Obama liked Bush I's Desert Storm?

[OzarkDem]

He actually thought it was a good idea? Since when is unprovoked miliatry invasion of a foreign country that presents no threat to the US a good idea?

"Drawing on the example of the first Gulf War, Obama said that the first President Bush had "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

I can't decide if Obama is too stupid or too dangerous to be president.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/29/837657.aspx

[Blarch]

1. "unilateral invasion"

smoke some more crack.

[OzarkDem]

6. So you think Desert Storm was a good idea?

Care to defend Obama's statements?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

12. No reply?

[shadowknows69]

25. Sure

Unilateral invasion: 35 countries, real countries, not the BS group Junior put together.

Invasion: And then a strategically prudent withdrawal

Obama to my knowledge hasn't been cheering the reasons for the war so much as Bush I's show of restraint.

[Asgaya Dihi]

32. They are laughing at you because it wasn't unilateral

They could be more polite about it but that one went through full UN approval with a successful vote and got Arab support as well, some on the ground with us. Parts of the war sucked ass such as the highway of death but the coalition building was good and the financing smarter than we managed this time. You're objecting to entirely the wrong parts of the war and I'm not sure he expressed approval of the ugly parts. If he did, go after him for it, but you've got to research it a bit first.

[OzarkDem]

53. Post has been amended

Now stop dodging the question and defend Obama's pathetic praise of Bush and Reagan foreign policy.

[Asgaya Dihi]

62. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

There's little advantage in our becoming as bad as the other side is, so partisan and twisted that we can't recognize when some aspect of something they say or do has merit. He did not as far as I can tell endorse their policies in total as you keep trying to frame it, he said certain aspects of the way they handled it had merit.

There are some people I really can't stand such as Milton Friedman, he's the one who helped bring us the current disaster capitalism which these days doesn't seem content to wait for them but they'll manufacture their own. Can't stand him and blame him for tens or hundreds of millions of deaths at the least.

He wrote a number of articles against the drug war though so what parts of what work he did that I can make work for me I'll use in debate to soften a conservative and get them to see the light. If I can get some use out of him it's the least the bastard owes us. Use what's good, trash the rest.

Be honest in your complaints at least. He didn't offer them a blanket endorsement, just specific examples that he could use. If you don't like them then attack them for what they are rather than what you'd like them to be.

[OzarkDem]

69. I'm being honest, Obama is dangerous

He has far too little experience and a tendency, in his naivete, to adopt the policies of leaders who did great damage to our country.

Our country has been damaged by the men Obama praises. This isn't the time for "on the job training" and giving Obama the opportunity to keep running the country in the ditch until he figures out his heroes were wrong.

[Asgaya Dihi]

74. I'm not going to try to sell him to you

Lots of others around here more eager than I am for the job and better suited, I wasn't thrilled with my choices this time around overall. He's ahead by far enough she'd have to do better in every one left than she has yet in any to catch him and the race was getting both damaging and too full of BS complaints, like this one to be honest.

You've got every right to feel however you want to about him but the complaints I've seen you list here aren't all that solid, you're trying to accuse him of more than he actually did. The only part I object to is the trend I've seen recently in these forums to be as loose with facts as the other side is and as eager to smear, it's damaging the party and that's when I decided the race should probably end.

If you folks think you're doing Clinton any good with this stuff you need to notice which way the superdelegates are going these days and what they are saying about why, it's not working and you're hurting her. You need to knock it off if you think she still has a chance, because all you're doing otherwise is smearing the one that'll probably be our candidate. Like him or not he's better than McCain.

[roseBudd]

83. No Insane McCain & lies to appear tough & brave Hill is what makes me say Really?

[JFN1]

175. And Hillary's vote for AUMF in Iraq was less dangerous exactly...how?

Please explain.

[LaurenG]

80. I have no defense of his opinions, I don't need any. Do you have ANY defense of the

Clinton's??? Lets see if you really want to go down this road; have you ever heard Senator Obama say that he and McCain are the two patriots or that McCain has more experience then Senator Clinton. Have you heard him claim experience in foreign policy as a target of snipers in a foreign country? Why don't you start posting all the good things about Senator Clinton rather than try and spin a sows ear into the Clinton's silk purse?

This won't make a bit of difference in the long run except that it WILL come out of the republicans mouths later this year. :shrug:

[OzarkDem]

90. Voters need to know what the candidates stand for

and they need an honest assessment of whether the candidate they choose will get our country out of the mess its currently in.

[LaurenG]

117. Whoever wins, be it Senator Clinton or Senator Obama they will have a

mess bigger than they realize. There will be so much to undo and either of them will have to change their thoughts and tactics in order to get legislation passed, wars ended and the economy back on track.

Whatever we think now it will be different after we have all the facts, the same thing will happen to them. My fondest wish is that whoever wins surrounds themselves with advisor's and staff who don't try to push personal agendas and place the important stuff on the bottom of the pile.

I don't care about the editorials, I care about the facts. Give me facts that aren't on the line of what they thought in high school or what they prefer for dinner and I will consider whether I think there is a reasonable explanation for their thoughts or words.

I have no opinion on the HW Bush war. If it helped to keep the region from becoming destabilized then perhaps both HW and President Clinton; who both lobbed attacks, thought they were doing the right thing.



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

[MH1]

127. They may have been wrong about invading but the method after was correct.

Or at least better than Bush II. Relatively sane and effective by any rational standard.

If you are "anti all wars" than perhaps you can't set that aside to see that, IF a war is waged, there are better ways to do it, and worse ways. Next to Bush II, Bush I and Reagan were much smarter in the way they handled foreign policy in terms of methods.

I don't see anywhere that Obama has "praised" either one as far as their goals or philosophy of how we treat foreign countries. He intends to talk to nations that disagree with us.

Oh and just the small point: if Obama comes out arguing that Iraq I was a "bad" war and we never should have invaded, learn to say "President McCain". You may not like it but it's reality.

[Buzz Clik]

124. LOL! Indeed. I notice that they keep throwing up the "Obama wants to be Reagan" crap as well.

I guess it's symptomatic of the desperation they are feeling.

[Blondbostonian]

I look forward to you supporting the Democratic nominee in November

[OzarkDem]

16. I'm a Democrat, I only support Democrats

the jury is still out on Obama.

Do you think he is smart enough to govern when he thinks GOP foreign policy is better?

[Blarch]

22. If you haven't noticed...

Hillary vowed to run her campaign like Rove. Her and Bill have praised McCain.

And you are wondering if Barack is a Democrat ?

[OzarkDem]

34. Got a link?

and yes, I'm wondering if Obama is a real Democrat. There are very few Democratic principles he espouses with sincerity.

He promotes free market and globalization solutions to our economic problems

He agrees with Bush and Reagan foreign policies

I find very little about him that represents core Democratic values

[CTLawGuy]

45. OMG

Hillary loves NAFTA and is in the Pocket of Indian outsourcers.

and she voted FOR THE WAR!!!!!!!

How dense can you be!

[OzarkDem]

47. Obama voted for the war

Every time Bush asked for funding.

[CTLawGuy]

197. wrong

I spose you'd have let the troops die. And how is that somehow worse than voting for it in the first place.

Did Hillary think she could walk on the dead bodies of 4000 troops all the way to the Oval Office?

[OzarkDem]

223. No, he did vote for it

and the meme used against Hillary is dishonest, of course that's no surprise coming from the Obama campaign.

