nation talks in Beijing last week on the impasse over North Korea's
nuclear weapons programs. North Korea
"would not have to do everything" before getting something in
return, said the official, who briefed reporters on the condition that
he not be identified. Previously, the
administration insisted that North Korea would have to dismantle its
nuclear programs in a verifiable, irreversible way before the United
States would be willing to offer concessions..."
October
2003 - [Bush]: "...President
Bush said Sunday that he is willing to commit to a written guarantee not
to attack North Korea in exchange for steps by the country toward
abandoning its nuclear weapons programs.
Bush's aides said he wants to have a proposal ready for North Korea to
consider by year's end, when administration officials hope to restart
the six-nation nuclear talks with North Korea that began haltingly in
August. The new approach constitutes a change for a White House that had
resisted offering any concessions to North Korea before it fully ends
its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The North had agreed to freeze its
programs in 1994 in a deal with the Clinton administration. But a crisis
erupted last year when it was learned that North Korea had violated that
agreement. The CIA estimates the country already possesses one or two
nuclear weapons. Some analysts believe it has added to its stockpile in
recent months.
..."
IN SHORT:
Willing to engage with/talk to North Korea and offer some concessions.
[In the meantime of course, North Korea has advanced further in nuclear
weapons production].
2.3 China
Spy-Plane Incident [via Wampum]
FLIP
4/10/01 - [Fleischer
for Bush]: "...The United States has nothing to apologize
for..."
IN SHORT:
The U.S. will not apologize
over the China spy-plane incident
FLOP
4/12/01 - [Link]:
"...All 24 crew
members of the US spy plane at the centre of the standoff with China
headed home early this morning after Washington said it was "very
sorry" for the incident - twice...
The end of the 11-day crisis came after China accepted the terms set out
in the fourth draft of a letter from the US ambassador to Beijing,
Joseph Prueher, which expressed American sorrow for the death of a
Chinese airman and for entering Chinese airspace to land the plane on
April 1.
The letter's painstakingly constructed diplomatic language continued to
cause translation problems yesterday, even after both sides had agreed
it.
Mr Prueher's letter said the US was "very sorry" for the loss
of the Chinese pilot Wang Wei, and for entering Chinese air space
without verbal clearance..."
5/6/01
- [Link]:
"...It is Bush's good fortune that the liberal equivalent of this
conservative coterie does not exist. Take the recent emergency landing
of a U.S. surveillance plane in China. Imagine how conservatives would
have reacted had Clinton insisted that detained military personnel were
not actually hostages, and then cut a deal to get the people (but not
the plane) home by offering two "very sorrys" to the Chinese,
while also saying that he had not apologized. What is being hailed as
Bush's shrewd diplomacy would have been savaged as "Slick
Willie" contortions..."
Also see this
article.
IN SHORT:
The U.S. WILL and did
apologize over the China spy-plane incident
2.4 Democracy
FLIP
11/6/03
[Bush]: "...Champions of
democracy...understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the
path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and
dignity...."
IN SHORT:
Democracy is not perfect but
it is the ONLY path to national success and dignity
FLOPPITY FLOP
3/17/04
[Link]:
"...For example, a mere four months after the President's
highly-touted speech announcing his plans to push for democratic
reforms in the Mideast, the Bush administration "set
aside its plan to issue a sweeping call for economic, political and
cultural reform in the Middle East." The decision came after the
plan was denounced by Saudi Arabia (despite that country's reprehensible
human
rights record and ties
to terror). Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is being
invited to visit
the White House to tout his supposed "goal to see the spread of
freedom" despite his abysmal
democratic record...."
4/12/04
[Link]:
"While publicly
professing a commitment to expanding democracy throughout the world, the
Bush Administration finds its interests most in line with those of
totalitarian China. The cozy relationship between China and the US comes
despite assertions by Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign that
the U.S. should take a harder line with China, saying the Chinese a
"strategic competitor" not a "strategic partner."
