Knowing what we know now, look what Junior had to say in 2000

[Career Prole]

on the topic of the use of force, regime change, and nation-building.
Republican lurkers especially, take note.

From the first Gore-Bush debate:

MODERATOR: What if he doesn't leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure and he still doesn't go? Is this the kind of thing, and be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?

GORE: In this particular situation, no. Bear in mind that we have a lot of sanctions in force against Serbia right now. And the people of Serbia know that they can escape all those sanctions if this guy is turned out of power. Now, I understand what the governor has said about asking the Russians to be involved, and under some circumstances that might be a good idea. But being as they have not yet been willing to recognize Kostunica as the lawful winner of the election, I'm not sure it's right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this -- this dispute there because we might not like the results that comes out of that. They currently favor going forward with a runoff election. I think that's the wrong thing. I think the governor's instinct is not necessarily bad because we have worked with the Russians in a constructive way in Kosovo, for example, to end the conflict there. But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.

BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.

MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?

BUSH: No.

MODERATOR: Why not?

BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

Damn...makes you sick, doesn't it?
Mighty lofty talk about taking the responsibility as CinC seriously, and every f**king word a lie.

[LuPeRcALiO]

1. you are so right.

I've thought about this many times. Bush repeatedly claimed he wouldn't engage in "nation building" and he had this stupid Iraq nightmare planned the whole time.

[clydefrand]

2. Maybe we should all bombard whitehouse.gov with his own

words????????????

[whistle]

3. Those would have been great sound bites during the campaign...

...except Bush supports knowing everything that is known now, still believe Bush's words and deny his actions.

[trotsky]

5. "9/11 changed everything."

They use it to cover up all the pretzel boy's mistakes.

[mopaul]

4. these words will look good on his tombstone

until someone topples it.

[Gman]

6. We can disect the last paragraph to pieces

I would take the use of force very seriously.
Has he ever taken anything seriously in his entire life?

I would be guarded in my approach.
And hope for a trifecta.

I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world.
Translation: Who cares what you think?

I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.
...to conflicts that do not meet criteria set out by PNAC.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops.
I'll send them where ever my corporate buddies need me to send them. He won't.

He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
If they believe that I'm home free.

I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.
As described by PNAC.

So I would take my responsibility seriously.
See the first quote.

And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power.
Translation: Halliburton, the Carlysle Group and the rest of the defense contractors need some bucks sent their way.

Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals.
Fastforward to May 2005. They reduced the goals and still missed recruiting goals horribly.

Some of our troops are not well-equipped.
Humvees in Iraq

I believe we're overextended in too many places.
Rumsfeld's widely criticized plan for Iraq that had half as many troops in Iraq than necessary.

And therefore I want to rebuild the military power.
Again, more money for defense contractors. Check the price of Halliburton's stock before and after 9/11 through last Friday.

It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law.
Trying to buy the military vote.

It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped.
More money for defense contractors -- Daddy's buds.

Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services
Sounded good then, now they just force those eligible for discharge to keep serving.

and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
Again, sounded good then, but prolonging the war in Iraq keeps funding the defense industry.

[BayouBengal07]

7. From the second debate

BUSH: Let me comment on that. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. I think we can help. I know we've got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces. But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said here is some IMF money, and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin's pocket, and others, and yet we played like there was reform. The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves. Mr. Putin is going to have to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of law and normal accounting practices so that if countries and/or entities invest capital, there's a reasonable rate of return, a way to get the money out of the economy. But Russia has to make the decision. We can work with them on security matters, for example, but it's their call to make. So I'm not exactly sure where the vice president is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

[mopaul]

8. never KICK a man unless he's down

[mopaul]

9. kickin' it for history

[Mnemosyne]

10. .

:kick:

[The2ndWheel]

11. You guys know he's a politician, right?

You know how they say whatever they need to say to get elected? How they're addicted to the power that votes give them?

Yes, it would've been nice for him to tell us that Cheney was going to be President, and that they were going to follow "Rebuilding America's Defenses" to the last little letter, but then that wouldn't be fun would it? Where's the game in that?

[Disturbed]

12. Obvious mental deterioration of shrub since that debate.

Isn't it obvious to you?

[spanone]

13. Kick....

[mopaul]

14. words to choke on

someday soon i hope.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Yep

He has no shame at all. The evil one's usually don't. They live in the here and now and don't think about the future. Bush was doing lip-service and that was it. Of course now days it's a "us against them" type of ordeal. Remember the French "boycott"? :eyes: Disgusting pig.

[Vickers]

16. Wait...so his lies are not a recent development?

That's shocking!

:sarcasm:

[mopaul]

17. apparently he's told more than just one lie too

i'm absolutely VAPORISH over all this

[mopaul]

18. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

no nation building, must be an exit strategy, diplomacy first, war only as a last resort, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

[rodeodance]

19. 'we now see Iraq'--in a new light"--paraphasing Rummy after 9//

[mopaul]

20. ......

......

[mopaul]

21. .......

......