Clinton And Kerry Stood Fast When Republicans Wanted To Cut 'N Run

[whometense]

tristero at Hullabaloo: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115919684790391045

...Let Glenn Greenwald tell you who really wanted to cut and run from the terrorists. It was Republicans including St. John McCain.

More importantly, let Greenwald show you who fully understood the implications of withdrawing from Somalia precipitously after Blackhawk Down. It was Clinton and Kerry who got it exactly right and understood the situation...

Glenn Greenwald:

My post this morning on Salon concerns the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.

President Clinton's response was refreshingly aggressive because the premise of the question is so patently and outrageously false. Clinton responded: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment...

Salon link: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton/index.html

[TayTay]

1. Interesting, here is the speech

Mr. President, I support the amendment that is offered by the Senator from West Virginia, and I intend to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.

I believe that the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia offers the most reasonable and the most sensible choice to the United States and that, in fact, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona poses a choice which is contrary to the best interests of the United States of America.

When the President announced his chosen course of action last week, some people in this body suggested that we ought to bring the troops home sooner, and that there was no longer any reason to stay in Somalia .

Events of the last few days seem to indicate that they were wrong. The President's policy is working today, Michael Durant and the Nigerian peacekeeper who have been held hostage were released by Aideed's forces. Aideed has entered into a unilateral cease-fire and is now talking about participating in a political solution.

Indeed, if colleagues will take the time to look beyond the southern portion of Mogadishu, if you look beyond an area that is simply about 10 square miles, you will find that most of what we set out to do is being accomplished--not yet fully accomplished, but extraordinary gains have been made throughout Somalia .

The Senator from Arizona and others now want to withdraw immediately and say to the United Nations, to the Somali people, to the families of soldiers who have already given their lives, that that effort was wasted. They want to say to the rest of the world that the United States is willing to walk away from its own successes as well as from its own obligations.

Mr. President, a lot of our colleagues have come to this Senate chamber and said that we do not have any interests in Somalia . I disagree with that. The United States of America has important national interests in the mission in Somalia --and a mission, I might add, that is going to terminate. This is not a debate about whether or not this will ever end. It is going to end.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia sets a date for termination. It will end. The President has made it clear it will end. The American people have made it clear it will end, and I do not think there is any doubt about it: American participation will end.

The question is, How do you do it? You do it in a way that is sensible, rational, supportive of our goals, and most importantly, supportive of the sacrifices already made by the American soldiers who went there.

Mr. President, I have said that we have important national interests in this mission. So what are they? Let me list them very quickly. First, the United States has the same interest today that brought us to Somalia in the first place--the overriding humanitarian interest in seeing that the Somali people do not fall prey to another cycle of life-threatening famine and civil war.

I would remind my colleagues that this Nation responded to the television images of starving Somalis. They motivated us to say that a humanitarian mission in Somalia is something that fits into the spectrum of United States interests. We are not a nation that sits idly by when literally hundreds of thousands of people on the face of this planet are being wiped out by chaos and civil strife and famine.

And so we responded, as we should have, under a Republican President, without few Republican voices suggesting that it ought to be otherwise. And we went in.

If we pull out summarily, those very same images could return within months. What will we say to the American people, `Oh, this was OK the first time around but we were not really serious in our humanitarian purpose; this crisis somehow does not rise to the same level of compelling international interest and national interest that led us to go in the first place.'

We went in to pave the way for the delivery of relief supplies. That mission is not yet completed because there is no guarantee that those supplies will continue to flow after we leave.

Second, we have a critical national interest in demonstrating the credibility of our commitments to the international community. Through our representative to the United Nations, by our vote in the Security Council, the United States of America endorsed and agreed to the expansion of the U.N. operation in Somalia . We could have vetoed, but we did not.

Now many of us in Congress would agree that that vote was wrong. I believe it was wrong. Nevertheless, we as a nation, are committed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would ask if it is possible to have 3 more minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 3 more minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we learned during the Vietnam war, any policy which puts Americans soldiers in harm's way can only be sustained if it is based on a strong national consensus. We did not have that when this vote was taken at the United Nations. But I think, because of the effort of the Senator from West Virginia and because of the decision of the President of the United States, we do have a consensus today and it is a consensus that the word of the United States ought to mean something.

