SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (716169)12/1/2005 1:37:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
This is straight from Democrat talking points and bears little resemblance to reality:

"The administration has deceived Americans about the reasons for, and progress of, the war. Two years ago, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld assured Americans over and over that the insurgents were in their last throes. That wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Resistance has grown steadily, to the point that on Wednesday Bush said that terrorists have made Iraq ``the central front in their war against humanity.'"

At least you are consistent.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (716169)12/1/2005 3:21:58 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 769667
 
Kosovo: Clinton "lied, people died"?

by Larry Elder
townhall.com
Dec 1, 2005

The White House -- finally -- began pushing back against irresponsible charges that Bush "lied" to the American people in making the case for war.

The garrulous Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., made many "Bush lied" accusations: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January [2003] to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." And Kennedy later intoned on the Senate floor, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said, " . . . [T]he administration intentionally misled the country into war." Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, speaking to the president in a TV ad, said, "You were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. You were wrong about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. You lied to us, and because of your lies, my son died."

Question: If Bush "lied," did former President Clinton "lie" about Kosovo?

Clinton, in a March 24, 1999, Oval Office broadcast, explained his military action in Kosovo:


<<<

"We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results. . . . By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace. . . . Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests. . . . Do our interests in Kosovo justify the dangers to our armed forces? . . . I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting -- dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests. . . . I have a responsibility as president to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. America has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in Europe. That is what we are doing in Kosovo."
>>>

The former president called Kosovo a humanitarian crisis.

The New York Times, on April 19, 1999, wrote:

<<<

"In San Francisco on Thursday, President Clinton said that the Serbs had displaced 'over a million Kosovars' and had killed and raped 'thousands upon thousands of them.' From interviews that journalists and relief workers have conducted with scores of refugees from Kosovo, there is no reason to doubt him. But at this point it is also impossible to prove that he is correct."
>>>

Actor/activist Mike Farrell, who opposes the Iraq War, nevertheless supported military action in Kosovo, stating,

<<<

"I am in favor of an intervention. . . . I was in Rwanda shortly after the slaughter there. I was infuriated then -- and am now -- that the international community did not step in. . . . I know that the escalation of violence and violations of human rights in Kosovo have been going on for some time. . . . I reluctantly find myself supporting the notion that something needed to be done and that it is appropriate for us to act, and if this is the only way, so be it."
>>>

But what about Clinton's assertion of the displacement of "over a million Kosovars"? According to USA Today on July 1, 1999,
    "Many of the figures used by the Clinton administration 
and NATO to describe the wartime plight of Albanians in
Kosovo now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces
take control of the province. . . . Instead of 100,000
ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by rampaging Serbs,
officials now estimate that about 10,000 were killed."
But is the 10,000 number accurate?

The Orange County Register, in a Nov. 22, 1999, editorial, said,

    "Months after the bombing has ceased, United Nations and 
European Union investigations have bolstered what critics
had argued: NATO's estimates of Serbian genocide against
the Kosovars were greatly overblown. Many observers now
think the inflated numbers simply were part of the U.S.-
led propaganda effort to build support for the war.
    " . . . The latest evidence suggests that fewer than 3,000
Kosovars were murdered -- horrifying, yes, but not many
more than the number of Serbs who were killed by NATO
bombing attacks on Yugoslavia, roughly estimated between
3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and civilians."
Does this mean that Clinton "lied, people died"? The intelligence turned out to be wrong, very wrong. Something like this always warrants a serious examination of intelligence failures. But intelligence failures, bad intelligence or failing to properly analyze the intelligence is a far cry from accusing a commander in chief of deliberately and intentionally misleading the American people.

Can we, perhaps, now drop the "Bush lied" nonsense, and pursue the business of winning the war against Islamo-fascism? Perhaps?

Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement."

townhall.com



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (716169)12/1/2005 3:56:06 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 769667
 
American Intervention Creates Balkan Islamists?