[Moochy]

202. "The jury is still out on Obama" on whether he's a democrat?????

You are such an accomplished liar, you make it look effortless....just like your candidate.

[atal]

215. Of course Gulf War I was a good idea

It happened because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Something you conveniently left out...

It was war which included all our allies... The second Iraq War only included the greedy Coalition of the willing.

[JayFredMuggs]

19. I think that poster above you

Has confused one war with another.

Just to be fair, that non-Obama supporter doesn't want to be bothered with the facts.

How often do we see so many Hillary supporters so confused.

[SammyWinstonJack]

151. About as often as we see Obama supporters unwilling to address any of his

outright lies/flip-flops or inconsistencies, if you prefer.


How often do we see so many Hillary supporters so confused?

[flor de jasmim]

2. If you do a bit of research on the first Gulf War, you will understand the context.

[OzarkDem]

9. I was 40 at the time of Desert Storm

I knew exactly what was going on and what led up to it. No, it wasn't necessary, and Clinton came along afterwards and showed a better approach to foreign policy.

Anyone who tries to revise history to show Bush and Reagan had good foreign policy is delusional.

[Blarch]

15. Dude.

If you think we went alone, then you really don't understand what took place.

[OzarkDem]

17. Invasion wasn't necessary

Dude.

And if you support a candidate who thinks it was a good idea, who thinks Bush and Reagan's foreign policy was better than Clinton's you need to study some history yourself. Those of us who have "reality based" opinions about foreign policy know better and Obama is ridiculous to say this kind of thing.

[Orsino]

26. Did you mean to say "unprovoked" instead of "unilateral" invasion? n/t

[OzarkDem]

38. Unprovoked is also accurate

Its very revealing how many Obama supporters think Desert Storm was a good idea. Scary to think that they never question anything Obama says.

[Orsino]

171. I don't get it, then. What did you mean by "unilateral"? n/t

[Honeycombe8]

200. What do you think we invaded in Desert Storm? nt

[DerekJ]

217. That;s B.S

The invasion was absolutely necessary to stop the atrocities by the Iraqi troops in Kuwait

[atal]

220. There was no invasion during first war

Except to flush out the enemy and remove them from the front lines... The objective of Gulf War I was to get Saddam out of Kuwait, not to invade Iraq...


You have no argument!

[shadowknows69]

27. A better approach? You mean the one that starved thousands?

Both administrations had dastardly deeds.

[OzarkDem]

39. You'll need to ask Saddam about that one

and if you're seeking to place blame - put it at Bush I and Reagan's doorstep - they're the ones who armed Saddam and put him in power. Or had you forgotten that one?

[shadowknows69]

50. No, of course not.

But given the state of the fuck all we have in Iraq now you can't help but respect the restraint that was shown. That was Obama's main point I'm sure. More that Bush I was bound, and respected, the wishes of the UN and his coalition and didn't invade to occupy.

[BadgerLaw2010]

125. Were you living on a mountaintop somewhere?

Iraq invaded and conquered a neighboring country. The modern world rejects this method of gaining territory.

Pretty much the entire world condemned it and most of the world of consequence helped kick Saddam's ass.

[JoFerret]

126. Itt was wrongheaded then

and wrongheaded in retrospect.

(albeit popular and, thanks to Bush Sr's better diplomacy, supported by many other nations egged on by that warmonger Margaret Thatcher*)

*"This is no time to go wobbly George"

[WinkyDink]

211. The "context" was that Saddam accused Kuwait of stealing oil. And we gave him a "wink, wink"

go-ahead. But in HIND-SIGHT, Obama doesn't have to AGREE with our position THEN.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EHfFr3ElfqIJ:www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/history/end_of_the_millennium.htm+iraq+kuwait+oil+theft&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us

[LakeSamish706]

3. It may not have presented a direct threat to the US but it presented a threat...

to US and (other countries) allies. It was an awful thing to have to deal with, but the world needed to in that instance.

[WinkyDink]

218. Then why did we OFFICIALLY say "it was an Arab problem"?

[C_U_L8R]

4. What would you have done differently?

Let Saddam keep Kuwait? I'm curious.

[Vinca]

5. So we should have allowed Sadam to overrun Kuwait?

41 wasn't the dim bulb his son is. Get in with massive force, get out.

[yourout]

8. Knew I shouldn't have cleaned out my ignore list........oh well back you go.

[OzarkDem]

10. Typical Obama supporter

[yourout]

21. Actually I am an Edwards guy but since Hillary has decided......

to show her true colors I have jumped into the Obama camp.

[OzarkDem]

24. I was an Edwards supporter also

and chose to go with a candidate who has more experience and common sense.

[mmonk]

11. He was talking about international cooperative response concerning

a country that invaded another. People who try to connect that with GWbush's unilateral Iraq invasion are going to lose the argument, especially by any camp that supported the current invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Don't be dense. The Gulf War had UN approaval and involved an international coaltion.

Whether you agree with the engagement or not...it was NOT unilateral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Coalition_involvement

[OzarkDem]

23. And it was unnecessary

and later led us to the mess we're in now.

Care to explain how Obama thinks Bush and Reagan had good foreign policies?

[Blarch]

31. answer the question.

would you let Saddam have Kuwait ? Lets be honest now.

[OzarkDem]

36. I reject your frame

Invasion wasn't necessary. And I was old enough at the time to know it.

[C_U_L8R]

40. What would you have done differently?

If invasion wasn't necessary as you say... what would you have done... nothing??
What would you have done when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

[OzarkDem]

46. For starters

I wouldn't have armed Saddam in the first place - as both Reagan and Bush did. The idea that Obama admires these guys foreign policy is beyond the pale.

[C_U_L8R]

65. That's not the question.

Saddam invades Kuwait.. what do you do?

[merh]

76. Stop living in a glass house and throwing stones

I know your candidate does it, but you need to stop drawing the attention to it and you need to deal with the facts.

... in a book by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw called “Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Recollections on the ‘60s and Today”, Brokaw quotes Clinton as saying that, “She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan,” (Page 404). “He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it . When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully".

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/01/hillarys-lies-a.html

[Blarch]

57. Jeeesh.

Saddam took Kuwait...if we didn't take it back he would control it.

My dog understands this simple concept, do you ?

[democrattotheend]

174. Most Americans believe Desert Storm was a good idea

Not sure if I do or not, but it's kind of a fringe position at this point to say it was a mistake. Obama's view is mainstream and not some radical deviation from Democratic positions as you suggest.

[RestoreGore]

92. Oh, so the "highway of death" incident meets your approval as well?

[RestoreGore]

93. Do you think this was "brilliant" strategy?

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"

by Joyce Chediac
I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.
U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.

On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description - tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks, according to the March 18, 1991, Time magazine. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun, says the Los Angeles Times of March 11, 1991. While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it's impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.

"Even in Vietnam I didn't see anything like this. It's pathetic," said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer. This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history.

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."

[OzarkDem]

152. Good foreign policy is about "prevention"

Its about preventing wars and viewing them as the last option, not the first.

People who praise ill conceived and unnecessary wars should not be in the WH.

[ulysses]

161. interesting username you have there.

As I recall, Mr. Gore voted to approve force for Desert Shield/Storm.

[RestoreGore]

194. yes, and as I recall, I disagreed with him. What the hell does that have to do with my question?

[jefferson_dem]

168. "As well" my ass.