I believe that our credibility and ability to perform effectively in the international arena will be affected by the way in which we withdraw from Somalia .

The amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia reflects the fact that we should leave in a way that does not impair our capacity to be effective in the future.

Third, we have a vital national interest in defending our reputation as a nation that can stay the course in an international humanitarian effort. We should not cut and run in a way that would undermine the humanitarian goals of the U.N. mission in Somalia , or in a way that would only return us to the very situation that brought us there in the first place.

To do so, Mr. President, would send a signal to other would-be Aideeds in Haiti, Bosnia, or other parts of the world that the United States in this new world order, whatever it may be, is not the superpower, that it is not prepared to lead, that it is not prepared to stand by the word it has given.

A policy of cutting and running now would have far-reaching consequences. Mr. President. We might not pay the price in Haiti tomorrow. We might not pay the price in Bosnia. But history has proven that some despot, some future authoritarian fascist will understand the message--that the United States is fickle--and we will pay the price down the road, when there is sufficient disorder on this planet that civilized nations together decide that they must do something about it. And it will cost us more in money and more in bloodshed than the simple response that the President of the United States has on the line today.

Finally, Mr. President, we have a national interest in ensuring that the United Nations fulfills its potential as a peacekeeping/peacemaking institution. Somalia is the first test of the U.N. in the post-cold war period. The United States of America, as the world's only superpower, cannot undo 50 years of effort, billions of dollars of expenditure to build a United Nations that can find peaceful resolution to problems.

I respectfully submit to my friends that we should not create a `Somalia syndrome' after spending 20 years to try to undo the Vietnam syndrome.

The President has set a date for withdrawal and the Senate and the Congress should have the courage to stand by our word and to stand by the President.

**********

Statement by John Kerry, US Senate, Oct. 14, 1993

Wow, the language doesn't change much does it.

[whometense]

2. Thanks for that.

Nice to see Kerry getting some credit here.

And, yeah, he's remarkable consistent for a "finger-to-the-wind pol." :sarcasm:

[TayTay]

3. Go look up McCain on this same date 10/14/93

This is a tiny piece of his words on the floor. He was challenged on the floor for his withdrawal amendment from Somalia by Sen. John Warner (R-VA). Look at this 'doves' answer (OMG!)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, no one disputes the credentials of this distinguished American to address this difficult issue. It has been my privilege to be a friend and colleague of the Senator from Arizona for years, as well as his father's.

I ask the Senator this question because I was touched when he said the blood would be on our hands if his amendment were not adopted.

My question to the Senator is, if his amendment is adopted, and it is perceived in any of the hundred places in the world as a cut-and-run decision, less than a strong stance by America for its people, it will be a terrible problem. We have embassies, 120-plus, the world over, and many military facilities, and they are enclaves, basically, behind fences. The United States does not control the roads and the access routes. U.S. diplomats, soldiers, and civilian employees must move out of those embassies. They must go to their homes in distant places. We have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines stationed all over the world, many of them living on the local economy. And the Senator well knows there are dangerous spots in this world and there are individuals who would love to shoot down our Americans in the hopes that they would leave. If they see that America will cut and run if they shoot down Americans, it would be a terrible message for us to send, and would put Americans abroad at increased risk.

I ask my good friend, how does this amendment affect those serving courageously in both uniform and civilian roles throughout the world?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for up to 30 seconds?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my answer to the Senator from Virginia is; the same way it impacted our abilities to defend our citizens after we withdrew from Beirut, after we saw it became a debacle, not at all. We are the Nation that won the cold war. We are the Nation that won operation Desert Storm. We are the Nation that people know can retaliate. They also know, when we continue to pursue missions that have no goal, have no purpose, and have no strategy except, to get enmeshed in some open-ended commitment called nation building, preservation of law and order, if we keep that up we will be the laughing stock of other nations of the world.

