POL: New terror detainee bill being discussed

[cartman]

Based on what I've read about this bill so far, I've got some real serious reservations about it. It seems to pretty much do away with Habeas Corpus and due process if you are so much as thought to have any terror ties. It is still only being discussed, but it sounds way too open ended, and doesn't really explain what shortcomings exist today that this will address. The only quotes are the general "It's a different world after 9/11" and "our current system doesn't address these scenarios".

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 28, 6:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
ADVERTISEMENT

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the
Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the
Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

[Greyroofoo]

if this gets passed, I'll have to seriously consider moving to Canadia

[Dutch]

if this gets passed, I'll have to seriously consider moving to Canadia

Is "seriously consider" anything like a rough draft of what you plan to do?

The article does get the blood boiling, but c'mon, it does state it's a draft. Drafts are works in progress by their very basic defintion. Let's be clear here.

[sterlingice]

C'mon, Dutch. A draft of a tax cut or tax raising bill is still a tax cut or a tax raise. The crux of the bill is that there is indefininte detainment for as long until undefined hostilities cease. No one seems to be debating that part- it's the "who is an enemy combatant" part.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Fucking idiots... some people MAY have been swayed by no legal rights for non-citizens (not I, of course), but to cast away rights for CITIZENS? Not to mention that is blatently unconstitutional to allow the bill to be so broad that citizens may lose their constitutionally protected rights.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't understand the need for this, other than the desire for totalitarian power.

[Glengoyne]

I'm thinking that this simply won't pass the constitutional sniff test, that is, if the writer or some of those whose opinions are being shared aren't simply overstating the ramifications of what was being proposed.

[dawgfan]

Surprised this hasn't been bumped yet, but this bill did in fact pass by a wide margin last Thursday (how your Senator voted (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259)).

Here's an editorial from the NY Times regarding this legislation: Rushing Off a Cliff (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

I'm waiting to hear the administration apologists here explain away this one...

[Joe]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

[dawgfan]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
I'm not seeing that provision in the bill, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it's there and I just overlooked it.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think people are just too afraid of being labeled terror suspects and being tossed away to discuss it. i know i'm still pretty much in shock that it passed.

[dawgfan]

i know i'm still pretty much in shock that it passed.
I'm getting the impression that Republican strategists did a good job of scaring fellow Republicans and Democrats on this one and will be using "No" votes on this measure in the upcoming mid-term elections as evidence that those legislators are "soft" on terrorists and the war on terror.

Of course, if I'm one of those Senators or Representatives that voted "No", I'll retort that rather than being soft on terrorism, I'm strong on preserving the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.

[sabotai]

I'm strong on preserving the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.

That doesn't seem to win many votes these days, though...

[NoMyths]

America is being lost by its own accord.

Either that or its becoming again what it always was and wanted to be: brutal and borderless.

I suppose my grief is for what America could have become, had her heart ever caught fire for longer than a season.

[Joe]

I'm not seeing that provision in the bill, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it's there and I just overlooked it.

Here it is


(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)
4 of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
5 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have
6 jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against
7 the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of
8 the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of
9 confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the
10 United States and has been determined by the United
11 States to have been properly detained as an enemy com
12 batant or is awaiting such determination.’’.
13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
14 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact
15 ment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without ex
16 ception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of
17 this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, trans
18 fer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien
19 detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

[NoMyths]

No court. Meaning exactly what it says.

[nole4sho]

We need to stop this nonsense.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Hmm, have these guys not read Article I of the Constitution:


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

There clearly is no state of rebellion, and as far as I know the US has not been invaded... Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?

[dawgfan]

Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?
One would hope this court hasn't been so politically directed by the recent appointments that they'd abandon the Constitution as readily as the President and Congress have with this bill, but who knows? Plus, who will be the first person to challenge this law in court?

[John Galt]

Hmm, have these guys not read Article I of the Constitution:



There clearly is no state of rebellion, and as far as I know the US has not been invaded... Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?

One reason is that Congress has stripped jurisdiction of the courts to hear detainees' arguments against detention. It is unclear who else would have standing to challenge the suspension of habeas corpus other than the person being detained. For that reason, it's possible that the Supreme Court would never be permitted to decide the issue. I'm not sure that is the case (without looking at things further), but my initial review of the issues leads me to that conclusion.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I would imagine, though, that the issue of jurisdiction could be appealed up, with the Supreme Court (if they chose) overruling the attempt by Congress to head them off.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Laws that prohibit judicial review/appeal are valid but only if they in fact are legal under the Constitution. It seems that this one may not be. Certainly, the US Supreme Court can always hear cases to determine if it has jurisdiction in the first instance. I'd imagine we'll see a detainee file a habeas corpus writ soon enough to test it out. Also, if the Dems gain control of Congress and the presidency in 2 years time, they can always change the law.