I never said I approved of anything. My point was that GHW Chimp was not acting unilaterally in the Gulf War campaign. Thanks.

[Kierkegaard]

14. Nothing like the taste of shoe leather in the morning.

n/t

[totodeinhere]

18. He was comparing the first gulf war with the second one.

His point was that Bush Jr. and company have really botched up the current war in Iraq. Whether you agree with the first gulf war or not, at least Bush Sr. got us out of there and we were not mired in the quagmire that we are in now. BTW, that first gulf war was the same one that Al Gore voted to authorize. And he defends that vote to this day.

[OzarkDem]

20. He says he admires Bush and Reagan's foreign policy

and that he will make it part of his own. Care to explain?

[Kierkegaard]

28. Care to explain why you keep putting words in his mouth?

Never did he say any such thing. You are being disingenuous and petty. Not to mention, a little nuts.

[OzarkDem]

43. Here it is

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/29/837657.aspx

[CONN]

82. Interesting. Thanks (eom)

[totodeinhere]

33. Why do you leave out the part that he praised JFK's foreign policy?

Is it because JFK was a Democrat and so you can't get away with demonizing him? Your selective outrage is very telling.

Obama has said that he plans to conduct a new type of politics that draws upon a wide range of opinions and policies. The American people are tired of the partisan gridlock that has infested Washington for the past few years. And yes, to get things done we need to draw upon good ideas from all Americans including Democrats, Independents, and yes, even Republicans. We are all Americans and we all have a stake in getting this mess that Bush Jr. has got us in turned around. And for that matter, Senator Clinton has also said that if elected she will try to work with Republicans. Remember that the president is president of all the people, not just Democrats.

But it seems that you are wedded to the bitterly partisan politics of the past that just doesn't work anymore.

[OzarkDem]

44. Because his praise of Reagan & Bush foreign policy is outrageous

and is one more example of why he is too inexperienced to be president. And believe me, calling him inexperienced in this example is being very charitable.

[totodeinhere]

49. Why is it outrageous?

Are you saying that in the history of this country only Democrats did right and everything the Republicans did was wrong? Are you that blinded with your partisanship? Was Democrat LBJ right to get us bogged down in Viet Nam? Was Republican Eisenhower wrong to call out federal troops to enforce integration in Little Rock? Come on, give me a break.

[OzarkDem]

51. Obama adopts Bush and Reagan foreign policy ideas

That is wrong. Try to stay focused.

[totodeinhere]

61. He said that he would practice realistic foreign policy like that conducted...

by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush Sr. I don't see anything wrong with that. He is not "adopting" anything. He is just trying to draw a contrast between Bush Jr.'s failed foreign policy and more effective and realistic foreign policies of the past that were practiced by both Democrats and Republicans.

Perhaps you have forgotten that there used to be a great tradition of bipartisan foreign policy on this country. I agree with Obama. We need to return to that. The present model just isn't working.

I don't expect to convince you since it seems that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. But perhaps others can understand what I am trying to say even though you don't

[OzarkDem]

95. Practicing is adopting

and his rejection of Clinton's foreign policy shows even greater evidence of poor leadership qualities.

[merh]

86. So did Bill

and Hillary has praised Reagan too.

Stay honest

[OzarkDem]

97. Got a link?

Let's have this discussion if you want to be honest. Show me where Hillary has said she would adopt Reagan and Bush I's foreign policies and ignore her husband's.

[merh]

105. LOL - her husband's were a continuation of Reagand and Bush I

Take the "no fly zones" - nothing in the UN seize fire agreement provided for those "no fly zones". The UN had publicly stated that they were illegal and France became so uncomfortable about them that they withdrew their support. (They were begun and monitored by US, GB & France.) Bill continued the "no fly zones", those nfz's are what Bush II used to say the US had an interest worth protecting and that Saddam was the aggressor - they were his hook.

You tell me, what is HRC's foreign policy? Will she continue the ways of her husband which were a continuation of Poppy and Reagan?

She really liked Reagan, you do know that, don't you?

... in a book by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw called “Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Recollections on the ‘60s and Today”, Brokaw quotes Clinton as saying that, “She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan,” (Page 404). “He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it . When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully".

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/01/hillarys-lies-a.html

[stillcool]

187. You read a lot into one sentence...

you might want to read a little more before you judge Senator Obama's foreign policy philosophy...

Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[stillcool]

145. and Kennedy's...

inclusion rather than exclusion. Pretty easy to understand, no?

[Honeycombe8]

201. Actually, Obama never said that. nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

56. No a troll, just someone blinded by their hate.

I hope I have not crossed the line by saying that. I know that personal attacks are not allowed at DU, but I just had to say it because I believe it's true. The moderators can delete it if they want to.

[dogday]

96. I can assure you as long as I have been posting on this board

OzarkDem has always been a good Democrat and still is... Your words are uncalled for, and very very wrong....

[OzarkDem]

98. Whoever it is

I have them on ignore, so it doesn't bother me.

[dogday]

104. I am really sorry that it has come to this

We all should be better than this, honestly... I don't have a candidate because both of these candidates are being smeared, and fighting, and their supporters are fighting.. Makes you just want to step back and wait for the dust to settle.. I will support the Dem for President, but I also believe that what has been happening here is uncalled for and very wrong..

[OzarkDem]

132. Agree

its been an ugly campaign and the GOP is playing far too large a role in making our decisions for us.

[mckeown1128]

30. do you guys over at that website with the fourm "DUmp"

thinks this rediculous post up?

[OzarkDem]

35. Still dodging the question, I see

You're against invading other countries unless Obama is in favor of Bush I doing it. Ok.

Can you imagine if the quote above came from Hillary?

[mckeown1128]

42. By your ridiculous logic we should have sat out WWII. nt

[Hugabear]

37. There is a HUGE difference between Desert Storm and *'s war

And if you can't figure that out, then perhaps you're the one who is too dangerous or stupid.

[OzarkDem]

48. Not at all

and in each case, a Bush family member was spilling the blood of our children to fight a dictator who they personally armed.

The revisionist history of Obama supporters is pretty amazing here. One would think they hadn't spent much time on DU.

[JayFredMuggs]

55. You really need to study historic facts a bit more

"The Gulf War or Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)<8><9> was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force from 34 nations<10> authorized by the United Nations (UN) and led primarily by the United States in order to return Kuwait to the control of the Emir of Kuwait."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Coalition of 34 nations.

United Nations authorized

Get it now?

[OzarkDem]

59. Unprovoked, unnecessary

Just another war for oil against a guy who Bush and Reagan armed and put in power.

Obama thinks it was a good idea.

Get it now?

[BadgerLaw2010]

134. "Unprovoked?" In what universe?

You seem to be rejecting the basic fact that Saddam attacked and annexed Kuwait. I'm not sure how to debate this.

[CTLawGuy]

41. so you think

letting innocent Kuwaitis be terrorized by an invading Iraqi army would have been ok? Nice try.

[alarimer]

52. The whole Desert Storm thing was bullshit.

Yet another unnecessary war for oil. It was all about the oil. Kuwait was hardly someone who deserved defending by us or anybody.

[OzarkDem]

58. Exactly, it was trumped up

and Kuwait and the neighboring countries could (and should have) dealt with it without a US invasion.

That Obama thinks it was a good idea should be a reality check for Dem voters. Inexperience is not a good thing.