The key reason for the flip-flop: "China has broadly
supported Bush's war on terrorism and did not actively oppose the
invasion of Iraq." The Bush Administration has also placated China
by opposing fundamental democratic exercises in Taiwan – including the
holding
of a referendum. "
8/16/04
[Link]:
"...Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez appears to have survived an August 15 referendum that might
have recalled him from power. This is certain to disappoint the
Bush administration, whose earlier embrace of a failed military coup and
open disregard for political neutrality in the hemisphere emboldened the
populist president and enabled him to deflect attention from his own
slow assault on democratic institutions. In the end, the Bush
administration may have contributed to a referendum victory for Chavez.
Venezuela provides but one example of the Bush administration's missteps
on democracy. The administration has touted its commitment to promoting
democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, arguing correctly
that democracy is an essential component of a peaceful and prosperous
world. Yet in our own hemisphere, the administration's policies have not
only eroded America's authority as a defender of democracy, but have
also turned back democratic gains throughout the region...
In 2002, U.S. Ambassador Manuel Rocha warned the Bolivian people that
the United States would discontinue aid if they elected Evo Morales, the
leader of the coca growers, as the country's president. Some
analysts believe that Morales' popularity grew in protest to the Bush
administration's intervention.
In 2004, Salvadorans elected center-right presidential candidate Tony
Saca over Schafik Handal, the candidate of the former guerilla party,
Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). During the campaign,
U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega and Special Envoy Otto Reich, warned
about the possible trade, economic and migratory consequences of an FMLN
victory.
Furthermore, just before the election, Republican Congressman Thomas
Tancredo promised to introduce legislation that would complicate the
ability of Salvadoran-Americans to send remittances to their families in
El Salvador should the FMLN win the election...
In April 2002, Chavez was temporarily unseated by a handful of military
officers and some segments of the opposition. Rather than
demanding the return of the elected leader to office, the Bush
administration accepted the new government and – for good measure –
blamed Chavez for the coup. A State Department statement read:
"Yesterday's events in Venezuela resulted in a transition
government until new elections can be held. Though details are still
unclear, undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez
administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela."
Furthermore, the Bush administration issued its statement without
consulting with the OAS, violating the standard practice the countries
of the region had established over the previous decade...
Shortly thereafter, when popular protests against the coup spread across
the city and the military returned Chavez to power, the administration
found itself in an embarrassing bind: the man whose departure they had
just welcomed was back in the saddle...
As armed insurgents began to take
over the country [Haiti] in February 2004, the OAS and CARICOM sought to
broker a peace deal. But instead of rallying behind these multilateral
efforts, the United States – with a wink and a nod to the insurgents
– appeared on Aristide's doorstep to escort him from the country.
Aristide was no saint or even, arguably, a democrat. But instead of
standing behind the efforts of the OAS and CARICOM to foster a
compromise that would have upheld the constitution, the United States
acted unilaterally – and in an unprincipled fashion – to achieve its
favored result...
the Bush administration turned its back on one of its key allies in the
war on drugs – Bolivia. In 2003, President Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada requested emergency assistance to deal with popular unrest
stemming in part from the U.S.-backed drug eradication program. The
Bush administration declined his request. Several months later, a
backlash led by the head of the coca growers union pushed the president
from power. As Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development said,
"This is a case where the United States, for a paltry amount of
money, could have helped secure a country in Latin America." The
failure of the United States to come through with assistance also
undermined U.S. anti-narcotics efforts"
IN SHORT:
Democracy shemocracy.
Democracy ain't perfect and
it is NOT the ONLY path to national success and dignity.
2.5, 2.6
Nation Building
FLIP
10/3/00
[Bush]: "...I don't think
our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I
think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our
troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when
it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a
nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have
supported either..."
[Bush]: "...Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're
going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America?
Absolutely not."..."
[Bush]: "...I don't want to try to put our troops in all
places at all times. I don't want to be the world's
policeman..."
IN SHORT:
(a) American troops
should not be used for nation-building. American troops should only
be used for fighting wars.