[whometense]

4. wow.

Some of these senators seem to be suffering from a kind of senatorial alzheimers. When you actually look at what was said you marvel that they would have to nerve to stand up in the same place and say the exact opposite now. Not to mention the scurrilous slurs they spout against the democratic opposition. It's breathtaking. In the Seinfeld-ugly-baby kind of way.

Check out what digby himself has to say: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115911954726243820

Smell The Sulfur

by digby

I just heard John McCain get pissy on on Face the Nation about his bogus torture legislation and say, "The ACLU and the NY Times may not like it but we think people will recognise it defends both our values and our security."

I honestly don't know whether he's stupid or immoral. But assuming he isn't a complete idiot, I have to say I'm not sure if a man can sink lower than to leverage his heroic status as a tortured POW to codify his own government's torture policy. You really don't need to know any more about the man's character than this.

And in case anyone's wondering about the vaunted integrity of Huckleberry Graham, after he went on at length on Fox news this morning about protecting the soldiers and the rule 'o law, he let this slip:

I want one of these guys tried in my lifetime and I'm tired of the supreme court throwing this back. It wasn't my idea to give em Geneva Convention protections, it was the supreme court. Once the supreme court rules that the Geneva Convention applies we have an obligation to make it work.

And establish yourself as a manly, macho maverick McCainiac. So much for principle.

I have to say I agree with him. I think McCain may finally have hit rock bottom.

In any kind of a sane world digby would be writing for the op-ed page of a major newspaper or magazine.

[karynnj]

5. OMG McCain is completely inconsistant!

Kerry sounds on Iraq, on Afghanistan - like the man who spoke on Somalia. His language is also pretty excessive - odd that he wants to pursue a mission with no working strategy now.

I knew McCain was a flip flop on lots of things, but this is amazing. The truely odd thing is that the RW view that withdrawing in Somalia led to all the terrorism including 911.

Whome really needs this in her anti- McCain thing.

[TayTay]

6. Oh, it's much worse than that. Read this and think 'hypocrite"

John McCain, Oct 14, 1993 103rd Congress.
On his Amendment to withdraw toops from Somalia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes no further funds for United States operations in Somalia , except those funds needed to support a prompt and orderly withdrawal of our forces from that country in a manner most consistent with the safety of United States personnel. Let us make it perfectly clear: `In a manner most consistent with the safety of U.S. personnel.'

Their withdrawal may take a month to accomplish, maybe 2. But it certainly will not take 6 months. There is no date certain in our amendment, but our amendment will not permit United States forces to do anything else in Somalia other than organize their withdrawal . This means no warlord hunting, no nation building, no law and order establishing, no other missions whatsoever that have not been authorized by Congress.

Mr. President, our mission in Somalia is over. It is time to come home. Our mission in Somalia was to feed a million starving Somali who needed to be fed. It was not an open-ended commitment. It was not a commission of nation building, not warlord hunting, or any of the other extraneous activities which we seem to have been engaged in.

I do not lightly impose on the foreign policy prerogatives of the President of the United States, but in this case I feel that Congress must. Is there a Member of this body who can tell me with any degree of confidence that the situation which ensues following the withdrawal of U.S. forces 6 months from now will be any less chaotic than the situation which may ensue following our withdrawal 1 or 2 or 3 months from now?

Will waiting until March 31 constitute anything more than 6 months of U.S. troops hunkering down in enclaves? Will Aideed or somebody else either lay low until we leave or start bringing Americans under mortar fire?

Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.

If the President of the United States cannot say, `Here is what we are fighting for in Somalia , that more Americans may perish in service to the goals, and here is why it is worth that price,' then, Mr. President, we have no right--no right--to ask Americans to risk their lives in any further misadventures in Somalia .

The loss of American lives in combat is always a tragedy no matter how worthy or necessary the cause, but when those lives are lost to a mission which does not serve the national security interest of the United States, which has no firm or clearly

defined purpose, which has not been well planned or well explained to the American people, then the loss of those American lives is not only tragic, it is needless.