[merh]

68. You need the reality check

Did you realize that Bill Clinton supported Gulf War I

“I supported the gulf war, and supported being firm with Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Clinton told reporters in Illinois on Tuesday, in one of several such remarks he made during the course of statements harshly criticizing Mr. Bush for his handling of Mr. Hussein and the war.

He made a similar statement during a March 1992 breakfast with Washington reporters, saying, “I supported the President’s policy in the Persian Gulf,” and he used this stance during a televised debate last December to differentiate himself from his Democratic opponents in the Presidential primary process.

His reported statements in the weeks and months leading to the war were, in keeping with his statement today, much more ambivalent, and suggested a position neither precisely in support of nor precisely opposed to the use of force.

He does not appear to have taken a publicly reported position at all before Jan. 14, 1991, two days after Congress voted to give the President authority to go to war.

Did you realize those no fly zones were illegal, the ones that Clinton continued all throughout his terms? Yup, the UN never approved them and stated publicly they were illegal.

How about this:

June of 2003 - The United States fires 24 cruise missiles from two US Navy ships at an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Iraq claims eight people are killed in the assault. President Clinton ordered this attack as retaliation for an alleged plot to assassinate former President George Bush on a trip to Kuwait.

Didn't the Pentagon just release a report that there was no evidence to support that alleged assassination attempt?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pentagon_report_finds_no_evidence_of_0324.html

Stop playing these gotcha games, they will get your candidate and Clinton's legacy long before they will get Obama.

.

[ecdab]

94. I notice the OP is staying away from your post like the plague.

When I read this OP I just shook my head as I remembered Bill Clinton supporting the liberation of Kuwait.

[merh]

99. They don't want to be honest - they just want to inflame

and post attacks. Both Clintons have spoken highly of Reagan, both supported Gulf War I and Bill and Poppy are best buds.

This is just dishonest campaigning by folks who don't understand the true issues, who don't appreciate history and who are desperate for a win at all costs.

Welcome to DU - fasten your seat belt, it is one bumpy ride. :hi:

[dogday]

102. I am being honest, I don't have a candidate yet

But I don't understand why Obama would say what he said about Reagan and Bush... Could someone explain this to me?

[merh]

107. The same reason that Clinton has said the same or similiar things

The same reason that Bill Clinton continued the wrongs of the Gulf War I - those no fly zones that were not sanctioned by the UN or part of any resolution adopted by the UN relative to Iraq and/or the seize fire.

[dogday]

108. Do you have a link to that ?

I can only believe what one tells me if there is reference to back it up like always on this board...

Like I said I believe Clinton supported the Gulf War I however I have never heard him say he support Reagan and Bush I's military style....

[merh]

115. What link do you need for me to prove that he continued the

illegal no fly zones? History proves that and no link seems necessary but this might help you. http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

Please note his attack on Baghdad purportedly because of an attempt to assassinate Poppy. The Pentagon has reported that there was no evidence to support that accusation.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pentagon_report_finds_no_evidence_of_0324.html

Relative to his support of Gulf War I

“I supported the gulf war, and supported being firm with Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Clinton told reporters in Illinois on Tuesday, in one of several such remarks he made during the course of statements harshly criticizing Mr. Bush for his handling of Mr. Hussein and the war.

He made a similar statement during a March 1992 breakfast with Washington reporters, saying, “I supported the President’s policy in the Persian Gulf,” and he used this stance during a televised debate last December to differentiate himself from his Democratic opponents in the Presidential primary process.

His reported statements in the weeks and months leading to the war were, in keeping with his statement today, much more ambivalent, and suggested a position neither precisely in support of nor precisely opposed to the use of force.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-clinton-straddled-the-first-gulf-war

I think the burden is on those that support Hillary to prove that her foreign policy and/or her husband's (which she clings to) were different than Reagan's and Bush I's. I don't think they can. The previous administration's foreign policy position, to include Bill's, are what gave Bush II that foot hold in Iraq, gave him grounds to support his invasion.

Hell, you do know about Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act, don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

[Asgaya Dihi]

123. If they are skeptical for some reason

of the sweetness-light link they can also find the "I supported the gulf war" quote at the NY Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DF1E30F932A05754C0A964958260

[merh]

137. They don't want to admit that Reagan, Bush I and Clinton

share responsibility - the US foreign policy in Iraq is what set the stage for the passage of the Joint Resolution, those illegal no fly zones and the Iraq Liberation Act gave Bush II the foot hold and leverage he needed.

Thank you for the link.

[dogday]

173. I believe that Clinton supported the gulf war, I asked

where is it written that Clinton ever stated his foreign policy was compared to Reagan or Bush? Just a link where Bill Clinton says that he has the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?

[Asgaya Dihi]

177. Stated?

I never said it was, you must be looking for someone that did say that. Ask them. I refuse to defend a point I never made and that I'm not especially interested in.

In policy though there were similarities. Were they in lockstep on every front? Nope. Were they similar in many ways? Yep. Clinton loved Reagan's war on drugs, he was free trade and pro use of force just like them making use of it several times during his two terms, he slashed welfare which was a right wing wet dream, passed the media consolidation bill, and so on. That's just off the top of my head but overall he was one of the more, in the traditional rather than neocon sense, conservative Presidents we've had over the last few decades.

That's a good part of why the dems lost so much power at times during his administration and why the repubs came out of 8 years of dem control more organized and with a more intact agenda than they had when Bill took office. Never made the slightest bit of sense to me why they fought so much since they seemed to have so much in common, but that doesn't change the similarities in policy. They got a lot of pet projects passed under him and the democratic party was forced ever rightward trying to support him, and they lost elections and power for it.

That's part of the why for so many of the hard feelings these days though it's not all fair, the dems went rightward on their own too. Could have resisted better, the repubs didn't have any better an excuse to follow Bush the wrong direction than we had to follow Clinton.

[dogday]

179. I am actually looking for any reference where Bill Clinton

compares his foreign policy in his own words to those of Reagan or Bush I like Obama did... I know he supported the Gulf war, but that is not saying in his own words that he would shape his foreign policy to that of Reagan and Bush and I am saying screw that... Who wants Reagan's or Bush foreign policy, I want change and an end to the war....

[Asgaya Dihi]

180. I'd less suspect the one you see coming

At least he's being open about what he's looking at, Bill we didn't see coming. From what I saw he said that certain aspects were handled well, not that he planned to adopt their policies whole. I don't have to like someone to learn a new trick from them and I don't have to be them, I just have to see it done and repeat it. So there were a couple of policies he liked, look at them. Were they bad? If so then attack the content rather than a undirected "it came from them so it must be bad" reaction. We should at least know what we're objecting too.

Personally I've got my concerns with him but not in this, this I see as a sop to the middle of the road voters who are looking for some indication he's not an extremist. The policies he mentioned were about the only things about the gulf war that did go exactly as planned, the financing and the coalition building. Parts of the combat were pretty screwed but I didn't see Obama comment one way or the other on that unless I missed it.

My worry is more that he can't change the world by force of personality so will let the kids down, turn some off from politics. And some with policy, but that's in common with Clinton as well. I don't doubt his intent so much though. We'll see if it lasts after a few years in Washington but it looks to me like he earned the right to be there so far.

[dogday]

181. I agree with a lot of what you are saying,,

Indeed we shall see... Thanks for your considerate posting and answers to my questions... As someone who is a fence sitter and has no alliance to any candidate, I have to be as neutral as possible and weigh all the evidence to make a decision...