[Glengoyne]

Wasn't this bill significantly modified from the version discussed above? To say that this passed, at least in the form described by the article above, doesn't exactly seem accurate.

[dawgfan]

Wasn't this bill significantly modified from the version discussed above? To say that this passed, at least in the form described by the article above, doesn't exactly seem accurate.
Which objectionable provisions were modified? The suspension of Habeas Corpus is still intact; the ambiguous definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is still intact; the pardon of this administration for any crimes is in there; the acceptence of practices most people would define as "torture" is still there; so what exactly was changed "significantly" about this bill?

[Glengoyne]

Which objectionable provisions were modified? The suspension of Habeas Corpus is still intact; the ambiguous definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is still intact; the pardon of this administration for any crimes is in there; the acceptence of practices most people would define as "torture" is still there; so what exactly was changed "significantly" about this bill?

Well the torture bit was pretty well revamped as I understand it, so much so that McCain now endorses it. Also the "secret" evidnece provision was eliminated. Those are both pretty significant changes.

The "pardon", prohibition of prosecution clause wasn't going anywhere. That would be a pretty ridiculous thing to even think about removing. That protects the boots on the ground much moreso than the administration. It was non-negotiable.

The definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" could maybe be tightened up. What do you recommend? I'd like to have seen some documented provision allowing a prisoner to request an evaluation of his status. In fact this is one thing I think the high court will revisit. I think that a process, even if it is done by the millitary without the active participation of the accused, would be acceptable to me. Sort of like a grand jury to determine that there are grounds to hold someone.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

I just don't get why it's necessary. The only basis I've heard is that the writs would clog civilian courts. C'mon, are you kidding me? I don't believe it, but even if true, is that really a justification for tossing habeas corpus aside. I mean, for god's sake hire 5 judges and rent some office space.

No, the real reason is so the President can detain people forever really, based on what we've have seen previously as someone being in the wrong place during a street sweep. Some may so what. Well, it matters. You can ask the family of the next American soldier who gets captured. The U.S. won't even have any moral ground to stand on to request release or a trial. And I'm just not talking about Iraq or terrorists here, but anywhere in the world and in the many years to come. The U.S. has no moral authority anymore. All for what really?

I have come to the conclusion that as I get older, I will look upon 2001- 2006 as the time when America lost its way.

As it stands now, only the Constitution can protect us. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (and its current makeup) decides what the Constitution says.

Ah, screw it, I'm just going to pop in my FOF game and not think about it, much like the rest of the American public.

[John Galt]

Article III of the Constitution provides: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress has the authority to strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court except when there is a prescribed Constitutional issue at play (which is very limited). Even in Hamdan, which was otherwise a total loser for the government, the Court agreed that Congress had stripped jurisdiction from future detainee cases. They only reached the merits because a slight majority held the court stripping statute did not apply to cases already in the system.

In other words, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide its jurisdiction over a habeas case, but unless it engages in a blatant power grab, it will rightfully affirm that it has no jurisdiction by order of Congress.

Historically, court stripping has been very rare (I believe it has only occurred once or maybe twice before). However, this Congress has sought to strip the courts jurisdiction on several occassions (bills have been proposed for gay marriage, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, detainee treatment, and other war on terror areas).

[John Galt]

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

While those of us who aren't aliens may not be concerned about this, it affects a great many people. International students, employees, and all sorts of resident aliens may be imprisoned by the military with no habeas recourse. This is really, really unusual in American history. At the time the Constitution was signed, habeas was regularly granted to aliens and has been throughout American history (with the limited exception of invasion and Civil War). The new law effectively robs a right that has been guaranteed since the Magna Carta to up to 30 million people in America (counting legal and illegal aliens). That's no small number.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Article III of the Constitution provides: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress has the authority to strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court except when there is a prescribed Constitutional issue at play (which is very limited).

That's all well and good with respect to statutory habeas, but constitutional habeas (a more limited claim, but one that should cover the Gitmo detainees) is another story.


Even in Hamdan, which was otherwise a total loser for the government, the Court agreed that Congress had stripped jurisdiction from future detainee cases. They only reached the merits because a slight majority held the court stripping statute did not apply to cases already in the system.


This is not true. They avoided the stripping question by saying that even if it worked it didn't matter because the law wouldn't apply to Hamdan anyway. With respect to stripping jurisdiction, the Court recognized Hamdan's arguments that a) appellate jurisdiction over habeas cases comes from the Constitution rather than Congress and b) that the Government's reading of the DTA would represent an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. The Court then stated that:

We find it unnecessary to reach either of these arguments. Ordinary principles of statutory construction suffice to rebut the Government’s theory—at least insofar as this case, which was pending at the time the DTA was enacted, is concerned.

[John Galt]

That's all well and good with respect to statutory habeas, but constitutional habeas (a more limited claim, but one that should cover the Gitmo detainees) is another story.