(b) American troops should not be the world's policemen.
FLOPPITY
FLOP
Compassiongate: Er, see, Afghanistan and Iraq.
EXAMPLE,
via CAP - [Bush]: "We will be changing the regime of
Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."
IN SHORT:
(a) American troops should be
used for nation-building in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
(b) American troops should be the world's policemen (in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, etc.)
2.7
Overextending the military
FLIP
10/3/00
- [Bush]: "...The other day, I was
honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman
Schwarzkopf, who stood by my side and agreed with me. They
said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we
don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the
military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the
world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a
serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to
prevent that..."
IN SHORT:
We are going to have a serious
problem if we overextend our troops with nation-building missions and we
should not be doing this.
FLOP
March
2003 [Link]:
"...Bush gained office in part
by pledging to relieve soldiers like Wells from the onerous burdens the
Clinton administration had imposed by, among other things, reconsidering
the U.S. presence in the Balkans. Yet military life hasn't gotten easier
since Bush took office; indeed, it's gotten measurably harder. For
Wells, the war on terrorism has meant "more frequent deployments,
less time at home"--not just more missions, but more time training
for them and the constant pressure of being on a permanent war footing.
"Since the war on terrorism has expanded so quickly and so vastly,
you never know when, or where, you're going to go," he says. Wells
spent five months in Afghanistan after September 11 and did yet another
stint in Louisiana this past fall. "I missed all four of our
birthdays, the anniversaries, major holidays. 2002--gone. No birthday
parties, no Christmas, nothing." Orders to deploy to the Middle
East could come any day.
More military spending, it turns out, hasn't made life any easier. The
extra $70 billion a year the Bush administration has pumped into the
Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and slightly fatter paychecks. But
it hasn't bought a much bigger military force. There are only about
27,000 more active-duty troops today than in 2000--and even with those
additions, the military is more overstretched now than it was when Bush
took office. During the first three months of this year, the United
States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any
given time as it did in 2000. It's getting harder to recruit new
soldiers, and, on the whole, harder to keep the ones we have. The Army
is so short of some specialties that it has imposed stop-loss on about
50,000 troops--that is, refused to let them retire or resign--while in
January, the Marine Corps imposed a 12-month stop-loss order on the
entire service. Large swathes of the U.S. military thus no longer meet
the definition of a volunteer force. Nor, increasingly, do the reserves.
Since September 11, thousands have been serving for long stretches, far
from home, to meet the country's growing homeland-security requirements
and to fill in the gaps left by active-duty soldiers deployed elsewhere
in the world. Their employers are grumbling, and their families are
griping.
The average man in uniform, in other words, is more frustrated and
overburdened today than he was two years ago--affecting not just the
soldiers themselves, but their ability to protect the rest of us.
"The great majority of Army combat units are not ready for combat
without significant additional training," wrote Lt. Col. Tim Reese,
a respected commander who led a U.S. tank battalion in Kosovo, in Armor
magazine last summer. Our capability and security has already begun to
suffer. Because Army troops weren't able to deploy quickly enough, the
first ground forces in landlocked Afghanistan last year were Marines,
specialists in amphibious assault. During the U.S.-led battle at Tora
Bora and Operation Anaconda, the brass was both unwilling and unable to
deploy enough troops to encircle the enemy, allowing hundreds of Taliban
and al Qaeda fighters to escape to neighboring Pakistan, including,
possibly, Osama bin Laden.
Things are about to get much worse. During the last two months,
President Bush has ordered some 87,000 of America's overstretched
soldiers to the Persian Gulf, where they joined a force of roughly equal
magnitude already preparing for war in Iraq. As many as 250,000 U.S.
troops will take part in an eventual invasion of Iraq, on top of those
already peacekeeping, battling terrorism, and guarding American
interests around the world. Fighting a war, of course, is the military's
primary purpose. But when the shooting stops, about 75,000 of those
soldiers will need to stay behind--twice as many as are currently
stationed in South Korea to deter an invasion from the North, and more
than 12 times the dwindling number serving in Bosnia and Kosovo.