[Asgaya Dihi]

185. You're very welcome

It's hard and we're never sure we're right, I sympathize because I'm in much the same situation and I've got two kids depending on us making the right choice.

Take care.

[dogday]

128. I said I believed he supported the Gulf War, I asked where he ever said

that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. That is what Obama is saying according to this article...

[merh]

135. And prove to me that his foreign policy differed from Reagan's

and Poppy's. You can't - he picked up on what they did, perpetuated the illegal no fly zones and his "Iraqi Liberation Act" was part of the mindset and leverage that gave Bush II grounds to act. Hell go read the Joint Resolution - Bush II was just a continuation of all those before him, to include Clinton.

[dogday]

164. I asked where was his statement?

Where is his statment that he has the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?

[merh]

165. LOL, you don't need a statement

All you have to do is pay heed to what he did while in office, his actions speak loudly - his foreign policy in Iraq was a continuation of Poppy's to include the illegal no fly zones.

[dogday]

167. Yes I am afraid I need a link to all your statements

I never heard that statement come out of his mouth regardless of his foreign policy, which may very well mimmick Bush Sr. and Reagan.. All I have ever asked of you is to show me where he said these things like Obama did....

[merh]

169. LOL, I have provided you his statement supporting the Iraq

invasion. During his terms in office, he continued the illegal no fly zones which began with Bush I. He did not change policy. Statements are not necessary when his actions establish that he supported what Bush I did and continued the aggression which gave way to Bush II's invasion, an invasion he supported.

[dogday]

172. Yes when someone comes right out and makes the statement like

Obama did when asked a question at a town hall meeting, I am wondering why you say Clinton said the same thing.. I am only asking where he said this... I agree his stand on Iraq has been consistent with Bush I, but I have never heard him state it as I have Obama...

I need reference on this, either you can provide or not... Just trying to learn and not take anyone's word for it.. I am a reference person.. Show me an article where Bill Clinton compares his stance on foreign policy with Reagan or Bush... Can you do that?

[merh]

188. Nope, see Obama has to make statements, he can't take actions

yet, he doesn't have the job. Now Clinton, he had the job and his actions speak loudly. He never changed policy from Reagan - Bush I with regards to Iraq, he stayed the course and kept those illegal no fly zones and even passed an act to remove Saddam from power.

[dogday]

190. Again I need a reference to a statement that came out of

Clinton's mouth that he would of done the same... Not actions, words, just like what Obama said.. Actual words... That is all I requested. If you can't furnish them, then you can't.. That simple...

[merh]

192. Again, I don't have to provide you any such statement

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. :rofl:

[dogday]

193. NO words, speak louder than words

What you have is conjecture, not actions.. I just wanted a reference not your personal opinion.. Thanks for nothing....

[merh]

195. Not conjecture at all.

His foreign policy picked up where they left off. He made no changes and he even beefed up those illegal no fly zones. Those are the facts. If you disagree with those facts you have to provide a counter, you have not. You just insist on words. The words could have been one thing and his actions another, the actions are the real position, the actual facts and history proves that he made no changes, just picked up where they left off. He applauded Poppy's Gulf War I, he continued the same foreign policy and he supported the Iraq War. That is the facts.

[ecdab]

118. Can I ask what your opinion of the Reagan and Bush Sr. foreign policy

is and why you hold that opinion? It would be helpful in explaining this if I knew how much you already understood about the time period and what Reagan and Bush Sr. did well in regard to foreign policy and what they did not do well. If you have a reasonable grasp on what they did well (and quite differently than Bush Jr.) then you are nine tenth of the way to your answer.

[dogday]

183. My Opinion of Reagan and Bush is not good

Should it be? This is a Democratic board, you will not find good opinions of either of these guys, nor should you....

[stillcool]

144. It's the consensus part...

that Obama says mirrors his own views. In other words, building relationships with other countries and working in unison to solve problems. It is possible to agree with that policy without agreeing with everything any particular President has said or done. It will be interesting to see how many people post this same 'outrage' with one of Senator Obama's statements.

[dogday]

178. I have no outrage, I have a question?

I don't care for Reagan or Bush or their f**ked-up foreign policies and I don't understand why Obama would even have that come out of his mouth... If Clinton says it, I will question it as well... I don't have a candidate, therefore I can remain neutral on every issue....

Now it is ok for us to agree with Republicans and their policies and come out and say it? When did the Democrats start doing that??

[stillcool]

186. I think it takes more than a sentence...

to understand Senator Obama's foreign policy philosophy...

Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[dogday]

191. So I should just ignore his answer at the town hall meeting

Even though it came straight from his mouth, I should just ignore this, it means nothing, right?

[stillcool]

198. Absolutely NOT!!

I would suggest you read the words as they appear on the page.

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, PA -- Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve.

"It is George Bush who has been naïve and it's people like John McCain and unfortunately some democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naïve ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation in the world," Obama said.

Drawing on the example of the first Gulf War, Obama said that the first President Bush had "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

"Remember, people were saying why didn't you go into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein? The realists understood that that would be a nightmare. And it wasn't worth our national interests," Obama added.

He described this President Bush's world view on foreign policy as a big stick approach.

"Certainly George Bush's foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that because we are so militarily powerful we can dictate events around the world," he said. "If people don't like it doesn't matter because we are the biggest, toughest thing on the block. Now that is naïve."

Obama claimed that since 9-11, the way foreign policy was viewed had turned from one that understood the limits of military power and had placed a greater emphasis on diplomatic and economic strength to one that placed its sole emphasis on country's military might.

He described the conventional thinking in Washington on foreign policy as "bipartisan" and this "both ideological and highly political."

That foreign policy he argued operated from the assumption that United States could act "as a lone super power" and said that "Senator Clinton is as captive to it in some ways as John McCain and George Bush."

"I do think that Senator Clinton would understand that George Bush's polices have failed," Obama added. "But in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that lead her to vote for the war in Iraq. Since 9-11 the conventional wisdom has been you have to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the republicans. And I disagree with it."

[Hugabear]

106. The OP is also staying far away from Hillary's support of Bush Jr's Iraq war

You know, the one that truly WAS unilateral, and had NO UN support.

[Moochy]

203. And Ye Shall Know Them By Their Abandoned Subthreads

From the unfinished manuscript "disruptors 101"

[dogday]

101. True Bill might have supported Gulf War, however you

do not hear him saying that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. That is what Obama is saying according to this article... Can someone tell me what he means by this?

[merh]

139. When did Clinton change the foreign policy of the US

when did he do anything different in Iraq, when did he abruptly alter the US foreign policy?

[VolcanoJen]

114. Yowch!

Nice find.

Either the OP has you on ignore, or is deliberately ignoring you. :-)

[merh]

143. they have a very distorted view of their candidate

I don't know when Clinton ever changed the course of US foreign policy in Iraq, from what I can tell of the history of the no fly zones and the US military action in Iraq, prior to Bush II, he just continued what Poppy began.

Hell, didn't he support the Iraq invasion?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

[OzarkDem]

121. Sorry, not buying it

Tom Brokaw's opinion of Bill Clinton's foreign policy doesn't interest me.

And I don't think that even you could agree that Desert Storm would have happened if Clinton had been president. Clinton never would have sold arms to Saddam.

[merh]

140. LOL, you do have reading problems

That was Hillary's statement about Reagan to Brokaw. She liked Reagan.