This is not true. They avoided the stripping question by saying that even if it worked it didn't matter because the law wouldn't apply to Hamdan anyway. With respect to stripping jurisdiction, the Court recognized Hamdan's arguments that a) appellate jurisdiction over habeas cases comes from the Constitution rather than Congress and b) that the Government's reading of the DTA would represent an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. The Court then stated that:

I think what you are saying is true, but not on point. As far as I know, there is no precedent for Constitutional habeas being applied to aliens. If there is, then Congress's act violates the Suspension Clause and the Court can strike it down. However, assuming this court will find Constitutional habeas applies to aliens may be a stretch.

As for Hamdan, you are essentially correct that the Court punted the issue (and I should have said that instead), but I think reading that opinion makes it clear that they wouldn't argue that Congress didn't have the right to deny habeas jurisdiction over people at Gitmo. I could be wrong, but I think this court will not find constitutional habeas applies to aliens in the U.S., much less those in Gitmo.

[Glengoyne]

While those of us who aren't aliens may not be concerned about this, it affects a great many people. International students, employees, and all sorts of resident aliens may be imprisoned by the military with no habeas recourse. This is really, really unusual in American history. At the time the Constitution was signed, habeas was regularly granted to aliens and has been throughout American history (with the limited exception of invasion and Civil War). The new law effectively robs a right that has been guaranteed since the Magna Carta to up to 30 million people in America (counting legal and illegal aliens). That's no small number.

I understand that this does affect a lot of people, including legal aliens. So while, I'm not personally threatened by it, I am concerned that we are allowing for the indefinite detention of people without any form of due process. To say that this hasn't been done before, doesn't quite seem accurate to me though, because we all know that presidents have suspended Habeas Corpus during times of war. I think that this war is different enough that a distinction can cleanly be drawn. This war, especially with regard to detention of persons on US soil, is being fought on by law enforcement. In other words, the home front of this war is a law and order affair, not a millitary one. As such, the laws of law enforcement should apply. As for the Gitmo detainees, those guys are prisoners of war.

This is a tremendous power, being confered to "the Government", and there absolutely should be some means to hold the government accountable for the actions taken under such provisions. How does it go? "With great power, comes great responsibility." There have been terror cases where I do not believe the government has lived up to those responsibilities.

[MrBigglesworth]

You all are discussing laws as if they mean something. We would be torturing people and holding them without trial whether or not this bill passed and whether or not the SC deems it unconstitutional. Bush is The Decider, end of story. I'm starting to have doubts that this administration will leave office in 2009. Sounds crazy, but if I told you 5 years ago that the Congress of the United States would suspend habeas corpus and legalize torture while the executive wiretapped Americans at will and operated secret torture prisons, you'd think I was crazy. Where does it end? What is the limit that this groups is willing to go to?

[dawgfan]

I understand that this does affect a lot of people, including legal aliens. So while, I'm not personally threatened by it, I am concerned that we are allowing for the indefinite detention of people without any form of due process.
Actually, it's worse than that - thanks to the broad definition of "enemy combatants" even U.S. citizens can be detained and forced to defend themselves before military tribunals and without the same constitutional protections afforded under criminal trials.

This is a tremendous power, being confered to "the Government", and there absolutely should be some means to hold the government accountable for the actions taken under such provisions. How does it go? "With great power, comes great responsibility." There have been terror cases where I do not believe the government has lived up to those responsibilities.
I agree completely - it is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that bothers me the most. Without the threat that their actions can be reviewed by an independent judiciary, where's the motivation for those in power to keep from targeting political enemies?

While I have concerns over how this bill defines what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques and the admissibility of certain coerced testimony (and I definitely have concerns), my bigger issue with this bill is the amount of power granted to the President and the Department of Defense in determining who is an enemy and the very limited legal oversight of their actions.

[dawgfan]

Dola - here's an article that explains a lot of my concerns:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[Glengoyne]

Actually, it's worse than that - thanks to the broad definition of "enemy combatants" even U.S. citizens can be detained and forced to defend themselves before military tribunals and without the same constitutional protections afforded under criminal trials.


I agree completely - it is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that bothers me the most. Without the threat that their actions can be reviewed by an independent judiciary, where's the motivation for those in power to keep from targeting political enemies?

While I have concerns over how this bill defines what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques and the admissibility of certain coerced testimony (and I definitely have concerns), my bigger issue with this bill is the amount of power granted to the President and the Department of Defense in determining who is an enemy and the very limited legal oversight of their actions.

I was under the impression that "alien" was part of the definition of "enemy combatant".