Sadly, these are the circumstances in which the United States finds itself today as it flounders about in Somalia in search of a reason to justify our presence there.

Mr. President, there will be people who take the floor tonight who will say that we did not utter a peep in the previous times, in the time of the tragedy that took place with the helicopter shot down and the tragic loss of American lives. I point out, Mr. President, that on August 2 I gave a speech to this body where I said:

Mr. President, I am calling today for President Clinton to come to the Congress and the American people and explain what our goals and strategy in Bosnia and Somalia are.

I went on to say:

I want to emphasize that Americans are not ready to watch people get massacred if they can prevent it. An open-ended military commission in the region, such as in Somalia , is something that the American people will not support.

I went on to say again, on August 7, basically the same thing. Mr. President, again, in September, on September 9.

There are some of us who saw this coming, Mr. President. It is very, very disheartening to note that we were right.

Mr. President, I want to talk about another circumstance, because there is a lot of talk about another Vietnam and another debacle in which the United States may find itself. I was a new Member of the other body in September of 1983 when a resolution was before the House of Representatives concerning approval of the United States' involvement in Lebanon. That resolution supporting the United States' sending of combat troops to Lebanon was overwhelmingly voted favorably by both Houses of Congress. At that time, I gave a very brief speech and I will quote from it again:

I have listened carefully to the explanations offered for our involvement in Lebanon. I do not find them convincing. The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can U.S. presence stabilize the region?

I went on to say:

What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event. What about our allies and our worldwide prestige? We should consult with our allies and withdraw with them in concert, if possible--unilaterally, if necessary.

I also recognize that our prestige may suffer in the short term, but I am more concerned with our long-term national interests. I believe the circumstances of our original involvement have changed, and I know of four American families who share this view. I am not calling for an immediate withdrawal of our forces. What I desire is as rapid a withdrawal as possible. I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave. I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal .

I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal from Somalia , Mr. President. I think it might be well for us to recognize in this body the kind of danger that our American fighting men and women are in. They are in enclaves in Mogadishu. They do not control the roads and highways around them. We are at the whim of the now general leader Aideed--who we used to call fugitive outlaw Aideed a short time ago, when we had $25,000 bounty on his head. Now we are negotiating with him; we are at his whim.

If they choose to launch mortar rounds in the enclaves that our troops are in in Mogadishu tonight they can do so. I do not like to place the lives of young American men and women in that kind of a situation.

Military people tell me that they can be out in 1 or 2 months, that the orderly, safe withdrawal can be carried out in 1 or 2 months. Let us say for argument's sake that it would be the beginning of December or even the end of December.

Mr. President, I think Senators should ask themselves the following question when they vote on this amendment and the Byrd amendment: If the worst case scenario ensues, that sometime between the time we could have withdrawn and the March 31 date young Americans are wounded or killed, whose responsibility is it? Whose responsibility?

In conclusion, I would like to remind our President of the criteria for U.S. participation in U.N. missions which he outlined at the United Nations. He said the criteria for U.S. participation in U.N. missions was: Is there a real threat to international peace? Does the mission have a clear objective? Can an end point be had? And how much does the mission cost?

The President identified the end point. He, however, is unable to answer the questions which seemed so important just weeks ago. The President should match political rhetoric with action. By his own criteria, it is time for our troops to come home from Somali; not 6 months from now, but now.

We need not withdraw our forces so hastily that the withdrawal compromises the security of our troops. We may need to deploy additional forces in the period preceding withdrawal to protect the present force. We do not need to keep Americans in harm's way for 6 additional months in service to a mission which no one can rationalize as important to our security, or even explain in terms that can be understood by the American people.

Our mission in Somalia is completed. We fed the starving there. We undertook a humanitarian mission in Somalia . We achieved an honorable success.

Originally we did not have a national security interest involved in our Somalia policy. However, due to the poorly conceived, poorly explained and poorly implemented U.N.-U.S. policy of recent months, we eventually acquired one. His name was WO Michael Durant. Thankfully, Warrant Officer Durant is again a free man. With his freedom and the last compelling purpose to remain in Somalia resolved, let us now commence an orderly withdrawal from Somalia before we acquire any new national interests during our further misadventures there.