[merh]

158. Hillary lists Reagan as one of her favorite presidents

From her website:

Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

[JayFredMuggs]

60. So those 34 nations that fought against Iraq were all wrong?

And should have just let Saddam have his own way and invade?

What have you been smoking?

[OzarkDem]

70. Yes

Just as much as the ones who first joined in Bush II's illegal invasion.

[JayFredMuggs]

79. If you see these two wars as identical,

I don't think you understand the issues very clearly at all, and you must have slept through Desert Storm and that war.

Unless, of course, you are saying that ALL war is wrong, I don't think anyone here understands how you mischaracterize Obama's words, to serve your own agenda.

Bush I got a UN resolution opposing Iraq's invasion of a sovereign nation, and the USA was joined in battle by 33 other nations.

Never did GWB get a UN Resolution to invade Iraq, and 17 nations were cajoled into joining with lies, threats, and promises of US $.

I advise you study the differences before posting any more, to save your reputation

[Hugabear]

89. Which Hillary SUPPORTED

Funny how you keep overlooking that.

[alarimer]

54. The more I hear about this guy, the more I HATE him.

I will NOT be voting for him in November. I won't vote for any of them actually. I hate all those warmongering pieces of shit.

[madrchsod]

64. well... that`s another vote for johnnie...

just think of 4 years of johnny..supreme court,economic collapse,and endless war....

[OzarkDem]

71. We're beginning to realize

an Obama presidency wouldn't be much different.

[SoxFan]

85. Fine. Go away and leave us Dems alone

Maybe you will like this place better...

http://www.votenader.org/

[OzarkDem]

100. He has serious flaws

and he should be more willing to debate these opinions in public instead of hiding behind his Reaganesque empty rhetoric.

[PA Democrat]

159. I was at that rally and heard his ENTIRE answer to the foreign policy question.

The press reported a few lines of an almost 10 minute explanation, in which he stressed diplomacy, especially with countries considered to be enemies. He repeatedly said that war should be the absolute LAST resort. He stressed working WITH other nations and within international law, rather than the go-it-alone policies of Dubya. His mention of Kennedy, Bush I and Reagan was mainly in context to the fact that THEY actually talked to and NEGOTIATED with people considered to be the enemy.

[ileus]

63. Finally a real reason to vote for him.

I was 100% for Hillary b4 reading this...now I'm 75% Hill and 25% Obama.

[ebdarcy]

66. Isn't the current Iraq war an "unprovoked military invasion of a

foreign country that presented no threat to the U.S."? And didn't Senator Clinton vote for the IWR, which gave the current bastard-in-chief the authority to use the military as he determined to be "necessary and appropriate."

[Zynx]

67. Are we rewriting history now, OzarkDem? Saddam invaded a neighboring country and

we simply kicked him out. We only briefly went into Iraqi territory and we had significant backing from other countries. Japan practically paid our bill. Even Syria joined us.

[OzarkDem]

72. Spin, baby, spin

[Hugabear]

88. The only spin is coming from YOU

You're the one who claimed - quite erroneously - in your OP that we went into the Gulf War unilaterally, and you've been proven WRONG. When confronted by facts, you dismiss them as "spin spin spin".

Yet you have the gall to support a candidate who supported a war against a sovereign country on MUCH WEAKER GROUNDS.

[BadgerLaw2010]

133. What part of "war for conquest internationally unacceptable" is unclear to you?

Saddam decided to test this. Test came back negative. I don't believe a single country other than Iraq thought that the beating Iraq got for Kuwait was wrong. Hell, most of the Middle East helped.

This is a new one, even by DU standards. You seriously support Saddam's conquest of Kuwait?

[OzarkDem]

155. Prevention is key

as is viewing invasion and war as the LAST resort not the first.

And while you're at it, explain how Obama is right in praising and adopting Reagan's foreign policy.

[Zynx]

236. We tried diplomacy to get Saddam out of Kuwait.

The UN came together and decided to stop Saddam due to his behavior.

[JayFredMuggs]

73. Amazing, isn't it? How Hillary supporters twist the facts

just like Hillary does!

[RestoreGore]

91. Oh, so war for Oil is GOOD depending on who wages it?

[Zynx]

109. Saddam's behavior was unacceptable.

Wars for conquest, like he engaged in, are not acceptable by any international standard.

[RestoreGore]

138. You mean like the ones we wage?

What hypocrisy.

[BadgerLaw2010]

141. Who has said that "Iraqi Freedom" was acceptable?

It is ironic, to say the least, that people would condemn Iraqi Freedom but oppose Desert Storm.

[Zynx]

170. I only count one that could potentially fall in that category in the last century.

That's our current one because we have not permitted sovereignty as most people would define it.

[madrchsod]

75. if it was such a bad idea why did`t billly boy

lift the sanctions against the iraqi people? why did he continue to bomb iraq during those years? how many iraqi`s died during these years....

[UALRBSofL]

77. OP, this is just a political move, you can see it.

You know these statements are not a progressive philosophy but Obama knows he has this cluster group of voters wrapped up so he can go out on a limb and make these statements. However, this is just a way to go after the centrists democrats and Reagan/Dems, whom are voting for Clinton. OP I thought I'd point that out because your post seemed to indicate your confusion of what Obama's stand is on increased military support around the world.

[izzybeans]

78. OzarkDem eats puppies.

Both statements are equally untrue, at least I hope so in your case.

Why not try accuracy? It's fun. You know that is not what he said, I'm sure of it.

[dogday]

111. So is MSNBC posting inaccurate information?

I don't understand, are you saying this article is untrue?

[izzybeans]

112. If you read more of what Obama said he was talking about how to conduct a war

not the war itself. I inferred that OzarkDem likes to eat puppies based on the same logical fallacy made by the OP.

Dishonesty is dishonesty is dishonesty.

[dogday]

113. There is no dishonesty here, he said it and he just said it Friday

GREENBURG, PA -- Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve.


On Edit: How was John F. Kennedy's policies even anywhere near Bush and Reagan... Kennedy was opposed to all war. It does not make a lot of sense to me....

[izzybeans]

116. And again he is talking about diplomacy and coalition building not war.

Dishonesty is dishonesty is dishonesty.

He could add to the accuracy of his statement by saying, "It's a shame that some of those nitwits are seen as rational from the vantage point of today." Either way it still doesn't change the fact that he was talking about diplomacy and coalition building.

[dogday]

122. It doesn't change the fact that is the way he answered the

question at Town Hall on Friday.. Those words came straight from his mouth. Anything that has to do with Reagan and Bush is crap to me.. That simple....

[izzybeans]

130. No fan either, but don't put words in his mouth because of your own beliefs.

hence the mention of logical fallacy, in this case the reverse halo effect.

[OzarkDem]

150. His words are his words

no one distorted or took them out of context.

If you can't defend his position, just admit it and move on.

[izzybeans]

156. Read your thread title and have a good day.

[Moochy]

205. So should we take your 100+ abandoned subthreads in all 3 of your posts today

as evidence of you admiting defeat and moving on?

Crickets? Tumbleweeds?


...




Yeah thought so..

[dogday]

210. Abandoned, I stated my facts, I asked my questions..

How am I to ever choose anyone if I don't find out everything I can about them without all this interference... I don't have a choice, but let me guess who your choice is... BTW I never abandoned my initial question... Show me were any other Democrat has said the same thing... Not your interpretation of their foreign policy, I mean the actual words just like Obama... That is all I have ever asked....

Thanks for coming along and showing all you have is your ass to show.....