[dawgfan]

I was under the impression that "alien" was part of the definition of "enemy combatant".
Nope:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109jtkrk1::

[Vinatieri for Prez]

dawgfan is correct. Enemy combatants include U.S. citizens. Now, habeaus corpus is not suspended for citizens as it is for aliens, but as dawgfan points out, citizens would still be subject to the military tribunals under the law (along with the secret/coerced evidence admissibility among many other things). So, yes U.S. citizen's rights have been severely cut. And yes, it also means citizens will be subject quasi-torture too under the law. It's really a great law, don't you think?

[flere-imsaho]

Well the torture bit was pretty well revamped as I understand it, so much so that McCain now endorses it. Also the "secret" evidnece provision was eliminated. Those are both pretty significant changes.

At the end of the day, however, they aren't.

The "torture bit" was revamped in that significant attempts were made to delineate, as far as possible, what activities were OK and what weren't. The "litmus test" for these torture activities seems to be whether or not they cause lasting damage. Therefore, according to this definition, simulated drowning is not torture. You can either agree with this assessment or not agree with it. I personally don't agree. Simulated drowning is torture and is inhumane.

The "secret evidence" provision was, in fact, removed, yes. However, the language of the bill still allows the DoD (or whomever) to redact any part of the evidence they want so long as the "essence" of the evidence's message is still there. Again, it's something that sounds good, but really isn't.

[Buccaneer]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo/index.html

You know, if the stupid media and its obsession with "breaking" stories before they happened would cease, maybe they would have gone ahead and starting to close the damn thing. But noooo, the media love the power to affect events, whether real or imagined.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep, it's all the media's fault. There is no doubt that the existence and continuation of the Guatanomo "situation" is squarely their fault. There is no doubt about that.

Bush, when asked last week why he had the Guatanomo detention facility set up, stated "the media, there is no doubt that once the media got involved covering the war, we had to open up Guatanomo."

[Buccaneer]

So why did they come out with this story today?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Because they are reporting "news." The better question would be why would the administration call of a meeting just because it was reported on.

[st.cronin]

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo/index.html

You know, if the stupid media and its obsession with "breaking" stories before they happened would cease, maybe they would have gone ahead and starting to close the damn thing. But noooo, the media love the power to affect events, whether real or imagined.
There is a lot wrong with the media, but I don't understand this critique. They shouldn't have reported that the government was thinking about shutting it down? That's not newsworthy? They should only report things that have happened? Does that mean no more economic forecasts, no more NFL trade speculation, no more discussing a possible Supreme Court ruling before it's made?

[ISiddiqui]

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

Ah, so you are one of the 30%.

[NoMyths]

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

Would you mind detailing some of the successes that this administration has had in making us a stronger, safer nation? I know the bad has been dominating the headlines, but if there is a compelling case that they're doing a great job, I would seriously listen to it.

[st.cronin]

Would you mind detailing some of the successes that this administration has had in making us a stronger, safer nation? I know the bad has been dominating the headlines, but if there is a compelling case that they're doing a great job, I would seriously listen to it.

Obviously there have not been a lot of great successes, and whatever the reasons for that, this administration ultimately owns their own failures. But what I admire about Bush is that he seems to think about the broad questions of our time in the right way: Should we be reacting to world events, or trying to shape the world? What should our immigration policy look like? How should our country go about retaining its primacy? I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

[DaddyTorgo]

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

oh I think that's pretty much been proven. daddy's oil money and
power-connections can take you a long way.

[JPhillips]

I wouldn't say he's a power mad autocrat, but it's undeniable that this admin has tried to expand executive authority in unprecedented ways. Personally I don't want the President to have as much concentrated power as the Bush folks do.

[NoMyths]

Obviously there have not been a lot of great successes, and whatever the reasons for that, this administration ultimately owns their own failures. But what I admire about Bush is that he seems to think about the broad questions of our time in the right way: Should we be reacting to world events, or trying to shape the world? What should our immigration policy look like? How should our country go about retaining its primacy? I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose what I don't understand, though, is that faced with clear evidence that the Bush Administration's thinking and acting about those problems hasn't solved any of them, why would one continue to believe that those ways of thinking and acting about those problems would be effective?

I don't tend to buy into those criticisms about the President (although he is no Abraham Lincoln). Rather, I look at the effect his policies and behavior are having, and I look at the method and ideology behind his and his supporters' positions, and it becomes clear that our country is in severe trouble if we pursue his course of thinking much longer.

[st.cronin]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose what I don't understand, though, is that faced with clear evidence that the Bush Administration's thinking and acting about those problems hasn't solved any of them, why would one continue to believe that those ways of thinking and acting about those problems would be effective?

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? Much of what you see is just the era that we live in, not necessarily the consequences of decisions that Bush has made. The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them." Now, maybe you will argue that Bush has made the problem worse, and you might be right - but I don't think so. I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now. But I, for one, never expected it to be a short-term success.

[NoMyths]

*nods*

I'll think about that.

[flere-imsaho]

Ah, so you are one of the 30%.