[karynnj]

8. Hypocrite is the correct word -

I seriously don't see why our media is so blind to his flaws. To think he had the chutzpah to write a book on "character".

[beachmom]

18. Imagine in a bizarro world, if this was the "McCain Support Group"

You LOVED McCain and thought he would be the savior for the country; that in '08 he could be elected president and right all the Bush wrongs. And, then, this torture "compromise" happens. What would you say?

I've long tried to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on all of this. He has been the sole figure able to resist this president's permanent seizure of emergency powers - to detain any person at will without charges or recourse to courts and to torture them at will. McCain is, I believe, a good man. But he has obviously decided that he cannot win this one. He has decided that the best he can do is prevent a formal breach of the Geneva Conventions, keep the military itself away from torture, while allowing domestic law to be reinterpreted to allow all the torture techniques previously used by the CIA. It is easy to condemn him. Too easy, perhaps. He may have done as much as he possibly can to prevent torture without playing directly into Karl Rove's hands. It is clear that if McCain continued his opposition, the Bush machine would have done all it could to kill his nomination prospects. And if he fails to win the nomination, and a Christianist Rove-backed candidate seizes it, then the future for American liberty and a decent conservatism would be even darker than it already is. I'm guessing that's how he has rationalized it. He's not dumb enough to trust the good word of George W. Bush. And he's not dumb enough to fight a battle he cannot win - now.

Then there are more cynical interpretations. It is in McCain's interests for the Republicans to do very badly this fall, so he can position himself as their savior in 2008. By taking the torture issue off the table, he removes one of Rove's key weapons in the campaign: to portray the Democrats as too cowardly to torture the perpetrators of 9/11 and therefore too weak to defend the nation. It's b.s., of course, but that's beside the point. It works.

(snipping nasty thing said about Democrats here)

McCain, in other words, is a shrewd politician and he knows when to fight a battle he can win and when to punt on a fight he will lose. If he becomes president, he could, with the discretion given the president in this bill, rescind the torture that Bush has authorized. Maybe, he could repeal the bill, with a Democratic Congress or even a Republican Congress that returned to its decent conservative principles. At the same time, it's clear he has also acquiesced to giving complete legal impunity to the civilian architects of the torture policy within the Bush administration. Maybe that's the real deal here - I'll give you legal protection for past war-crimes if you give me the nomination in 2008. But surely McCain knows better than to trust the likes of Rove. He may have sold his soul ... for a promise from a professional liar. The tragedy of 9/11 keeps deepening, dragging with it men of conscience and principle into the pit of opportunism and Caesarism.

I keep reminding myself of the hideous irony: John McCain has just allowed the U.S. president to use some of the techniques the North Vietnamese once used on McCain when he was a P.O.W. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, then I guess you'll never understand why so many of us feel so strongly about this.

Not only do I think more highly of John Kerry over John McCain, I think more highly of JK's supporters over McCain supporters so bent on him being president, they don't realize that these actions TODAY will only continue in such a presidency! Can you imagine ANY of us justifying such a hideous action?

[karynnj]

19. I tried to imagine being a member of a McCain group, but decided that was

torture.

I absolutely disagree with the author's assumption that this was a battle that McCain couldn't win. There are 45 Democrats/Independents who likely would join him. Given the response Kerry's answer got, there is support on the PRINCIPLED right wing, that McCain could garnish. What he can't have is winning this battle AND being supported by Bush.

That is NOT a total loss - Bush only has a solid core of about 30 some % of the population. Assume it is 60% of the Republican party. Bush will not be able "to deliver" everyone who supports him to someone else. (Consider if Kerry opts not to run and suggests we all back a specific person - and the race is not determined yet. Even those of here wouldn't blindly commit, though his endorsement would be well considered.) It may give him a huge percent of the people in the Republican party fed up with Bush. (Some of Bush's base already hates him.)

More importantly, this is an issue where he should be asked to lead morally.

