Is this the Democratic Party Line? Or just one oddball? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 10:26 AM

WASHINGTON — The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105895,00.html

Rep. Jim McDermott , D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

So! Are they now gonna' say we could have had him six months, nine months, three months ago... it just wasn't politically expedient until this week? Between Dean's line and this guys BS it makes you wonder to just what depth they'll sink to blame all of the ills of the world on the current administration.

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 10:43 AM

He's just one of 435 whackjobs. Do I really need to go to the DNC website to dig up a rebuttal quote, or can we all just agree that we all have a few crazies in our respective parties?

But since you're trying to tie Dean in with this guy, let me attach Dean's latest speech on foreign policy. Feel free to find the line where he "blames all of the ills of the world on the current administration"

Quote:

In the past year, our campaign has gathered strength by offering leadership and ideas and also by listening to the American people. The American people have the power to make their voices heard and to change America's course for the better.

What are the people telling us? That a domestic policy centered on increasing the wealth of the wealthiest Americans, and ceding power to favored corporate campaign contributors, is a recipe for fiscal and economic disaster. That the strength of our nation depends on electing a President who will fight for jobs, education, and real health care for all Americans.

But the growing concerns of the American people are not limited to matters at home: They also are increasingly concerned that our country is squandering the opportunity to lead in the world in a way that will advance our values and interests and makes us more secure.

When it comes to our national security, we cannot afford to fail. September 11 was neither the beginning of our showdown with violent extremists, nor its climax. It was a monumental wake-up call to the urgent challenges we face.

Today, I want to discuss these challenges. First I want to say a few words about events over the weekend. The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes. His capture is a testament to the skill and courage of U.S. forces and intelligence personnel. They have risked their lives. Some of their comrades have given their lives.

All Americans should be grateful. I thank these outstanding men and women for their service and sacrifice.

I want to talk about Iraq in the context of all our security challenges ahead. Saddam's capture offers the Iraqi people, the United States, and the international community an opportunity to move ahead. But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee.

Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam's capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday's capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

Addressing these critical and interlocking threats terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be America's highest priority in my administration.

To meet these and other important security challenges, including Iraq, I will bring to bear all the instruments of power that will keep our citizens secure and our nation strong.

Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:

The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;

The credibility that comes from telling the truth;

The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology;

The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;

And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known to ensure the security of this nation.

I want to focus first on two ways we can strengthen the instruments of power so we can achieve all our national security goals. Then I want to lay out my plans for dealing with the central challenges I have identified: defeating global terrorism, curbing weapons of mass destruction.

First, we must strengthen our military and intelligence capabilities so we are best prepared to defend America and our interests.

When the cold war ended, Americans hoped our military's job would become simpler and smaller, but it has not.

During the past dozen years, I have supported U.S. military action to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, to stop Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo, to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda from control in Afghanistan. As President, I will never hesitate to deploy our armed forces to defend our country and its allies, and to protect our national interests.

And, as President, I will renew America's commitment to the men and women who proudly serve our nation and to the critical missions they carry out.

That means ensuring that our troops have the best leadership, the best training, and the best equipment.

It means keeping promises about pay, living conditions, family benefits, and care for veterans so we honor our commitments and recruit and retain the best people.

It means putting our troops in harm's way only when the stakes warrant, when we plan soundly to cope with possible dangers, and when we level with the American people about the relevant facts.

It means exercising global leadership effectively to secure maximum support and cooperation from other nations, so that our troops do not bear unfair burdens in defeating the dangers to global peace.

It means ensuring that we have the right types of forces with the right capabilities to perform the missions that may lie ahead. I will expand our armed forces' capacity to meet the toughest challenges like defeating terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and securing peace with robust special forces, improved military intelligence, and forces that are as ready and able to strengthen the peace as they are to succeed in combat.

When he ran in 2000, this president expressed disdain for "nation building." That disdain seemed to carry over into Iraq, where civilian officials did not adequately plan for and have not adequately supported the enormous challenge, much of it borne by our military, of stabilizing the country. Our men and women in uniform deserve better, and as President, I will shape our forces based not on wishful thinking but on the realities of our world.

I also will get America's defense spending priorities straight so our resources are focused more on fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and honoring commitments to our troops and less, for example, on developing unnecessary and counterproductive new generations of nuclear weapons.

Leadership also is critically needed to strengthen America's intelligence capabilities. The failure of warning on 9-11 and the debacle regarding intelligence on Iraq show that we need the best information possible about efforts to organize, finance and operate terrorist groups; about plans to buy, steal, develop, or use weapons of mass destruction; about unrest overseas that could lead to violence and instability.

As President, I will make it a critical priority to improve our ability to gather and analyze intelligence. I will see to it that we have the expertise and resources to do the job.