I think it's 26% today.

I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

I think this is the crux of where we go our separate ways. I honestly don't think Bush thinks a lot of this stuff through, especially with regard to long-term ramifications, unintended consequences, etc. Plus, I think he's been (more so in the past than now) too quick to take the advice he's gotten from others completely at face value.

I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now.

Bold I'll give you, but imaginative, not so much, which relates to my above comment. I don't want to hash out the invasion of Iraq again, as we've had this conversation many times before, but I'll just say that from my viewpoint, the lack of effective planning for the post-invasion period shows, amongst other things, a lack of imagination. I think, to speak to your example, this episode for Bush has been all about action, not thought.

[MrBigglesworth]

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved?
The soft bigotry of low expectations.

I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.
It's next to impossible to agree with any politician on every single issue, but shouldn't performance trump 'thinking' about something? For example, all the issues you mentioned (the Middle East, immigration, our primacy in the world) have at best stayed steady and at worst been damaged for a generation or more.

[Buccaneer]

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? Much of what you see is just the era that we live in, not necessarily the consequences of decisions that Bush has made. The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them." Now, maybe you will argue that Bush has made the problem worse, and you might be right - but I don't think so. I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now. But I, for one, never expected it to be a short-term success.

Not bad, not bad at all. What I tend to bring to the table is a historical perspective, reacting against a short-term or narrow-minded view. History will judge accordingly and we are not even close to being there. What I look back to is the Spring of 1863 and probably the Summer of 1864. Lincoln was fighting a very hostile (albeit fair weather) press, a nation that was losing its will to fight and incompetence in many levels of the government, not to mention a mad autocratic Sec of War. I am not saying at all that Bush will come out like Lincoln but just showing the danger of a narrow view of a point in time.

In studying the Civil War and its aftermath, I recognize how crucial the post-victory planning must be. It is very clear, historical perspective or not, that the aftermath after the fall of Baghdad was a collosal failure on many levels. A lot of blame falls everywhere but I do not think for a second that an alternate history (i.e., with different leadership) would have come out any better. With everyone, I mean everyone, saying that we must get Saddam out (for many reasons), any president and administration would become afflicted with the Middle East disease, as everyone else has in post-WW2 history.

[MrBigglesworth]

A lot of blame falls everywhere but I do not think for a second that an alternate history (i.e., with different leadership) would have come out any better. With everyone, I mean everyone, saying that we must get Saddam out (for many reasons), any president and administration would become afflicted with the Middle East disease, as everyone else has in post-WW2 history.
Are you saying that you think it wouldn't have mattered who was President, we would have gone into Iraq and been unsuccessful there regardless of who was in office?

[Buccaneer]

Are you saying that you think it wouldn't have mattered who was President, we would have gone into Iraq and been unsuccessful there regardless of who was in office?

Yes, given how clear the vote was in 2003, esp. considering there were those voting against just because of opposition politics. If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better. Just because the justifications proved faulty (as in many others wars throughout history) in hindsight, one has to have been there when everyone, from all those in the Clinton admin and into the Bush admin, was calling for Saddam's head. In my view, all they had to say that this was simply a continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which had a Soprano ending.

[Buccaneer]

By the way, there will always be those in Congress and in the general public that will oppose any way for any reason on the ground of appeasement, regardless of obvious genocide or invasion of ones country. Many more will become appeasers if things don't go right, which the Civil War (and ultimately the Vietnam and Iraq War) provide great examples.

[st.cronin]

It's next to impossible to agree with any politician on every single issue, but shouldn't performance trump 'thinking' about something? For example, all the issues you mentioned (the Middle East, immigration, our primacy in the world) have at best stayed steady and at worst been damaged for a generation or more.

Asked and answered. Pay attention.

[dawgfan]

Yes, given how clear the vote was in 2003, esp. considering there were those voting against just because of opposition politics.
Bush still had a lot of momentum on his side from the aftermath of 9/11 - it was politically difficult for Congress to oppose the intent to overthrow Saddam due to the unshakable desire by Bush to see it happen by any means necessary.

If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better.
I fail how to see this is a logical certainty - why exactly do you think that a more "hawkish" politician is more apt to plan for a post-war Iraq? In fact, I think the opposite is true.

Just because the justifications proved faulty (as in many others wars throughout history) in hindsight, one has to have been there when everyone, from all those in the Clinton admin and into the Bush admin, was calling for Saddam's head.
Bull. Shit.

Many people were not convinced that going after Saddam when we did was a good idea. But Bush's desire to see this war happen at any cost, and with a loose regard for facts or information that didn't support his contentions made for a politically difficult atmosphere to oppose him. His administration still had political cache in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and it certainly had a huge target on Saddam's head.

An alternate administration that didn't have the same level of intent of toppling Saddam, one that would've shown greater patience with continuing the path of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors very likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard (or even at all) to go after Saddam at that point; I certainly don't think Congress would've spearheaded an Iraq invasion.