That can only mean decreased readiness, shrinking re-enlistments, lower
morale, and, quite possibly, more mistakes like the one at Tora Bora..."
August
2004 [Link]:
"...From ill-fitting uniforms to
non-working equipment, young men and women from across the country, many
of whom joined the military with dreams of college and a steady future,
have been shortchanged by a government that pressed for war without full
regard of the costs. After being sent to do battle in Iraq, some have
had to battle their own government for promised pay and benefits. They
have been lied to regarding the length of stay, and they've been forced
to buy their own tickets home when offered two-week leave. Frightened
parents have purchased basic protective gear for their sons and
daughters that the military did not provide. And fears of another wave
of mysterious illnesses for which no protection is known have already
been ignited..."
IN SHORT:
We are having serious problems
overextending and under-supporting our troops (especially in
nation-building missions) but we SHOULD be doing this.
2.8, 2.9
Middle-East Policy and Clinton Administration [via Timothy
Noah]
FLIP
10/11/00
-
[Bush]: "...I appreciate the way the [Clinton] administration
has worked hard to calm the tensions [in the Middle-East between Israel
and the Palestinians]. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman
Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace..."
[Bush]: "...And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This
current administration's worked hard to keep the parties at the
table..."
IN SHORT:
Clinton administration has
worked hard in the Middle-East (as an honest broker) to calm the
tensions and this is appreciated
FLOP
4/5/02
- [Bush]: "..Well, we've tried summits
in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where
a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we
had significant intifada in the area..."
IN SHORT:
Israeli-Palestinian summits
set up by Pres. Clinton were ineffective and led to violence
FLIP AGAIN
4/6/02 - [Bush]:
"...Somebody told me there's a story floating around that
somehow I am blaming the Clinton administration for what's going on
in the Middle East right now. … I appreciate what President Clinton
tried to do. He tried to bring peace to the Middle East..."
IN SHORT:
Israeli-Palestinian
summits set up by Pres. Clinton are to be appreciated and not to be
blamed for the violence
2.10
Middle-East Policy and Bush Administration
FLIP
[EXAMPLE]
4/5/02 - [Bush]:
"..Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember.
It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing
happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the
area..."
IN SHORT:
U.S. policy on the
Israel-Palestine situation should be more hands-OFF and
calling summits doesn't make sense.
FLOP
4/5/02
- [Link]:
"...From the
very start the Bush administration made it clear that it had no
intention of becoming engaged in the task of trying to broker peace in
the Middle East. The White House made explicit its contempt for Bill
Clinton's efforts to achieve a lasting settlement - even going so far as
to blame his peace-making efforts for creating higher levels of
violence.
In the two years since, there have been sporadic efforts to influence
events, but little could disguise the fact that the president's heart
was not in it. As recently as last weekend, George W Bush refrained from
serious public engagement with the issue, merely saying that he could
understand the new Israeli offensive on the West Bank.
Yesterday all that changed. The escalation of violence on the ground,
coupled with a rising tide of domestic indignation over the
administration's passivity, finally stung the president into action. He
announced last night that he was dispatching the secretary of state,
Colin Powell, on his third visit to the region. And he combined renewed
criticism of Yasser Arafat with an unequivocal message to Ariel Sharon
to cease building new settlements and to begin an immediate withdrawal
from the areas of the West Bank the Israeli army has so brutally invaded
over the past week. Some commentators described this as the biggest
u-turn of his presidency..."
5/23/03
via CAP - [Bush]: "If a meeting advances progress toward
two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a
meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East."
IN SHORT:
U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine situation should be more hands-on
and could involve summits.
2.11, 2.12
Humility and Arrogance
FLIP
10/11/00
[Bush]: "...It really
depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If
we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble
nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation
stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's
why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that
promotes freedom..."
[Bush]: "...I’m not sure the role of the United States is to
go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I
want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not
have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s
the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do
it this way, so should you..."