You should really check with a Doctor about those bug noises in your head....

[Moochy]

229. Dogday

Respectfully, I was not replying to your post, I was pointing out that OzarkDem the OP, not you, avoids the subthreads where her dishonesty is pointed out. Its readily apparent to those who can read and recognize the pattern.

Both candidates are pro-war. Only one seems to be against a war with Iran. This is the United States of America, "Post 911 edition". We have become now more than ever, a brutal military empire.

Sorry to have crossed signals with you.

[dogday]

232. Thanks Moochy, me too

I will support any Democrat that is nominated by my party and that pretty much states my position... To me it looks like Obama will win it, and I will support him with everything I have against that old Bastard McCain....

[DerekJ]

221. I don't even know if Obama supports this war or no.

I know damn well I do. There was consensus in the whole world, among even Muslim, and Middle Eastern countries, that this war was necessary, and It was backed by the U.N.

[dogday]

228. Which war?

I don't support the current war in Iraq and I know Obama does not, and my Son has fought in Iraq and was injured.... I like Obama's stance on ending the war ASAP....

[dogday]

189. What Beliefs?

Don't have a candidate and nor do I want one at this stage of the game.. Both sides are acting badly and I don't want to be a part of that. However I am trying to inform myself about the candidates because I will vote for the Democratic choice, so it would be wise of me to know about both of these candidates and the only way to do that is to ask questions.. Now if you don't like the questions, I asked, don't try to put some weird belief system on me, cause I post all over I don't even have a choice in this race, so save it for another post and another day please...

[izzybeans]

213. Yeah you are a blank slate, aren't you.

[dogday]

226. I am a fence sitter and that is ok

I just am not that influenced easily.. Never have been... Don't trust Clinton, never have liked her and can't commit to Obabma... Where does that leave me? Apparently fair game for all of the supporters to call names and hurl malicious insults at... I am a Democrat who does not like Reagan or Bush and does not believe in anything that they have ever done and that has been they way it has been on this board for over three years now... Russ was my original pick and he never made it, so I will pick the choice of the Party...


If you so choose to insult me because I don't back your candidate, then you only show me the candidate you believe in is not worth supporting... Want me to support your candidate, treat me with respect... You do your candidate a huge disservice....

[dogday]

129. Or that he interjects Reagan and Bush as

his ideals on this... That I don't care for....

[roseBudd]

81. Actually anyone who thinks a dove will ever get elected is delusional

[stray cat]

84. Are you ready to eliminate oil from you life?

and the US economy?

[Hugabear]

87. I dunno - Hillary seemed to like Bush 2's Iraq War

So does that make us even?

[AzDar]

103. In this instance, Obama is correct.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. What's not to like? Lot's of killing. Cool video of bombs. Smiliing victors.

All for a "good cause", of course. Protecting OUR right to drive SUVs.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[JoFerret]

119. Political calculus now

Wrongheadedness then.

[BadgerLaw2010]

120. Um, Iraq was the one with the unprevoked military invasion. Of Kuwait. Remember that part?

[Cass]

142. Ever hear of slant drilling? That's what Kuwait was doing.

Shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US basically told Iraq it would take no position on Iraq's response to Kuwait's slant drilling.

Saddam was provoked. I'm not saying he was right to do what he did but there was provocation.

[OzarkDem]

148. Agree, it could have been resolved w/o US invasion

Bush and the GOP have always been too willing to jump into ME politics when its not warranted, instead of forcing them to come up with diplomatic solutions.

Military intervention should be the LAST resort, not the first.

[Cass]

157. Yep, and Reagan and Bush I left slime trails all over the ME.

Why Obama would point to their foreign policies as ones he admires blows my mind.

[Zynx]

234. Military conquest is not an acceptable form of diplomatic settlement.

Saddam had many more alternatives than that. By invading Kuwait and occcupying it Saddam brought upon himself the possibility of war.

[Buzz Clik]

131. Every president is faced with the prospect of becoming involved in armed conflict.

When that happens, you want to know how to conduct it in such a way that you give your side the best opportunity to win and to leave when you are finished.

Bush 41 did that in Kuwait.
Clinton did that well in Bosnia etc, but not so much in Somalia.

The Bush43 war in Iraq is a failure in many, many ways. That template must be avoided at all costs.

[OzarkDem]

153. and smart ones know to prevent them

and view them only as a last option when everything else has failed.

But the key is preventing them in the first place.

[Buzz Clik]

163. True enough. Can you name a president who has avoided all armed conflict of any kind recently?

Not recently?

[cooolandrew]

136. No I doubt that.He likes to have more people in his corner to move policy in the legislative branch.

What he is doing is very smart, diplomatic and will help policy move under his whitehouse.

[question everything]

146. Not fair (and I am a Clinton supporter)

Every one liked the first Guld War. It was quick and successful and restored the military honor after Vietnam. You, and many on DU may not care about anything military, but we, as a nation like our heroes and our military, in general. We like the parades, we like to be proud, yes, of our country.

Same thing with voting on the IWR. Most Americans wanted revenge of 9/11 - except for the ones, like Rev. Wright, who claim that "the chicken came home to roost." And it was easy to believe our intelligence "reports" that Saddam was behind it, somehow.

When it comes down to it, most politicians go with the flow, that is, if they want to keep their job.

Or, in some cases, will stand up against the flow if, again, they think it will help them to be re-elected.

[OzarkDem]

149. Everyone liked the first Gulf War? No they didn't

Bush paid tens of millions to a PR firm to sell it to the public, but that didn't make it a popular war. The yellow ribbon BS put out by the PR firms was the first attempt by the GOP to bully the public into supporting illegal and unnecessary wars using the "support the troops" propaganda.

The war could have been avoided and, failing that, could have been resolved through diplomatic and other remedies.

The big lesson for Obama and his supporters is that good foreign policy AVOIDS these messes. And if Obama is of the mindset that Bush I and Reagan made good choices, it means he doesn't have the good judgement needed to AVOID war.

[Zynx]

235. We tried a number of diplomatic remedies. Saddam wouldn't budge out of Kuwait.

We fought a war solely of liberation of Kuwait. We never took any of Iraq's territory. The coalition army had to incur into Iraqi territory to perform its maneuvers, but it never stayed there.

[MethuenProgressive]

147. "I can't decide if Obama is too stupid or too dangerous to be president. "? The answer is...

Yes.

[Crunchy Frog]

154. Well, I feel the same way about it as Obama.

That war was not unprovoked, it was in response to an act of aggression against Kuwait. It had limited, well defined, and attainable goals, and was accompanied by a broad consensus. Exactly the opposite of what we've got going there now. I don't see the problem. :shrug:

Your lady still voted to let Bush invade Iraq this time around, and seems to be in love with John McCain.

[patrick t. cakes]

160. defend hillarys...

[kmsarvis]

162. LETS NOT FORGET.........

....WHO OPPOSED OUR CURRENT WAR AND WHO VOTED FOR IT. CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT HOW ACTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WORDS ,THEY SHOULD APPLY THAT SAME LOGIC HERE.

[OzarkDem]

166. You mean Obama

and yes, I consider him a poor choice for the Dem nomination because he thinks Bush and Reagan's foreign policy was good.

Sorry, but I oppose endless war, apparently Obama doesn't.

[Unsane]

176. So did Clinton. Your posts are poison.

[Moochy]

207. Best description of OP's tactics

poison. Poisoning the DU well with abandoned subthreads, where the OP is clearly called out being a liar and a hypocrite.