Because some terrorist networks know no borders in their efforts to attack Americans, I will demand the effective coordination and integration of intelligence about such groups from domestic and international sources and across federal agencies. Such coordination is lacking today. It is a critical problem that the current administration has not addressed adequately. I will do so -- and I will meet all our security challenges -- in a way that fully protects our civil liberties. We will not undermine freedom in the name of freedom.

I also will restore honor and integrity by insisting that intelligence be evaluated to shape policy, instead of making it a policy to distort intelligence.

Second, we must rebuild our global alliances and partnerships, so critical to our nation and so badly damaged by the present administration.

Meeting the pressing security challenges of the 21st century will require new ideas, initiatives, and energy. But it also will require us to draw on our proudest traditions, including the strong global leadership demonstrated by American Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, to renew key relationships with America's friends and allies. Every President in that line, including Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the first President Bush demonstrated that effective American leadership includes working with allies and partners, inspiring their support, advancing common interests.

Now, when America should be at the height of its influence, we find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented. America should never be afraid to act alone when necessary. But we must not choose unilateral action as our weapon of first resort. Leaders of the current administration seem to believe that nothing can be gained from working with nations that have stood by our side as allies for generations. They are wrong, and they are leading America in a radical and dangerous direction. We need to get back on the right path.

Our allies have been a fundamental source of strength for more than half a century. And yet the current administration has often acted as if our alliances are no longer important. Look at the record: Almost two years passed between September 11 and NATO assuming the leadership of a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. More than six months have gone by between the fall of Baghdad and any serious consideration of a NATO role in Iraq.

It can, at times, be challenging, even frustrating, to obtain the cooperation of allies. But, as history shows, America is most successful in achieving our national aims when our allies are by our side.

Now, some say we shouldn't worry about eroding alliances because, whenever a crisis comes up, we can always assemble a coalition of the willing. It's nice when people are willing, because it means they will show up and do their best. It does not, however, guarantee that they will be able to accomplish all that needs to be done.

As President, I will be far more interested in allies that stand ready to act with us rather than just willing to be rounded up as part of a coalition. NATO and our Asian alliances are strong coalitions of the able, and we need to maximize their support and strength if we are to prevail.

Unlike the kind of pick-up team this administration prefers, alliances train together so they can function effectively with common equipment, communications, logistics, and planning. Our country will be safer with established alliances, adapted to confront 21st century dangers, than with makeshift coalitions that have to start from scratch every time the alarm bell sounds.

Rebuilding our alliances and partnerships is relevant not only in Europe and Asia. Closer to home, my Administration will rebuild cooperation with Mexico and others in Latin America. This President talked the talk of Western Hemisphere partnership in his first months, but at least since 9-11 he has failed to walk the walk. He has allowed crises and resentments to accumulate and squandered goodwill that had been built up over many years. We can do much better.

Third, I will bring to bear our strengthened resources, and our renewed commitment to alliances, on our nation's most critical and urgent national security priority: defeating the terrorists who have attacked America, continue to attack our friends, and are working to acquire the most dangerous weapons to attack us again.

Essential to this effort will be strong US leadership in forging a new global alliance to defeat terror.

And a core objective of this alliance must be a dramatically intensified global effort to prevent the most deadly threat of all the danger that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, and chemical arms.

A critical component of our defense against terror is homeland security. Here, the current administration has talked much, but done too little. It has devised the color coded threat charts we see on television, but it has not adequately addressed the conditions that make the colors change. Our administration will.

We will do more to protect our cities, ports, and aircraft; water and food supplies; bridges, chemical factories, and nuclear plants.

We will improve the coordination of intelligence information not only among federal agencies but also with state and local governments.

And we will enhance the emergency response capabilities of our police, firefighters and public health personnel. These local first responders are the ones on whom our security depends, and they deserve much stronger support from our federal government. A Department of Homeland Security isn't doing its job if it doesn't adequately support the hometown security that can prevent attacks and save lives.

As President, I will strengthen the National Guard's role at the heart of homeland security. Members of the Guard have always stood ready to be deployed overseas for limited periods and in times of crisis and national emergency. But the Iraq war has torn tens of thousands of Guard members from their families for more than a year. It also deprived local communities of many of their best defenders.

The Guard is an integral part of American life, and its main mission should be here at home, preparing, planning, and acting to keep our citizens safe.

Closing the homeland security gap is just one element of what must be a comprehensive approach. We must take the fight to the terrorist leaders and their operatives around the world.

There will be times when urgent problems require swift American action. But defeating al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will require much more. It will require a long-term effort on the part of many nations.

Fundamental to our strategy will be restoration of strong US leadership in the creation of a new global alliance to defeat terror, a commitment among law-abiding nations to work together in law enforcement, intelligence, and military operations.