12/19/99
- [Bush]: "...Ours should
not be the paternalistic leadership of an arrogant big brother, but
the inviting and welcoming leadership of a great and noble
nation..."
Jan
2001 inaugural address [ [Bush]: "Today,
we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through
civility, courage, compassion and character. America, at its best,
matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil
society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and
forgiveness. Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be
petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear
small...We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a
tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over
cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it,
is a way to shared accomplishment."
IN SHORT:
(a) In our foreign policy civility and humility is important and there should be no
arrogance or pettiness. The U.S should not be walking into a country and telling
them to do things the way the U.S. wants to do it.
(b) We should not be paternalistic like an arrogant big brother, but
inviting and welcoming
FLOP
NOTE:
Bush and his Cabinet alienated countries all over the globe with
their arrogance and vindictiveness compassionate
conservatism - the list not only includes Rumsfeld's
Old Europe, but other traditional allies like Canada, Turkey,
Mexico, etc.
[Example
1]: "...President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room
for neutrality in the war against terrorism..." Over time it's
going to be important for nations to know they will be held
accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with
us or against us in the fight against terror."..."
[Example
2]: "...Consider the Bush team's behavior over the past
few weeks toward countries that opposed the war in Iraq. Almost as
soon as the fighting stopped, the French government started trying
to mend fences. Paris abandoned its long-standing opposition to NATO control
over the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. In a surprise
concession, and a break with Russia, it agreed to suspend (though
not remove) U.N. sanctions on post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Jacques
Chirac warned Syria not to harbor Iraqi officials and telephoned
George W. Bush, breaking a months-long silence between the two
men. Jean-David Levitte, France's ambassador to the United States, said
his government wanted to "turn this bitter page and think
positively about what we have to do together. "The Bush
administration responded with a high-level meeting to decide how to punish
Paris for opposing the war. According to reports in The New York
Times and The Washington Post, the Bushies are
considering downgrading France's status at international meetings and
bypassing the North Atlantic Council, NATO's
governing body, because France is a member. Bush officials noted
that when the president attends the G-8 summit in Evian, France, this
June, he will stay across the border in Switzerland. No pettiness
here.
And it's not only France. President Bush, who famously refused to
place a congratulatory phone call to Gerhard Schroeder after he was
reelected on an antiwar platform, has not spoken to the German
leader yet this year. The White House recently canceled a Bush trip
to Ottawa, leading one Canadian academic to tell the Times
that relations between the two countries were at "the lowest
moment since the early 1960s."
The United States has pointedly refused to set a date for signing a
long-planned free-trade deal with Chile, which refused to use its
rotating Security Council seat to back a second resolution
authorizing war. (There are also reports, denied by Bush officials,
that the United States has slowed talks on a trade deal with
Thailand as punishment for its lukewarm stance on the war.)
White House Envoy to the Americas Otto Reich recently warned Caribbean
countries that their antiwar stance might bring U.S.
"consequences." And, in a slap at Mexican President Vicente
Fox, the former Bush pal who refused to back the Iraq war, the
White House has scrapped this year's Cinco de Mayo
celebrations. Pettiness? Perish the thought. This retaliation isn't just
vindictive; it's deeply stupid...governments across the world opposed
the Iraq war to appease citizenries angered by perceived U.S.
bullying. So now that the war is over--and our military victory
gives us a chance to improve America's image--the Bush
administration has responded with a fresh round of bullying. Sounds
like a winning strategy to me."..."
[Example
3]: "U.S. officials are
engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often
fragile democratic governments to sign bilateral agreements with
Washington. As you know, these agreements would exempt 270 million
Americans and foreign nationals working under contract to the U.S.
government from the authority of the court. While we believe the
agreements the United States is proposing violate the ICC treaty by
going beyond the letter and spirit of Article 98, I am not writing to
argue the unlawfulness of these instruments.
Whatever the administration thinks of the International Criminal Court,
its tactics in pursuing these bilateral agreements are unconscionable.