[Dutch]

Bull. Shit.

Many people were not convinced that going after Saddam when we did was a good idea. But Bush's desire to see this war happen at any cost, and with a loose regard for facts or information that didn't support his contentions made for a politically difficult atmosphere to oppose him. His administration still had political cache in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and it certainly had a huge target on Saddam's head.

An alternate administration that didn't have the same level of intent of toppling Saddam, one that would've shown greater patience with continuing the path of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors very likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard (or even at all) to go after Saddam at that point; I certainly don't think Congress would've spearheaded an Iraq invasion.

The patience of waiting for sanctions to work was already crashing down in 2002 with proposed backdoor Soviet military deals and French and German oil contracts waiting in the wings. The US was about to get left out in the cold anyway by Europe on the Iraq deal. The traction of those sanctions were failing quickly.

A huge misconception that is gaining traction as the left gains in popularity was that President Bush is the true instigator of turmoil in the middle east; that there was peace and prosperity under sanctions for Americans and Iraqi's alike.

The terror war against the west has been gaining momentum, not idling or declining for decades. The Iraqi's were funding daily bombings in Israel. Post war documents showed that Iraq only needed to be removed from the crippling sanctions (enter: Russia/France/Germany) to reconstitue their nuclear program.

Obviously there were other reasons beyond just the fight against terror. 1991 UN Cease-Fire was violtated hundreds of times by the Iraqi's. They were engaging UN planes daily in 2002 with anti-aircraft fire because these planes were enforcing protection on large ethnic groups in the north (Kurds) and the south (Shia) which the Sunni Iraqi's needed to continually suppress to remain in power.

He had killed at least 1,000,000 people in ground wars against his neighbors, threatened other neighbors, and only held strong ties with Syria (state-sponsor of terror).

Sanctions are successful only if they rehabilitate. It didn't work. It wasn't a peaceful nor prosperous time for those underneath the higher echolon's of Iraq's Baath Party. Although news reporters weren't allowed in side Iraq to record daily death rates, some figures did creep out.

There was not less death under sanctions, but more death (according to the anti-US/liberal web-site archives of Amnesty International where they record 500,000 annual deaths directly responsible to UN Sanctions).

As for another president not pushing for regime change in Iraq, that's debateable as well. That was US policy. It was Bush Sr's policy, it was Clinton's policy. At some point, if that's our stance, and we mean what we say, you have to expect a new President will actually enforce such a policy, especially in a time when the international climate was quickly changing to our dissadvantage. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was clamoring for us to chance our stance of regime change in Iraq except for reactionary opponents to Bush in the 11th hour. And the reason was simple, "regime change" in Iraq was something that had to be done when it was done. That's the inconvenient truth.

[MrBigglesworth]

Asked and answered. Pay attention.
Maybe you should go back and read your response more carefully. You said that the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything. I'm asking you, how can you say the way he thinks trumps his actions when he hasn't even had a positive impact on the problems you see, never mind solving them.

It seems to me that you are still in love with candidate Bush (who you have to look at his thinking to judge) rather than President Bush (who has a clear track record of mediocrity at best and colossal failures at worst). If you had chosen issues like 'cutting taxes for the upper class', or 'loosening corporate regulations' I could see where you are coming from. You chose immigration and the Middle East, the former of which there has been no activity on and the latter of which has by most objective accounts gotten worse.

[MrBigglesworth]

A huge misconception that is gaining traction as the left gains in popularity was that President Bush is the true instigator of turmoil in the middle east; that there was peace and prosperity under sanctions for Americans and Iraqi's alike.
I read a lot of left of center sites, and the only time I have ever heard this is from Bush supporters setting up a straw man.

Sanctions are successful only if they rehabilitate. It didn't work.
The sanctions were in place primarily to keep Saddam from developing WMD's and from having a decent military. I know you believe that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria, but so far we haven't found any, so it looks like they worked.

There was not less death under sanctions, but more death (according to the anti-US/liberal web-site archives of Amnesty International where they record 500,000 annual deaths directly responsible to UN Sanctions).
First off, AI isn't anti-US nor is it liberal. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that one out of every 50 Iraqi's died every year because of sanctions, and I think you somehow messed up that statistic. I will grant you though that there were serious problems with the sanctions.

As for another president not pushing for regime change in Iraq, that's debateable as well. That was US policy. It was Bush Sr's policy, it was Clinton's policy. At some point, if that's our stance, and we mean what we say, you have to expect a new President will actually enforce such a policy, especially in a time when the international climate was quickly changing to our dissadvantage. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was clamoring for us to chance our stance of regime change in Iraq except for reactionary opponents to Bush in the 11th hour. And the reason was simple, "regime change" in Iraq was something that had to be done when it was done. That's the inconvenient truth.
Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.

