<p>Greybeard, I think where Clinton went wrong is by working on the assumption that [relatively] soft or indirect power would have any effect on Saddam Hussein. I’d have bet several stacks of chips against that one. But Clinton was not the only one to believe this. Bush 41 agreed to stop Desert Storm, not only because it would have torn apart the Arab support of the coalition that he so deftly assembled (unlike his feckless son) but because the working assumption was that the Iraqi military would feel so humiliated that Saddam Hussein would be removed, probably by assassination.</p>
<p>But there are several elements that distinguish the deficiencies of Clinton’s Iraq policy and Bush’s Iraq policy, the latter being a couple of orders of magnitude worse.</p>
<p>First was a willful neglect to consider any information that ran contrary to either the premises (source Curveball et alia re WMD, when warnings were sounded) or the outcome (Ahmed Chalabi et alia of the Iraqi National Congress vs. the State Department “Futures of Iraq” group). The disdain that Bush, in particular, has for anything that has a whiff of book learning that disagrees with what his gut feeling is, is corrosive to any process designed to have the commander in chief make an informed decision. </p>
<p>[Fascinating (to me) side note: what a study in contrasts in decision making, between Clinton, where everything was on the table and endlessly discussed with problems getting to coherence and closure, and Bush, where closure occurs before discussion.]</p>
<p>Secondly, there’s the almost cartoon-level thinking: Saddam Hussein is a murderous thug, the world will be a better place if we get rid of him. Yeah, and Iraq is evolving towards an Iranian-allied virulently anti-Israeli (have any of you <em>read</em> Sistani’s quotes re: Israel?) Shiite-dominated Islamist nation out of synch with the rest of the mostly-Sunni Arab world…and those are our putative <em>allies</em>?</p>
<p>Thirdly…and the list goes on for some length but I’ll stop here…our presence and action in Iraq has fueled recruiting in anti-US and made the world <em>more</em> dangerous for us…the “we have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them over here” line being one of the crueler hoaxes swindled upon the American people.</p>
<p>Oh, I’ll add a fourth: the long succession of “corners turned” touted as progress, which manages to confuse tactical successes with strategic progress…another swindle perpetrated upon the American people.</p>
<p>Subject to the quibble that Clinton bombed military targets in addition to targets that crippled sanitation facilities, we agree."</p>
<p>He bombed the military targets in December 1998, after the failure of the massacre of the innocents. </p>
<p>“[Fascinating (to me) side note: what a study in contrasts in decision making, between Clinton, where everything was on the table and endlessly discussed with problems getting to coherence and closure, and Bush, where closure occurs before discussion.]”</p>
<p>Hate to tell you this, but Clinton’s decisionmaking was every bit as flawed, based on poor intelligence and wishful think as GW’s, maybe more so. The assumption seems to have been (probably based on “intelligence” from former Iraqi generals), that if they killed enough innocent people, and made the domestic situation untenable, the generals would rise up and overthrow Hussein. The military, still intact, could still be used to represss the Shiites (who were untrustworthy former allies of Iran), and secure U.S. access to the oil pipelines. </p>
<p>After having committed genocide and with 15% of the nation’s children dead, and the policy still failing, and the world community rising in protest, Clinton changed the policy to “Oil for Food”, and attempted a direct military strike to try to take out Saddam Hussein at Christmas 1998.</p>
<p>I know this is “uncommon” history on this side of the ocean. In Iraq, according to friends of mine who were/are no friends of Saddam Hussein, it is common knowledge.</p>
<p>WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush, caught up in a domestic spying controversy, for the past two years has assured Americans worried about expanded government anti-terrorism powers that court orders were needed to tap telephones.</p>
<p>In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.</p>
<p>“Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.</p>
<p>“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so,” he added.</p>
It is also common knowledge in Iraq (and much of the Middle east) that 9/11 was a) caused by Bush or b) caused by the Jews. Because something is “common knowledge” does not make it true.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter issued an executive order allowing completely domestic electronic eavesdropping without a warrant.
“1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.”