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters

The Left has long held up the Balkans intervention as a model for American intervention -- low footprint, low investment, and practically ignored, although like the Iraq War, also unsanctioned by the UN and actively opposed by Russia and China.

They claim that the use of overwhelming force in Iraq has created a "training ground for terrorists" and that American troops only add to the recruitment of more terrorists. I expect, then, an explanation of how this differs from the recruitment and training of mujaheddin in Bosnia, where Islamists have built cells specifically to infiltrate heavily Caucasian nations for terrorist activities:


<<<

In particular, Islamic radicals are looking to create cells of so-called white al Qaeda, non-Arab members who can evade racial profiling used by police forces to watch for potential terrorists. "They want to look European to carry out operations in Europe," said a Western intelligence agent in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia and Montenegro, adjacent to Bosnia. "It's yet another evolution in the tools used by terrorists."

Parts of the Balkans, stuck in lawless limbo after years of war in the 1990s, are ripe recruitment territory for Middle East radicals, intelligence officials say. Bosnia is still divided among Muslim, Croat and Serb population areas, even if nominally united under the 10-year-old Dayton peace agreement that ended ethnic warfare.

Muslim enclaves in Serbia are restive, and Muslim-majority Kosovo remains an estranged province campaigning for independence six years after NATO bombing forced out Serb-dominated Yugoslav troops. The Balkans have long been a freeway for smugglers of cigarettes, drugs, weapons and prostitutes. "All the conditions are present. Embittered Muslims, arms, corruption -- everything underground operators need to get established," said the Western intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>>>

The real quagmires have come from inaction, from an inability or an unwillingness to face unpleasant tasks in resolving international disputes.
The Balkans have been left to sit for over a decade now with no permanent resolution of the political disputes which led to their civil wars -- over 600 years of them -- and only by the intervention of a bombing campaign did the combatants get pushed into their corners. The lack of direction over the remaining period of time has allowed the depleted Islamists in the area to rebuild and redirect their efforts not so much against their local enemies, but against the West in general.

The same held true in Iraq for a dozen years. We allowed Saddam to remain and for the status quo to exist in a fugue state, through sixteen ultimately meaningless UN Security Council resolutions demanding Saddam's compliance on disarmament and recognition of human rights. During that time, Saddam simply allowed the infrastructure of Iraq to rot, keeping as much money as possible for himself in order to finance his own security and well-being at the expense of the people, especially the Shi'a. (He couldn't reach the Kurds after the end of the Gulf War, thanks to Anglo-American protection.) He hosted Islamist conferences openly attended by al-Qaeda leadership and welcomed terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Baghdad to live openly, for a time without fear of capture or deportation. Saddam openly paid the families of suicide bombers for their craven acts of murder, and we failed to respond until March 2003, after twelve years of dithering over what to do with Iraq.

Waiting around for difficult choices to magically get swept away clearly doesn't work. The creation of Iraq as a terrorist recruitment ground happened because we lacked the political will to finish Saddam and his sociopathic sons in 1991. Bosnia and Kosovo have turned into Islamist training grounds for Caucasian terrorists because we intervened in a fight without a clue as to the terms of the civil war, which side fought for which principles, and what to do with them after the shooting stopped. In Iraq, we had a plan, which we have followed relentelessly: create democratic structures, get the people to start voting for their own native government, and create a native security force that will eventually become strong enough to defend it -- and only then do we leave. In Kosovo, no one can even say whether the province should be independent, let alone what kind of government and security force should develop there. No wonder the natives are restless! After six or ten years of limbo, who wouldn't be?

The Iraq model shows what happens when the Americans manage the post-war process. We may experience some hiccups, but we push for progress and execute a plan for long-term success. When we leave it to the UN to manage, as happened in the Balkans, the committee approach only defends the status quo and never makes a decision to move forward towards a resolution. That approach leads to disaster, as the terrorist infiltration of the Balkans clearly shows.

captainsquartersblog.com

washingtonpost.com