Other governments can plainly see that punitive measures are being used
primarily against poor and relatively weak states with few options other
than to give in to the United States. Signing an agreement will put an
ICC state party in breach of its legal obligations and at odds with
other important national interests. This raw misuse of U.S. power makes
the policy all the more objectionable.
The administration's hostility to the International Criminal Court is
particularly ill-conceived given the progress made in establishing the
ICC on the strongest possible basis."
See these myriad other examples: Peter
Beinart (TNR), CNN,
Michael
J. Jordan (Christian Science Monitor), Paul
Krugman (New York Times), Gloria Galloway (The
Globe and Mail), Michael Tomasky (The
American Prospect), Paul
Glastris (MSN/Slate), Pew Research
Center, Robin
Wright and Dana Milbank (Washington Post), eRiposte
IN SHORT:
(a) In our foreign policy civility and humility is irrelevant and we can be as
arrogant and petty as we want. The U.S should be walking into countries (like
Afghanistan and Iraq) and telling them to do things the way the
U.S. wants to do it.
(b) We can be paternalistic like an arrogant big brother, not
necessarily inviting and welcoming.
2.13, 2.14
Funding Corrupt Officials
FLIP
10/11/00
- [Bush]: "...We can lend
money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn't be
lending money to corrupt officials..."
IN SHORT:
We should not lend money to corrupt officials
FLOP
2/21/04
[Link]:
"...The Department of
Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from
the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated
and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for
war. The Pentagon has set aside
between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information
Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi
[Compassiongate note: the convicted
criminal]...Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice
President Dick Cheney's office and among top Pentagon officials, is on
the Iraqi Governing Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United
States to help administer the country following the ouster of Saddam
Hussein last April...."
2/23/04 [Link]:
""As
far as we're concerned we've
been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans
are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." Those were
the words
last week of Ahmed Chalabi, head of the INC, member of the IGC, and
central player in a scandal the scope of which Americans are only now
beginning to grasp. The "what was said before" that Chalabi is
referring to, of course, are the numerous bogus claims about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction he peddled into American governmental
channels over the last half dozen years and more.
...
Yet, we really don't seem to be angry at all. We funded Chalabi's
pre-war intelligence operation in Iraq -- thus placing ourselves in the
pathbreaking position of bankrolling a disinformation campaign against
ourselves. (Much of his other money came from Iran. But we can get into
that later.) And amazingly, we're still funding it.
According to this KnightRidder article
from late last week the Pentagon has set aside between $3 and $4 million
to fund Chalabi's Information Collection Program through 2004. So we
want to keep buying Chalabi's prized intel for at least the next ten
months?
We're far past the point where there's any question that basically all
the intel we got from Chalabi was bogus. We're not far from the point of
concluding that it was knowingly bogus or at least passed on with a
willful indifference to its validity. And we're still going to pay his
'intelligence' operation $4 million more this year?
Isn't the $400
million worth of contracts to companies tied to his family enough to
keep him happy?..."
IN SHORT:
We should lend money to corrupt, lying officials
FLIP AGAIN
5/18/04
- [Link]:
"...The Pentagon has stopped funding Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile
it once hoped might help lead Iraq but whose intelligence reports and
motives were doubted elsewhere in Washington, U.S. officials said
Tuesday..."
IN SHORT:
We should not lend money to corrupt, lying officials
2.15 War
President, Peace President
FLIP
2/8/04
- [Bush]: "I'm a war president"
IN SHORT:
I'm a War President.
FLOP
7/20/04
- [Bush]: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the
peace president"
IN SHORT:
I wanna be a Peace President.
2.16 Torture
1 [via Tim
Dunlop]
FLIP
6/26/03
[Bush]: "The United States is committed to the world-wide
elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example."
[Bush]: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others,
Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield
their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions
and denying access to international human rights monitors. August 1,
2002"
IN SHORT:
Human rights abusers hide tortured prisoners. We promise we won't.