[st.cronin]

You said that the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything.

Please don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

[BrianD]

Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.

John Kerry must have been one of the few, but I'm not sure how much traction this was getting with his party.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR971109.html

[Dutch]

First off, AI isn't anti-US nor is it liberal. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that one out of every 50 Iraqi's died every year because of sanctions, and I think you somehow messed up that statistic. I will grant you though that there were serious problems with the sanctions.

Amensty International's report that surely was the main thrust of the article I read so many years ago...

Iraq continued to be subjected to stringent economic sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The sanctions have crippled the country’s economic infrastructure and have contributed to a deteriorating economic situation, increased unemployment, rising malnutrition and mortality levels and widespread corruption. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000.nsf/f5ea2b18926bc708802568f500619c95/24fe8ccc9d037845802568f200552932!OpenDocument (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000.nsf/f5ea2b18926bc708802568f500619c95/24fe8ccc9d037845802568f200552932!OpenDocument)

Also of interest and not reported in 2000...

Violent clashes between the security forces and armed Islamist activists in the predominantly Shi‘a south were frequently reported, especially following the killing in suspicious circumstances on 19 February of Ayatollah Sadeq al-Sadr, a prominent Shi‘a cleric. Dozens of people from both sides were killed. Hundreds of people, including political prisoners and possible prisoners of conscience, were executed and large-scale arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents took place. Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees were widely reported. Hundreds of non-Arab families, mostly Kurds, were forcibly expelled from their homes in the Kirkuk area to Iraqi Kurdistan.

How did Saddam Hussein's "stable" government quell the violence?

Reports of widespread arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents, including possible prisoners of conscience, continued throughout 1999. Most of those arrested were Shi‘a Muslims suspected of having links with underground Islamist armed groups or simply relatives of people sought by the authorities.Thousands of suspected political opponents arrested in previous years continued to be held at the end of 1999. Generally it was not possible to obtain information on the detainees’ fate and whereabouts, because of both the government’s control of information and the fear of reprisals. In some cases those arrested were later executed and there was no information as to whether they had been tried and convicted or simply extrajudicially executed.


Torture and ill-treatment were used systematically against detainees in prisons and detention centres despite its prohibition under the Iraqi Constitution. Political detainees were subjected to severe torture. The most common methods of physical and psychological torture included electric shocks to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, long periods of suspension by the limbs, beating with cables, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), cigarette burns, piercing of hands with an electric drill, mock executions and threats of bringing in a female relative of the detainee, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee.

The sanctions were in place primarily to keep Saddam from developing WMD's and from having a decent military. I know you believe that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria, but so far we haven't found any, so it looks like they worked.

Yes, of course I believe it's possible the WMD's that the UN inventoried were moved to Syria. Regardless, documents recovered in post-war Iraq clearly showed Saddam Hussein wanted to restart his nuclear program once the UN was removed, which remains the other key point in the post-war debate regarding the sanctions with regard to WMD's.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

[Dutch]

dola - so it was UNICEF that made the remark, Amnesty International simply propagated it in it's annual country report.


In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

[dawgfan]

Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.
Ding-ding-ding.

Let's be clear here - aside from a very small minority of extremists, virtually everyone recognized that Saddam was a horrible leader and that he needed to be removed (not unlike many horrible leaders around the world). However, Bush the elder and Clinton also recognized that it would be problematic for the U.S. to invade Iraq and depose him - this was an action that would've been best accomplished by internal revolution, or at the very least with a broad international coalition that included at least some of the Middle Eastern states (like Operation Desert Storm).

My position has always been that I didn't oppose removing Saddam from power - my objections were that I didn't think the U.S. had enough of a case to do so when we did (reflected in the stark differences of our allies between Iraq wars I & II) and that I didn't think this administration had really thought through and prepared for the aftermath of an invaded Iraq. I suspect those are similar reasons to why Clinton never decided to invade Iraq and why Bush the elder chose not to continue Desert Storm to remove Saddam.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Or to sum up what Dawgfan very accurately stated:

Bush 1 and Clinton = smart

Bush 2 = doofus

[flere-imsaho]

If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better.

Untrue. Colin Powell and General Shinseki, to name just two, counseled certain strategies (more initial troops, no immediate disbanding of the Iraqi army, etc...) which, in hindsight, would have radically changed the post-invasion landscape.

It continues to beggar belief that Bush chose the military advice of Rumsfeld (Naval Aviator & flight instructor 1954 - 1957), Wolfowitz (no military experience) & Cheney (no military experience) wholly and completely over that of his generals and the 4-star general he appointed Secretary of State.

[MrBigglesworth]

Please don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? ...The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them."
WTF, you said it right here. You seriously think that "the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything" is an unfair characterization of that post, or are you just going out of your way to be a douchebag?