Such an alliance could have been established right after September 11, when nations stood shoulder to shoulder with America, prepared to meet the terrorist challenge together. But instead of forging an effective new partnership to fight a common foe, the administration soon downgraded the effort. The Iraq war diverted critical intelligence and military resources, undermined diplomatic support for our fight against terror, and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits.

Our administration will move swiftly to build a new anti-terrorist alliance, drawing on our traditional allies and involving other partners whose assistance can make a difference.

Our vigilance will extend to every conceivable means of attack. And our most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least.

We have, rightly, paid much attention to finding and eliminating the worst people, but we need just as vigorous an effort to eliminate the worst weapons. Just as important as finding bin Laden is finding and eliminating sleeper cells of nuclear, chemical, and biological terror.

Our global alliance will place its strongest emphasis on this most lethal form of terror. We will advance a global effort to secure the weapons and technologies of mass destruction on a worldwide basis.

To do so, we will build on the efforts of former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And our effort will build on the extraordinary work and leadership, as Senator and as Vice President, of one of America's great leaders, Al Gore.

The Nunn-Lugar program has been critical to securing the vast nuclear, chemical, and biological material inventory left over from the Soviet Union. Incredibly, despite the threat that the nexus of terrorism and technology of mass destruction poses, despite the heightened challenges posed by 9-11, the current administration has failed to increase funding for these efforts to secure dangerous weapons. I know that expanding and strengthening Nunn-Lugar is essential to defending America, and I will make that a priority from my first day as President.

Our new alliance will call upon all nations to work together to identify and control or eliminate unsafeguarded components -- or potential components -- of nuclear, chemical and biological arms around the world. These include the waste products and fuel of nuclear energy and research reactors, the pathogens developed for scientific purposes, and the chemical agents used for commercial ends. Such materials are present in dozens of countries -- and often stored with little if any security or oversight.

I will recruit every nation that can contribute and mobilize cooperation in every arena -- from compiling inventories to safeguarding transportation; from creating units specially-trained to handle terrorist situations involving lethal substances to ensuring global public health cooperation against biological terror.

A serious effort to deal with this threat will require far more than the $2 billion annual funding the U.S. and its key partners have committed. We need a global fund to combat weapons of mass destruction not just in the former Soviet Union but around the world -- that is much larger than current expenditures.

Our administration will ask Congress to triple U.S. contributions over 10 years, to $30 billion, and we will challenge our friends and allies to match our contributions, for a total of $60 billion. For too long, we have been penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to addressing the weapons proliferation threat. We urgently need to strengthen these programs in order to defend America.

The next President will have to show leadership in other ways to mobilize the world into a global alliance to defeat terror.

We and our partners must commit ourselves to using every relevant capability, relationship, and organization to identify terrorist cells, seize terrorist funds, apprehend terrorist suspects, destroy terrorist camps, and prevent terrorist attacks. We must do even more to share intelligence, strengthen law enforcement cooperation, bolster efforts to squeeze terror financing, and enhance our capacity for joint military operations -- all so we can stop the terrorists before they strike at us.

The next President will also have to attack the roots of terror. He will have to lead and win the struggle of ideas.

Here we should have a decisive edge. Osama bin Laden and his allies have nothing to offer except deceit, destruction, and death. There is a global struggle underway between peace-loving Muslims and this radical minority that seeks to hijack Islam for selfish and violent aims, that exploits resentment to persuade that murder is martyrdom, and hatred is somehow God's will. The tragedy is that, by its actions, its unilateralism, and its ill-considered war in Iraq, this Administration has empowered radicals, weakened moderates, and made it easier for the terrorists to add to their ranks.

The next President will have to work with our friends and partners, including in the Muslim world, to persuade people everywhere that terrorism is wholly unacceptable, just as they are persuaded that slavery and genocide are unacceptable.

He must convince Muslims that America neither threatens nor is threatened by Islam, to which millions of our own citizens adhere.

And he must show by words and deeds that America seeks security for itself through strengthening the rule of law, not to dominate others by becoming a law unto itself.

Finally, the struggle against terrorism, and the struggle for a better world, demand that we take even more steps. The strategic map of the world has never been more complicated. What America does, and how America is perceived, will have a direct bearing on how successful we are in mobilizing the world against the dangers that threaten us, and in promoting the values that sustain us.

Today, billions of people live on the knife's edge of survival, trapped in a struggle against ignorance, poverty, and disease. Their misery is a breeding ground for the hatred peddled by bin Laden and other merchants of death.

As President, I will work to narrow the now-widening gap between rich and poor. Right now, the United States officially contributes a smaller percentage of its wealth to helping other nations develop than any other industrialized country.

That hurts America, because if we want the world's help in confronting the challenges that most concern us, we need to help others defeat the perils that most concern them. Targeted and effective expansion of investment, assistance, trade, and debt relief in developing nations can improve the climate for peace and democracy and undermine the recruiters for terrorist plots.