When will the mods purge these dishonest hacks?

[JMDEM]

182. You must have marbles for brains

Iraq invaded Kuwait. They might not have stopped there, and might have headed straight into Saudi Arabia. Iraq could have turned the world's economy upside down. The action against Iraq was sanctioned by the UN. We had plenty of support from other countries.

Bush I was smart enough to leave Saddam in power, because he knew the resulting chaos that would ensue if Saddam was taken out. Need proof? Just look at Iraq now.

Now, I know there are a lot of possible underlying factors that may have pushed Iraq into that invasion, and they thought the US would not respond. But the bottom line is that once the invasion occurred, something had to be done about it (for the sake of the whole world) and Bush I took that action in the most intelligent, cooperative, and cost-effective manner possible.

Compare that with Iraq II and Bush II. We invaded under a context of lies. We invaded against the wishes of the UN. What little support we had in the world was largely coerced. It was a bullying operation from the get-go, and it has cost us enormously in all regards. Obqama realizes all these things. Hillary does not. Or rather, Hillary probably realizes them, but becoming President is more important to her, so she voted for political expediency more than anything else, despite the lives and money lost.

[Alexander]

184. So did the Clintons. Your point?

[OzarkDem]

214. Neither Clinton proposed adopting Bush or Reagan foreign policy

Obama has. You have a flawed candidate.

[readmoreoften]

196. People who think Obama is an anti-war progressive are deluded and lazy.

Just because one candidate is not anti-war (Clinton) does not mean the other is by default.

[Honeycombe8]

204. I don't think Obama is anti-war. Why do you think people think he is?

He is anti-IRAQ-war, like most Americans (which, BTW, does not mean he wants to cut funding in the midst of a war that should be ended....again, like most Americans).

But no, I have never thought that he's anti-war, generally. And I'm glad he's not. A country that won't fight for its own defense will soon cease to exist.

[Honeycombe8]

199. So did Gore (vote for it). I approved it, too. Hussein had invaded Kuwait. Desert Storm....

pushed them back into Iraq. Did not invade Iraq.

This is what ticked Cheney off. He wanted to go back and "finish the job" ever since. He finally got his chance with the idiot *.

[KoKo]

206. I think on this that OBAMA was trying to "Reach Across the Aisle" to Repugs?

So...we shouldn't be too hard on him about this..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

208. but Iraq was pounding Israel with scuds and had invaded Kuwait!

[blm]

209. Obama was fed the same REHABILITATED HISTORY most of the public has been fed - and YOU support

the Clintons who made SURE all the matters of Iraqgate, IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning that the FIRST Iraq war was part of = ALL those outstanding matters of GHWBush's illegal operations were DEEP-SIXED throughout the 90s.

Thanks a fucking lot Bill. Your actions led to the continuing protection of BushInc, the deification of Ronnie Reagan, the emergence of Bush2, 9-11, this Iraq war and future war with Iran.

BushInc should have been STOPPED and in jail by 1994 - and instead the GOP took over Congress, BushInc was growing stronger and planning their comeback in 2000.

The Global Fascist Agenda Beat Goes On.

[OzarkDem]

212. So Clinton caused the first Gulf War?

Obama supporters are worse than the GOP for attempting to blame Bill Clinton for everything that happened in the 20th century.

Get a clue. This is a Democratic forum, not a Republican one. The endless Clinton bashing and GOP praising by Obama supporters was hilarious at first but is getting tiresome. If you want to peddle GOP propaganda, do it at another forum.

Hillary supporters have had enough of the GOP talking points and revisionist history used to bash Bill Clinton simply because he's married to your candidate's opponent. Find a valid and believable way to fluff up your candidate.

[blm]

231. THIS IRAQ WAR - Had Iraqgate and BCCI matters NOT been swept under the rug

throughout the 90s, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

Clinton supporters are DELIBERATELY OBTUSE about this because they can't face the REALITY of what is said so they stretch what WAS said out to some other hook to hang their hat on.

Try proportion.

Try CITIZENSHIP.

[DerekJ]

216. Wait .. Wait .. you think Desert Storm was a bad idea?!!

Many Middle Eastern countries supported, and helped in Desert Storm. Many sent troops too.

[WinkyDink]

219. So? How does that make it "a good idea"?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EHfFr3ElfqIJ:www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/history/end_of_the_millennium.htm+iraq+kuwait+oil+theft&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us

[DerekJ]

222. As I said:

There was consensus in the whole world, among even Muslim, and Middle Eastern countries, that this war was necessary, and It was backed by the U.N.

[OzarkDem]

224. Well. I'm not a Muslim, I had to pay for it

and I know it wasn't a good idea. It could have been resolved diplomatically and should have been. If Muslims want to engage in wars, let them do it. Build a fricking wall around the mideast and let them go at it.

[DerekJ]

225. What are you talking about

This war (Between Iraq and Kuwait) destroyed a peaceful country, Kuwait ( it cost them billions to rebuild, killed thousands of innocent people, and many had to leave their country), it greatly destabilized the region, and it was a total disaster. A military intervention was paramount, to stop the atrocities.

You don't support that ?!!!

Well then, fine...

let's talk how it would have affected your life, since you don't care about the rest of the world ..

In one word: OIL

[DerekJ]

227. And NO!!, There were no diplomatic solution, and The U.S was paid back in full

taking on very large rebuilding contracts from Kuwait.
You are totally clueless

[GihrenZabi]

237. *rolls eyes*

This sort of intelligent comment is just going to get you mocked.

Get out of your glass bubble and join the rest of us in the real world, please...

[Mezzo]

230. It just goes to show this man is NOT a liberal.

and that's a fucking PROBLEM.

[GihrenZabi]

233. Do you understand the first Gulf War?

Iraq invaded Kuwait, a nation with whom many Western nations have economic ties, unprovoked.

Kuwait's allies defended her and sent the Iraqis packing. They didn't go into Iraq. It wasn't an offensive war - and it was precisely the right thing to do.


How Saddam got his weapons and whether or not the United States supported him is 100% moot to your argument. That seems to be your only response to people asking you what YOU would have done after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

If you honestly think that a "diplomatic solution" was possible, you're ignorant. Not in the Middle East. Once you take territory you don't just give it back because you have an attack of conscience - and with control of Kuwait's oil resources why would Saddam have had to play ball with anyone?


The subtext of your argument is born right out of Chomsky, who argues that Saddam broadcasting his intentions to invade Kuwait and that we didn't say anything. I've also heard that we owed Kuwait a lot of money prior to the first Gulf War and that said debt evaporated after the war...so perhaps we did have a motivation to allow Saddam to invade.

But your argument then leans on the supposition that Saddam would not have invaded had we sent him word not to...which is debatable at best.


The fact of the matter is that you have been asked a direct question by numerous posters: what would YOU have done after Saddam invaded Kuwait? Stop weaseling out of answering. What would you have done? Diplomatic action is not an option because it wouldn't work for the reasons stated. So, do you allow him to retain control of the country?

That's your only alternative to fighting. We've seen how little economic and diplomatic pressure work on Iraq. Remember all those U.N. resolutions which did nothing other than deny the Iraqi people resources they needed?

It's nice that your political stances would subject the Kuwaiti people to Saddam's tyranny just because going to war offends your personal stances on armed conflict...that's very humanitarian of you...