[MrBigglesworth]

dola - so it was UNICEF that made the remark, Amnesty International simply propagated it in it's annual country report.
500k a year, which you said, is much different than 500k over 8 years. Estimates then went down to 300k-500k, but the UNICEF report still helped push for changes to the oil-for-food program designed to ameliorate those problems. In any case, I think most world organizations consider the humanitarian situation worse in Iraq right now than it was before.

[MrBigglesworth]

John Kerry must have been one of the few, but I'm not sure how much traction this was getting with his party.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR971109.html
At the point in time of the speech, Saddam had kicked out the inspectors, and Kerry said:
In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.
That's not a call for war and occupation. At the time when Bush decided to go into Iraq, he had to actually recall the inspectors himself and take them out of Iraq.

[BrianD]

That's not a call for war and occupation. At the time when Bush decided to go into Iraq, he had to actually recall the inspectors himself and take them out of Iraq.

He also said

While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.

Reading the whole article shows that he basically laid out the plan that Bush followed. Stepped up sanctions, stronger resolutions, calls for multinational enforcement of the resolutions, and then finally military force.

Had this war been more successful, Kerry probably would have made more noise in the 2004 race about Bush using his roadmap for the success.

[MrBigglesworth]

Reading the whole article shows that he basically laid out the plan that Bush followed. Stepped up sanctions, stronger resolutions, calls for multinational enforcement of the resolutions, and then finally military force.
Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

Actually Saddam never kicked the inspectors out. In 1998 they were pulled out by the UN at a warning from the US that we were going to bomb Iraq...

[BrianD]

Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

I seem to remember hearing the words "clear and present danger" thrown around before we went into Iraq. There may not have actually been a grave threat, but there were enough people that thought there was a grave threat. Either way, both called for resolutions to be passed and enforced.

[st.cronin]

WTF, you said it right here. You seriously think that "the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything" is an unfair characterization of that post, or are you just going out of your way to be a douchebag?

Nowhere in the post that you quoted, or anywhere else at any time, did I say anything like that. I don't believe you are retarded, so quit trying to bait me into a fight.

[gstelmack]

Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

:D Good one, thanks for the laugh.

1) CLINTON thought there was a grave threat. This was not particular to the Bush Administration.

2) You're just flat-out rewriting history on that last one. Saddam didn't start even pretending to cooperate until the troops were on their way...

[John Galt]

You're just flat-out rewriting history on that last one. Saddam didn't start even pretending to cooperate until the troops were on their way...

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

[gstelmack]

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

You need to see how long he had been avoiding cooperation. It looks like I was exaggerating on the comparison to troops being in the air, but it wasn't until the threat of invasion was likely that he started to even think about cooperating for the first time in 10 years.

[Dutch]

500k a year, which you said, is much different than 500k over 8 years. Estimates then went down to 300k-500k, but the UNICEF report still helped push for changes to the oil-for-food program designed to ameliorate those problems. In any case, I think most world organizations consider the humanitarian situation worse in Iraq right now than it was before.

It's been nearly 8 years since that report came out, but blame the wording, "In 1999...".

Glad to hear that 500 thousand civilian deaths spread out over a few years is irrelevant and you can still say it was more peaceful then than now.

[Dutch]

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

Saddam Hussein agreed to allow inspectors back in to be toyed with, you mean. If this is the exact same thing as how South Africa or Libya "let inspectors in" then the accusation is pretty legitimate.

[MrBigglesworth]

Glad to hear that 500 thousand civilian deaths spread out over a few years is irrelevant and you can still say it was more peaceful then than now.
The number was revised by UNICEF to 200-300k, but in any case a few posts of mine up I said that I wouldn't argue that the sanctions had a lot of problems and were not ideal. However, if you are going to tell me that Iraq is more peaceful now than before our invasion and the resulting civil war, I don't think we even have a starting point for discussions.

[MrBigglesworth]

You need to see how long he had been avoiding cooperation. It looks like I was exaggerating on the comparison to troops being in the air, but it wasn't until the threat of invasion was likely that he started to even think about cooperating for the first time in 10 years.
Yes, the threat of invasion is a useful political tool. Smart people like Clinton realize that, which is why you heard tough talk from that administration for years. What you didn't hear was anyone seriously pushing for invasion of Iraq, because, as it turns out, it's a terribly bad idea.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nowhere in the post that you quoted, or anywhere else at any time, did I say anything like that. I don't believe you are retarded, so quit trying to bait me into a fight.
I asked you a respectful question, and you mocked me in return, twice. But fine, whatever, you think Bush is great because he thinks good. I won't question it.

[st.cronin]

I asked you a respectful question, and you mocked me in return, twice. But fine, whatever, you think Bush is great because he thinks good. I won't question it.

:rolleyes: You call me a douchebag and yet somehow I'm the one mocking you. Right.