So will expansion of assistance to fight deadly disease around the world. Today, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death in many places.

We still are moving too slowly to address the crisis. As President, I will provide $30 billion in the fight against AIDS by 2008 -- to help the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria meet its needs and to help developing nations meet theirs.

Fighting poverty and disease and bringing opportunity and hope is the right thing to do.

It is also, absolutely, the smart thing to do if we want children around the world to grow up admiring entrepreneurs, educators, and artists rather than growing up with pictures of terrorists tacked to their walls.

We can advance the battle against terrorism and strengthen our national security by reclaiming our rightful place as a leader in global institutions. The current administration has made it almost a point of pride to dismiss and ridicule these bodies. That's a mistake.

Like our country's "Greatest Generation," I see international institutions like the United Nations as a way to leverage U.S. power, to summon warriors and peacekeepers, relief workers and democracy builders, to causes that advance America's national interests. As President, I will work to make these institutions more accountable and more effective. That's the only realistic approach. Throwing up our hands and assuming that nothing good can come from international cooperation is not leadership. It's abdication. It's foolish. It does not serve the American people.

Working more effectively with the UN, other institutions, and our friends and allies would have been a far better approach to the situation in Iraq.

As I said at the outset, our troops deserve our deepest gratitude for their work to capture Saddam. As I also said, Saddam's apprehension does not end our security challenges in Iraq, let alone around the world. Violent factions in that country may continue to threaten stability and the safety of our personnel.

I hope the Administration will use Saddam's capture as an opportunity to move U.S. policy in a more effective direction.

America's interests will be best served by acting with dispatch to work as partners with free Iraqis to help them build a stable, self-governing nation, not by prolonging our term as Iraq's ruler.

To succeed we also need urgently to remove the label "made in America" from the Iraqi transition. We need to make the reconstruction a truly international project, one that integrates NATO, the United Nations, and other members of the international community, and that reduces the burden on America and our troops.

We also must bring skill and determination to a task at which the current administration has utterly failed: We can and we must work for a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Our alliance with Israel is and must remain unshakeable, and so will be my commitment every day of our administration to work with the parties for a solution that ends decades of blood and tears.

I believe that, with new leadership, and strengthened partnerships, America can turn around the situation in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. I believe we can defeat terrorism and advance peace and progress. I believe these things because I believe in America's promise. I believe in our capacity to come together as a people, and to act in the world with confidence, guided by our highest aspirations.

Again and again in America's history, our citizens have faced crucial moments of decision. At these moments, it fell to our citizens to decide what kind of country America would be. And now, again, we face such a moment.

The American people can choose between a national security policy hobbled by fear, and a policy strengthened by shared hopes.

They must choose between a go-it-alone approach to every problem, and a truly global alliance to defeat terror and build peace.

They must choose between today's new radical unilateralism and a renewal of respect for the best bipartisan traditions of American foreign policy. They must choose between a brash boastfulness and a considered confidence that speaks to the convictions of people everywhere.

I believe we will again hear the true voice of America.

It is the voice of Jefferson and our Declaration of Independence, forging a national community in which "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

It is the voice of Franklin Roosevelt rallying our people at a moment of maximum peril to fight for a world free from want and fear.

It is the voice of Harry Truman helping post war Europe resist communist aggression and emerge from devastation into prosperity.

It is the voice of Eleanor Roosevelt insisting that human rights are not the entitlement of some, but the birthright of all.

It is the voice of Martin Luther King proclaiming his dream of a future in which every man, woman and child is free at last.

It is the voice of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton bringing long-time foes to the table in pursuit of peace.

With these legacies to inspire us, no obstacle ahead is too great.

Our campaign is about strengthening the American community so we can fulfill the promise of our nation. We have the power, if we use it wisely, to advance American security and restore our country to its rightful place, as the engine of progress; the champion of liberty and democracy; a beacon of hope and a pillar of strength.

We have the power, as Thomas Paine said at America's birth, "to begin the world anew."

We have the power to put America back on the right path, toward a new era of greatness, fulfilling an American promise stemming not so much from what we possess, but from what we believe.

That is how America can best lead in the world. That is where I want to lead America. Thank you very much.

mml · 12-16-2003, 10:47 AM

"Baghdad" Jim McDermott is a wingnut. He does little to help solve the issues and challenges which face our nation and seems to spend most of his time stirring the pot. The guy is either so filled with anger about the Bush administration that he can't think strait or he is out to make a name for himself (or both). Speaking as a Democrat, I can assure you that the vast majority of Dems. would like to see this guy go away(of course, unless some other Dem can win his seat, the party will do everything it can to keep him in office - aah politics.)

edited for some seriously poor spelling

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 11:46 AM

"But since you're trying to tie Dean in with this guy, let me attach Dean's latest speech on foreign policy. Feel free to find the line where he "blames all of the ills of the world on the current administration"

I believe this is the tenth paragraph.