<a href=“http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm</a></p>
<p>You’re also going to soon learn about the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in which the Court stated:</p>
<pre><code>“The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
</code></pre>
<p>It’s only neo-fascism when Chimpy Bush-Hitlerburton does it, according to this crowd.</p>
<p>Driver you are so driven by your own opinion that you cannot see any other. I didn’t support Bush because I saw him having the worst of Clinton’s traits with none of the redeeming qualities. He certainly didn’t understand foreign policy…early on he verbally attacked Korea and a number of other nations. He was unprepared for 9-11 because his arrogance kept him from listening to Clinton’s advisors advice and his need for extended vacations kept him from following the FBI and other memos regarding the training of pilots. The idea of flying planes into buildings in New York was included in the Columbine plan.</p>
<p>Bush did not get relected by talking about what he stood for, he was elected by using misleading swift boat advertisements, scaring people about abortion and homophobia. He doesn’t appear to understand the idea of a constitution and limited powers of government, that is why he lead this country into an attack on a foreign government using a misleading and false argument that tried to tie 9-11 to Iraq. Every member of congress who supported the war should be dismissed during the next election including the Democrats.</p>
<p>Earlier in a post, someone foolishly mentioned 4 years without a terrorist attack…they don’t have to come here anymore…they can hunt Americans in Iraq now…look how many decent Americans have been wounded or killed since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.” </p>
<p>Bush could have used the law in the same way as Clinton and Carter, but he chose not to. It’s about checks and balances and preventing abuse of power - it’s not a partisan issue.</p>
<p>“t is also common knowledge in Iraq (and much of the Middle east) that 9/11 was a) caused by Bush or b) caused by the Jews. Because something is “common knowledge” does not make it true.”</p>
<p>Tell that to the mother with the dead children. (I bet you don’t believe in the Holocaust either.) And, if that doesn’t grab you, send a letter to Madeline Albright, who felt it necessary to justify the murder of the half million children, rather than simply deny it.</p>
<p>(But interesting to hear you defending Clinton for a change. The truth will bend one in very strange ways…)</p>
<p>Mr. B,
Thank you for the handy summary of virtually every hackneyed anti-Bush meme presented over the course of the year…well done! Perhaps the mods will highlight it in the “important” section, so we can be done with all the redundant hive-think. Liz, what exactly differed about what President Bush did? I’m afraid “you are so driven by your own opinion that you cannot see any other.”</p>
<p>Equal time: Clinton was an i<strong><em>t for being caught in a lie. His advisors were id</em>ots for letting him do it. And Hilary was an ido*t for not cutting his b</strong>ls off sooner.</p>
<p>Now, One of the earliest concepts that my W taught our S was, " Just because Daddy did it, that doesn’t mean you (son) should do it also. Daddy sometimes is an +diot." </p>
<p>Clinton is gone 5 years, ignored for almost 6. HW has no standing, Reagan is dead and wouldn’t care if alive, and Carter, … who? .</p>
<p>We look forward at and for our childrens’ future, not their past.</p>
<p>No, the point is that those who advised those Presidents believed it to be legal just as those who advise our current President believe it to be legal. It’s legal…get over it. He’s going to be our President for the next three years (and change) and he’s not going to be impeached. Wishing and hoping ain’t going to make it so. What a sad way it must be for you all to live your daily lives.</p>
<p>The Clinton and Carter executive orders were completely consistent with FISA, and required by FISA in order to conduct the surveillance. </p>
<p>Bush, by contrast, secretly issued executive orders directing actions that were explicitly defined as felonies under FISA. The argument that this is legal is based on the notion that (a) the president’s Article 2 powers as commander in chief have no limits whatsoever, and that (b) the congressional authorization to use force against Al Qaeda constituted an unlimited authorization to do anything he sees fit to do in the “war on terror.”</p>
<p>It’s the very argument that Bush makes in favor of his actions that is so alarming, not the effect of the policy itself. I have made hundreds of calls to my wife and children from overseas locations in the past year alone, and have always assumed that it’s likely that agents of the governments of the countries where I placed the calls could be listening in. </p>
<p>I don’t view Uncurious George as the personification of evil. I view him as an unthinking bumbler whose habits of mind have poorly prepared him for the awesome responsibilities he carries. He’s a bit like a young child playing with a loaded gun. </p>
<p>I have no expectation that he’ll be impeached and removed from office. But presidents come and go, and others will occupy the office after he leaves it. One of his successors some day may have a decided more malevolent streak in his personality. Are you willing to arm him with the argument that as Commander in Chief, he’s free to instruct the executive branch that the nation’s laws do not apply to them?</p>
<p>If that’s what the law says, then the law is an ass.</p>
<p>Don’t confuse 'em with the facts, Greybeard. </p>
<p>However, I recall the statement about the banality of Evil. Uncurious George [great moniker] proves you don’t have to wear a shiny black suit with cheerleaders going “Evil! Evil! Rah! Rah! Rah!” in order to work evil. He truly believes that he’s working good and that’s what scary. That and how petulant he gets when he’s crossed.</p>
<p>Spy court judge quits in protest
Jurist worried that Bush order tainted work of secret panel</p>
<p>A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.</p>
<p> More politics news
Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work.</p>
<p>Word of Robertson’s resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency’s warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.</p>
<p>Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.</p>
<p>So, the entire Echelon program was consistent with FISA? If so, then I repeat, why the big fuss about what Bush is doing when we actually are at war? That’s a rhetorical question since we all know the answer - POLITICS. It’s a pity that the Dems can’t get over politics when the country is at war.</p>
<p>Of course, rationale thinking like this won’t stop those bent on political destruction of Bush from declaring him a “fascist” or whatever else it takes to destroy him … even if the cost is another terrorist attack.</p>
<p>FundingFather and others: I am always interested in your opinions, as well as other thoughtful conservatives. My favorite columns to read are either from what I consider True Conservatives (George Will is the best example) or from what I call Wacko Who Call Themselves Conservatives (Ann Coulter is a wacko example, but I read her columns for pure entertainment). </p>
<p>I think I do respect True Conservative thought, even when I disagre with it, but especially when I do agree with it. But I have to admit that I do not think that this President is a True Conservative, and I have a hard time with those who follow him without question, especially when he seems to be veering from True Conservative principles.</p>
<p>For many years (until recent times), it seems like the True Conservatives were the most vocal protectors and defenders of the Constitution and the rights and powers defined therein. For example, True Conservatives decry “activist” judges who seem to sometimes trump the built-in safeguards that keep the three branches of government in check. True Conservatives decry the expansion of federal government into areas specifically empowered to the individual states. And on and on…</p>
<p>That’s why I don’t understand how the discussion of the domestic eavesdropping got into a discussion of whether we like Bush or Clinton or Carter or whoever. I think that this is a pure question of authority within the structure of government. If Clinton were the President and had disclosed this, it would not change my opinion of the severity of the offense.</p>
<p>So, for True Conservative thought, I’ll turn to George Will. I think his most recent column lays out why True Conservatives should be outraged now, not rallying to Bush’s defense.</p>