FLOP
8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum
for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002
In Part V, we discuss whether Section
2340A may be unconstitutional if to interrogations undertaken of enemy
combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers. We
find that in the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and
its allies, prosecution under Section 2340A may be barred because
enforcement of the statute would represent an unconstitutional
infringement of the President's authority to conduct war....We
conclude that, under the current circumstances, necessity or
self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate
Section 2340A..."
9/9/04
- [Link]:
"...The United States may have kept up to 100 “ghost detainees”
in Iraq off the books and concealed from Red Cross observers, a far
higher number than previously reported, an Army general told Congress on
Thursday, as congressional hearings got under way on alleged prison
abuse incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Estimates
were rough because the CIA has withheld documents on concealed
prisoners, Army generals who investigated U.S. abuses of Iraqi prisoners
told lawmakers..."
Reality
- [Link]:
"U.S. treatment of terror
suspects and potential witnesses has been particularly obscure. The Bush
administration typically prevents prisoners from contacting attorneys or
asserting rights to fair treatment. Indeed, U.S. authorities have
refused to identify the large majority of detainees or release any
information about them, arguing that such data could help terrorists.
In the first 15 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, nearly 3,000
suspected al Qaeda members and supporters were detained worldwide,
according to U.S. officials.
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that
prisoners abroad are being treated humanely, but reports have surfaced
in the news media about cruel treatment of detainees in American-run
detention centers, where the rules of due process are not always
applied. In interviews with The Post last year, members of the U.S.
government's national security apparatus defended the use of violence as
just and necessary.
"
IN SHORT:
Human rights abusers hide tortured prisoners. We do too.
2.17 Torture
2 [via Tim
Dunlop]
FLIP
6/26/03
[Bush]: "Today, on the United Nations International Day in
Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong
solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an
affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a
world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.
Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment,
ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since
1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical
or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control.
Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes
whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.
Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools
such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable
crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice."
IN SHORT:
Governments are forbidden from torturing and deliberately inflicting
severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their
custody or control.
FLOP
8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum
for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002
You have asked for our Office's views
regarding the standards of conduct under the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or punishment
as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of The United States
Code. As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of
the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States. We
conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that
are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to
rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and
the Convention. We further find that certain acts may be cruel,
inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the
requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription
against torture. We conclude by examining the possible defenses that
would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the
statute..."
8/1/02
"U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Memorandum
for Alberto R Gonzales (.pdf)
Counsel to the President
RE: Standards of Conduct for interrogation Under U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A
August 1, 2002
We conclude that for an act to constitute
torture....it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical
pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain
accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure,
impairment of bodily function, or even death...We conclude that the
statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme
acts..."
IN SHORT:
Governments may torture people by subjecting them to cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment but still
not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity that violates
the law.
2.18 Geneva
Convention and War Crimes [via Atrios]
FLIP
3/23/03
[Rumsfeld for Bush]: "...[said that] "the Geneva Convention
indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or
humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or
coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention
indicates how they should be treated."...His statement came after
interviews with five captured U.S. soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi
television..."
IN SHORT:
We will follow the Geneva Convention and we expect our opponents will as
well.
FLOP
7/27/03
- [Link]:
"On the Taking of Hostages
Calpundit
says:
- At first we're led to believe that
we're gaining ground in Iraq due to a simple shift in tactics, but a
few days later we learn that what this really means is that we're
kidnapping families and holding them hostage in order to increase
the "quality and quantity of intelligence." This may seem
like a good idea in the world of 24, but in the real world it's a
war crime. It should end right now, and I hope everyone who linked
to the first article links to the second as well and denounces these
tactics as unworthy of us. The world should know that we're better
than this.
...Here´s Convention
4, articles 34 and 147.
- Art. 34. The taking of hostages is
prohibited
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates
shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed
against persons or property protected by the present Convention:
wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to
body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful
confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to
serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed
in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Reader AQ also writes in to give
us this from the Uniform Military Code of Justice.