"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 12:12 PM

I feel somewhat motivated to defend McDermott on this issue. Perhaps, he is just speaking out and voicing paranoid theory, and perhaps he isn't.
I recall the handling of the hostages in Iran and how the Reagan election team had convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages until after Reagan's inauguration for political gain.

Now, nothing seems more clearly unamerican and dispicable to me as using these hostages for political capital. What this has done is severly undermined republican credibility in such issues.
While Mcdermott's claims may be unfounded, the republican party has demonstrated that they are not above doing something this underhanded. therefore, for them to cast any aspersions onto McDermott for such a comment would be farcical.
I do think it is inappropriate for McDermott to make such comments without evidence, however, the republican party has long ago forfeited their right to indignance at such a remark.

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 12:14 PM

Okay, I read it again, and:

"blames all of the ills of the world on the current administration"

/=

"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
...............
I recall the handling of the hostages in Iran and how the Reagan election team had convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages until after Reagan's inauguration for political gain.
..................

Do what?

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 12:46 PM

Ok. Basically there is strong evidence that Reagan and his staff negotiated with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages to give Reagan an advantage going into the election.
The Iranians stall, and they get their 8 billion in Iranian assets.

http://www.decades.com/Timeline/n/93_2831.htm#
Hostages taken 11/4/1979
Reagan Inaugurated 1/20/1981
Hostages released 1/20/1981

Coincidence?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html

Quote:

...a crowd of about 500 seized the embassy. Of the approximately 90 people inside the embassy, 52 remained in captivity until the end of the crisis.

President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure.

...

In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.

http://www.geocities.com/thereaganye...80election.htm
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise

Quote:

"Another thing I kept quiet about was my horror at how the hostage situation was being discussed inside the Reagan camp. Since my contact with my father [Ronald] was limited, most of this was filtered through my mother [Nancy]. The phrase 'October Surprise' kept cropping up and was soon campaign rhetoric. The more I listened, the more I realized that they were actually dreading the thought that the hostages might be released--if it happened at a time they thought would be inconvenient for their election plans."
--Patti Davis (formerly Patricia Ann Reagan), The Way I See It

"[I] think the hostages' release...had to do with a deal, struck before the deal-maker was in office."
--Patti Davis (formerly Patricia Ann Reagan), The Way I See It

"The Iranian parliament was meeting and we had every information from Bani-Sadr and others that they were going to vote overwhelmingly to let the hostages go. And at the last minute on Sunday [two days before the election] for some reason they had adjourned without voting.... The votes were there, but the Ayatollah or somebody commanded them to adjourn."
--President Carter, interviewed in The Village Voice

"The CIA Old Boys were reeling. In the 1970s, exposure of their dirty games and dirty tricks made the Cold Warriors look sinister--and silly. Then, President Carter ordered a housecleaning that left scores of CIA men out in the cold. In 1980, the CIA men wanted back in and their champion was former CIA director George Bush. With Bush and Ronald Reagan in power, the old spies could resume their work with a vengeance. The temptation was to do to Jimmy Carter what the CIA had done to countless other world leaders--overthrow him."
--Robert Parry, Bush and a CIA Power Play, February 29, 1996

Tophat665 · 12-16-2003, 01:15 PM

McDermott would be jumping the gun if he said that it was definitely the case that Saddam's capture was staged, but our Military has been crawling all over Tikrit for months. If they didn't know he was there, then they are much less effective than we have been lead to believe. Now, that wouldn't be all that surprising (they're still pretty durn good.)

I am reserving judgement until WMDs are found (Hans Blix says he thinks they probably were all destroyed in 91, with maybe a few laggards in 92. Even <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97537,00.html">Faux News</a> agrees on this.) and Bin Laden is in custody. If WMDs are found at all, I'll be a bit suspicious, and the timing of a bin Laden capture could be critical, particularly if it comes close enough to the election that there is no time to rebut.

For now, though, I'm going to take it at face value, and reserve the possibility of agreeing with McDermott later.

Oh, and LD, that quote you pulled out of the Dean speech does not blame all the ills of the world on Shrub & Co. It just says that, regardless of their recent success, it's still a botched job that could have been done better and cheaper without alienating any of our allies. It says nothing about ignoring the warnings about 9/11, or scrapping Clinton's <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.08A.wrp.lies.htm">plans to go after al Qaeda</a>, or scrapping Clinton's intiatives to prevent a nuclear North Korea, or scrapping the Kyoto protocol, or reneging on campaign promises to lower CO<sub>2</sub> emissions or any of the other things that have made this the single worst presidency since at least Buchanan, perhaps ever. One runs a risk when one criticizes the Bush administration that one will be accused of taking cheap shots because the malfeasance and incompetance and mismangement is so blatant that all the shots are cheap, even when they're absolutely true.

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 01:30 PM

With all Clinton suddenly has going for him one really wonders why he left office with this country in such a fuckin' mess. One would think that all the ills of the world had been solved - Clinton's plan to go after al Qaeda - was he gonna' send Airforce One over to pick them up? Scrapping his initiatives to deal with North Korea? Damn! I must have slept through a great presidency! All I seem to remember is a bad and sloppy blow job that had absolutely positively nothing whatsoever to do with sexual relations - so help him God.

I am afraid some of you really aren't gonna' enjoy the second term.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 01:34 PM

Clintons plan to go after al Qaeda was drafted in response to the bombing of the cole. The plan was finished in November, before the election.

Instead of starting a war in Afghanistan and handing it over to a new president immediately, Clinton saved the plans and gave them to Bush.
Bush sat on them, determined that terrorism wasn't as big an issue as Clinton was making it out to be.

Ustwo · 12-16-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Clintons plan to go after al Qaeda was drafted in response to the bombing of the cole. The plan was finished in November, before the election.

Instead of starting a war in Afghanistan and handing it over to a new president immediately, Clinton saved the plans and gave them to Bush.
Bush sat on them, determined that terrorism wasn't as big an issue as Clinton was making it out to be.

What was he going to do, launch a few cruise missles at them?

Maybe he was going to do another Somalia?

Perhaps he just didn't have the balls to do anything and wanted to pretend he did.

Clinton's own people said counter terrorism was NOT job 1 for Clinton, or ever job 10.

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 01:45 PM

I think the only balls Clinton had were those that Lewinsky had in her hand. (While they weren't having sex of course)

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 02:21 PM

No, actually the plan that Bush eventually used to take out Osama and the Taliban was the plan that Clinton gave him back in '01.

Ustwo · 12-16-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
No, actually the plan that Bush eventually used to take out Osama and the Taliban was the plan that Clinton gave him back in '01.

Uh huh.

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 02:37 PM

Clinton probably told him to get rid of the Rangers too!

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 03:21 PM

Maybe you missed Tophats link

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.08A.wrp.lies.htm

Ustwo · 12-16-2003, 03:40 PM

Laugh, I'll accept a truthout opinion piece when you accept Newsmax as a primary source.

My favorite truthout moment (and I don't go to the sight often, and not in months) was before the war they had a picture of a bunch of Iraq boys playing around a bunker, and then saddly stated something to the effect 'None of them would survive were they to be hit by a MOAB'.

If it wasn't pretending to be the truth it would be a great satire sight.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 03:50 PM

Fair enough. How about 'Time'?

Time Magazine 'Clinton Plan' August 4, 2003

Quote:

"With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen."

Quote:

"In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

USS Cole bombing was October 12 2000

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 03:53 PM

Here is the entire article on the off chance you don't have the issue

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
With all Clinton suddenly has going for him one really wonders why he left office with this country in such a fuckin' mess. One would think that all the ills of the world had been solved - Clinton's plan to go after al Qaeda - was he gonna' send Airforce One over to pick them up? Scrapping his initiatives to deal with North Korea? Damn! I must have slept through a great presidency! All I seem to remember is a bad and sloppy blow job that had absolutely positively nothing whatsoever to do with sexual relations - so help him God.

Liquor Dealer, it's your topic, but you lose face when, instead of responding to Tophat's and my own points, you devolve into Clinton bashing.

Superbelt, I'd have rather you ignored the threadjack instead of feeding it.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 04:24 PM

Sorry Sparhawk, I saw the threadstarter state some fallacies and I felt I had to respond with the facts.

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Liquor Dealer, it's your topic, but you lose face when, instead of responding to Tophat's and my own points, you devolve into Clinton bashing.

Superbelt, I'd have rather you ignored the threadjack instead of feeding it.

I didn't bring Clinton in to it. He was brought into it as having had a plan to do everything that is being done - but that he never got around to doing - If Dean's own exact quote does not satisfy you as to what he is blaming Bush for then it is of little use to stir what's left. I quite obviously did not notice your appointment to the post of super moderator of the forum - I will make an attempt to follow your rules of decorum from this point onward. I am aware that it is becoming more and more difficult for a candidate when his entier idea of foreign policy is little more than a quick chorus of "why can't we get along".

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I didn't bring Clinton in to it. He was brought into it as having had a plan to do everything that is being done - but that he never got around to doing - If Dean's own exact quote does not satisfy you as to what he is blaming Bush for then it is of little use to stir what's left.

I'm aware you didn't bring Clinton into it, but instead of discussing policy, you decided to talk about oral sex, which, while fun, is completely irrelevant to the thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I quite obviously did not notice your appointment to the post of super moderator of the forum - I will make an attempt to follow your rules of decorum from this point onward.