- 897. ART. 97. UNLAWFUL DETENTION
Any person subject to this chapter who, except as provided by law,
arrests, or confines any person shall be punished as a court-martial
may direct.
Of course, now that the law is just Bremer´s
personal game of Calvinball who knows what this means.
Mark
Kleiman comments...as
does Phil Carter. Tom
Spencer and Big
Media Matt also comment..."
More here,
here,
here
and here.
IN SHORT:
We can and will violate the Geneva Convention when we have to.
2.19
Pre-empting Threats to the U.S.
FLIP
3/17/03
- [Bush]: "...We choose to meet
that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our
skies and cities...The cause of peace
requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In
the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose
threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this
century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a
policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before
seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair
notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only
after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide..."
IN SHORT:
We cannot let real threats from those who possess weapons of mass
destruction grow and wait for them to attack. We have to act
pre-emptively.
FLOP
1/26/03
- [Link]:
"The National Security Strategy
of the United States promulgated last September provides a formal
rationale for the Bush administration's rhetoric and actions against
Iraq. Indeed, the United States seems prepared "to forestall or
prevent... hostile acts" and "act preemptively" to remove
Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq because of the "emerging
threat" that country might pose to international peace and
security. But within two months of announcing the new U.S. national
security strategy, the North Koreans decided to put it to the test. And
it looks like the Bush Doctrine has failed.
Here's what we know:
- According to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, there is no evidence that Iraq "lied in its
declaration on the nuclear issue." But North Korea -- another
country named as part of the "axis of evil" by President
Bush -- has admitted to an ongoing secret nuclear weapons program
and is in violation of its 1994 agreement with the United States to
freeze its nuclear weapons development.
- There is no evidence that Iraq
possesses any nuclear weapons and likely does not have the
capability to produce any. On the other hand, North Korea is
believed to possess at least one or two weapons and is currently
extracting weapons grade plutonium from a previously shut-down
reactor that could be used to build several more weapons within a
matter of months.
- Iraq -- per U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1441 -- has allowed weapons inspectors back into the
country, granted them unfettered access, and is largely cooperating
with the inspection teams. Meanwhile, North Korea has removed U.N.
monitoring equipment from a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and has
expelled U.N. weapons inspectors.
Yet while the wheels of impending war
continue to churn vis-à-vis Iraq, President Bush has said that "we
will have dialogue" with North Korea and has emphasized that the
United States has "no aggressive intentions" toward the DPRK.
...
And short of military action to
prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Bush Doctrine
offers no real options for dealing with a country once it has nuclear
weapons. Indeed, the United States's current approach to North Korea is
a willingness to "talk" but not "negotiate." That is
a distinction without a difference, and is an admission that there is
little the United States can do to force the North Koreans to abandon
their current course.
The Bush Doctrine may be a way to neatly justify eventual U.S. military
action against Iraq. But, ultimately, it is shortsighted and woefully
inadequate for dealing with North Korea and future proliferation."
IN SHORT:
We SHOULD let real threats from those who possess weapons of mass
destruction grow and wait for them to attack. We DO NOT HAVE to act
pre-emptively.
2.20
American embassy in Israel [via Timothy
Noah]
FLIP
2000
- [Bush]: "'Something will happen when I'm president,' Bush told a
Jewish lobbying group a year ago. 'As soon as I take office I will begin
the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen
as its capital.' The Bush campaign in October slammed Vice President Al
Gore for backsliding on the move."
IN SHORT:
As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S.
ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.
FLOP
6/12/01
- [Bush]: "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by
the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section
7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the
'Act'), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national
security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of six
months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the
Act." --June 11 presidential
memorandum delaying the congressionally mandated relocation of the
U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."
3/24/02
- [Link
via Failure
Is Impossible]: "...[Bush's] campaign slammed President Bill
Clinton and Gore for being too slow to honor their own promises to move
the embassy. But last June, Bush delayed the move, approved by Congress
in 1995, by six months. In December, he delayed it by another six
months..."
IN SHORT:
Sorry I know I said I would but I won't.
|