Thanks for the sarcasm, but they're not my rules... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=34005

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I am aware that it is becoming more and more difficult for a candidate when his entier idea of foreign policy is little more than a quick chorus of "why can't we get along".

I just posted a 20-page speech by Dean, and you reject it as little more than a quick chorus of "why can't we get along".

Liquor Dealer · 12-16-2003, 05:12 PM

20 pages or 40 pages - his idea on foreign policy is nothing more than one quick chorus.

Ustwo · 12-16-2003, 05:36 PM

Ok, I made a mistake and wasted a bit of my life reading Deans speech. All flowers and roses with no real substance, but I did get a kick out of this line.

Quote:

And our effort will build on the extraordinary work and leadership, as Senator and as Vice President, of one of America's great leaders, Al Gore.

Even most democrats I talk to blame Gore's incompotence for his loss in 2000.

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Ok, I made a mistake and wasted a bit of my life reading Deans speech. All flowers and roses with no real substance

Just one example of the substance in Dean's speech:

Quote:

A critical component of our defense against terror is homeland security. Here, the current administration has talked much, but done too little. It has devised the color coded threat charts we see on television, but it has not adequately addressed the conditions that make the colors change. Our administration will.

We will do more to protect our cities, ports, and aircraft; water and food supplies; bridges, chemical factories, and nuclear plants.

We will improve the coordination of intelligence information not only among federal agencies but also with state and local governments.

And we will enhance the emergency response capabilities of our police, firefighters and public health personnel. These local first responders are the ones on whom our security depends, and they deserve much stronger support from our federal government. A Department of Homeland Security isn't doing its job if it doesn't adequately support the hometown security that can prevent attacks and save lives.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Even most democrats I talk to blame Gore's incompotence for his loss in 2000.

I was one of those Democrats, Ustwo. But his lack of political aptitude is more than made up for by his policy "wonk-ness" for lack of a better term. The breadth and depth of his policy knowledge is pretty unsurpassed at that level of the 'game'.

edit: Oh yes, and thanks for reading- even if you do disagree, at least you do so intelligently.

Ustwo · 12-16-2003, 06:41 PM

I'll boil down what Dean said.

Bush screwed everything up.

The United states can't do anything without having everyone in the west on board (read allies).

The UN does a good job.

Terrorism is bad.

I want to spend even more then Bush on Aids.

I want to spend more on foreign aid.

Conclude with lots of waxing poetic.

eyeseepeedude · 12-16-2003, 06:51 PM

Please remember that this is a forum to express your own beliefs. It is alright to debate with someone about them, but attacking them will result in consequences. What are we all here for if not to say how we feel?

Sparhawk · 12-16-2003, 07:29 PM

Your spin

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Bush screwed everything up.

The United states can't do anything without having everyone in the west on board (read allies).

The UN does a good job.

Terrorism is bad.

I want to spend even more then Bush on Aids.

I want to spend more on foreign aid.

Conclude with lots of waxing poetic.

My spin

Bush made mistakes.

We'd have been better off with a more cautious, inclusive approach.

The UN does do a good job.

Terrorism is bad, we need to do more to stop it within our own borders.

End with inspiration to our common purpose, our shared ideals and beliefs.

12-16-2003, 10:26 AM	#1 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Is this the Democratic Party Line? Or just one oddball? WASHINGTON — The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105895,00.html Rep. Jim McDermott , D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah." The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing." When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him. So! Are they now gonna' say we could have had him six months, nine months, three months ago... it just wasn't politically expedient until this week? Between Dean's line and this guys BS it makes you wonder to just what depth they'll sink to blame all of the ills of the world on the current administration. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 10:47 AM	#3 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	"Baghdad" Jim McDermott is a wingnut. He does little to help solve the issues and challenges which face our nation and seems to spend most of his time stirring the pot. The guy is either so filled with anger about the Bush administration that he can't think strait or he is out to make a name for himself (or both). Speaking as a Democrat, I can assure you that the vast majority of Dems. would like to see this guy go away(of course, unless some other Dem can win his seat, the party will do everything it can to keep him in office - aah politics.) edited for some seriously poor spelling __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

12-16-2003, 11:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	"But since you're trying to tie Dean in with this guy, let me attach Dean's latest speech on foreign policy. Feel free to find the line where he "blames all of the ills of the world on the current administration" I believe this is the tenth paragraph. "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk." __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 12:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Okay, I read it again, and: "blames all of the ills of the world on the current administration" /= "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk." __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-16-2003, 01:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	McDermott would be jumping the gun if he said that it was definitely the case that Saddam's capture was staged, but our Military has been crawling all over Tikrit for months. If they didn't know he was there, then they are much less effective than we have been lead to believe. Now, that wouldn't be all that surprising (they're still pretty durn good.) I am reserving judgement until WMDs are found (Hans Blix says he thinks they probably were all destroyed in 91, with maybe a few laggards in 92. Even <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97537,00.html">Faux News</a> agrees on this.) and Bin Laden is in custody. If WMDs are found at all, I'll be a bit suspicious, and the timing of a bin Laden capture could be critical, particularly if it comes close enough to the election that there is no time to rebut. For now, though, I'm going to take it at face value, and reserve the possibility of agreeing with McDermott later. Oh, and LD, that quote you pulled out of the Dean speech does not blame all the ills of the world on Shrub & Co. It just says that, regardless of their recent success, it's still a botched job that could have been done better and cheaper without alienating any of our allies. It says nothing about ignoring the warnings about 9/11, or scrapping Clinton's <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.08A.wrp.lies.htm">plans to go after al Qaeda</a>, or scrapping Clinton's intiatives to prevent a nuclear North Korea, or scrapping the Kyoto protocol, or reneging on campaign promises to lower CO<sub>2</sub> emissions or any of the other things that have made this the single worst presidency since at least Buchanan, perhaps ever. One runs a risk when one criticizes the Bush administration that one will be accused of taking cheap shots because the malfeasance and incompetance and mismangement is so blatant that all the shots are cheap, even when they're absolutely true. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

12-16-2003, 12:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I feel somewhat motivated to defend McDermott on this issue. Perhaps, he is just speaking out and voicing paranoid theory, and perhaps he isn't. I recall the handling of the hostages in Iran and how the Reagan election team had convinced the Iranians to hold the hostages until after Reagan's inauguration for political gain. Now, nothing seems more clearly unamerican and dispicable to me as using these hostages for political capital. What this has done is severly undermined republican credibility in such issues. While Mcdermott's claims may be unfounded, the republican party has demonstrated that they are not above doing something this underhanded. therefore, for them to cast any aspersions onto McDermott for such a comment would be farcical. I do think it is inappropriate for McDermott to make such comments without evidence, however, the republican party has long ago forfeited their right to indignance at such a remark.

12-16-2003, 01:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	With all Clinton suddenly has going for him one really wonders why he left office with this country in such a fuckin' mess. One would think that all the ills of the world had been solved - Clinton's plan to go after al Qaeda - was he gonna' send Airforce One over to pick them up? Scrapping his initiatives to deal with North Korea? Damn! I must have slept through a great presidency! All I seem to remember is a bad and sloppy blow job that had absolutely positively nothing whatsoever to do with sexual relations - so help him God. I am afraid some of you really aren't gonna' enjoy the second term. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 01:34 PM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Clintons plan to go after al Qaeda was drafted in response to the bombing of the cole. The plan was finished in November, before the election. Instead of starting a war in Afghanistan and handing it over to a new president immediately, Clinton saved the plans and gave them to Bush. Bush sat on them, determined that terrorism wasn't as big an issue as Clinton was making it out to be.

12-16-2003, 01:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I think the only balls Clinton had were those that Lewinsky had in her hand. (While they weren't having sex of course) __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 02:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, actually the plan that Bush eventually used to take out Osama and the Taliban was the plan that Clinton gave him back in '01.

12-16-2003, 02:37 PM	#16 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Clinton probably told him to get rid of the Rangers too! __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 03:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Maybe you missed Tophats link http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.08A.wrp.lies.htm

12-16-2003, 03:40 PM	#18 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Laugh, I'll accept a truthout opinion piece when you accept Newsmax as a primary source. My favorite truthout moment (and I don't go to the sight often, and not in months) was before the war they had a picture of a bunch of Iraq boys playing around a bunker, and then saddly stated something to the effect 'None of them would survive were they to be hit by a MOAB'. If it wasn't pretending to be the truth it would be a great satire sight. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-16-2003, 03:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Here is the entire article on the off chance you don't have the issue http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

12-16-2003, 04:24 PM	#22 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Sorry Sparhawk, I saw the threadstarter state some fallacies and I felt I had to respond with the facts.

12-16-2003, 05:12 PM	#25 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	20 pages or 40 pages - his idea on foreign policy is nothing more than one quick chorus. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-16-2003, 06:41 PM	#28 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'll boil down what Dean said. Bush screwed everything up. The United states can't do anything without having everyone in the west on board (read allies). The UN does a good job. Terrorism is bad. I want to spend even more then Bush on Aids. I want to spend more on foreign aid. Conclude with lots of waxing poetic. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-16-2003, 06:51 PM	#29 (permalink)
eyeseepeedude Sir Location: Colorado Springs, CO	Please remember that this is a forum to express your own beliefs. It is alright to debate with someone about them, but attacking them will result in consequences. What are we all here for if not to say how we feel? __________________ If you like what you see, donate to the TFP