[beachmom]

20. The GOP side is more rigged, though.

Whoever the machine supports wins. Frankly, our side is a bit like that, too, but we're a little more feisty and may circumvent the money men and party machine (at least that's what I'm hoping for). What Andrew was saying is that Karl Rove owns the GOP machine, and if you don't kiss up to it, you're not going to make it. Only a small proportion of even Republicans vote in the primary, and I think they're more likely (save NH) to follow the herd. If McCain is annointed by the Bushies as the "heir to the thrown", if you will, then he will probably get the nomination. And Andrew is sorely mistaken if he thinks this compromise -- an evil -- will later lead to good -- a McCain presidency that is good. This compromise predicts what a McCain presidency will look like -- seeming to uphold principles on the surface while giving it all away in reality. Sell his soul is right. And he's proved he will do it over and over again.

It's funny watching Kerry and McCain. Both lost to Bush, and they've reacted in completely opposite ways. Kerry is renewing all his ideals and morals, and speaking his conscience while McCain is chucking what ideals he had, one by one, until there is nothing left of his inner core. What kind of world is it when McCain is being rewarded for his evil deeds? (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/NEWS09/609240335/1056)

[karynnj]

22. That's an interesting observeation - and sure looks true

"It's funny watching Kerry and McCain. Both lost to Bush, and they've reacted in completely opposite ways. Kerry is renewing all his ideals and morals, and speaking his conscience while McCain is chucking what ideals he had, one by one, until there is nothing left of his inner core. What kind of world is it when McCain is being rewarded for his evil deeds? "

But look at it another way, let's look at what each is left with if after all is said and done they aren't elected - because the probability is leas than 50% for anyone.

Kerry is clearly at peace with himself and has earned the intense respect and love of those closest to him. Politically he leaves a legacy that may not be as well known as a President's would be - but he will likely be seen as a principled man who twice tried in very perilous times to change the country from a wrong course.

McCain will know he sold his soul - for nothing, which is a pretty bitter thought. I'm not sure what he will be remembered for. McCain/Feingold is an extremely flawed bill. The gang of 14 did nothing except make the Republicans less willing to compromise. Without that group would Bush have swung as far to the right as Alito? Did McCain tell him the center would not filibuster?

[blm]

15. Tay - how about a GD thread showing McCain's withdrawal next to Kerry's

Iraq withdrawal and invite comparisons.

[TayTay]

16. Let me do that tonight

It requires more editting than I have time to do at work. (That's why these posts are all too long, no editting time.)

Good idear!

[ginnyinWI]

13. he is such a phoney.

McCain's supposed to be this maverick, this guy who has principles and thinks for himself. These statements reveal an appallingly partisan politician. He has all these military creds from Vietnam, but he doesn't seem to have learned the real lessons, does he.

Kerry: the Real Deal. A public servant, not a pol.

[whometense]

14. absolutely.

Dan Froomkin thinks the press is starting to pay attention to this issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/09/25/BL2006092500493_pf.html

If so, glory hallelujah!!!

From today's column:

Paul Rieckhoff, who served in Iraq, writes in a New York Times op-ed on the strategic value of treating prisoners decently: "I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency."

[ProSense]

7. This is exactly the kind

of hypocrisy, no make that disingenuous partisan posturing, that defines McCain and the entire Republican Party.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. What an unprincipled piece of shit John McCain is

McCain in 1993:

They also know, when we continue to pursue missions that have no goal, have no purpose, and have no strategy except, to get enmeshed in some open-ended commitment called nation building, preservation of law and order, if we keep that up we will be the laughing stock of other nations of the world.

But yet he eagerly insinuates that the people saying that the war in Iraq has "no goal, no purpose and no strategy" are helping the terrorists win.

He is disgusting and I can't wait to see his inglorious exit from American politics.

[ProSense]

12. "Maverick," "independent," "moderate,"

lying two-faced piece of shit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2839907&mesg_id=2839907

[TayTay]

10. Gee, look what Gov Romney said in 1994, when he ran for the Senate

RACE REFLECTS PARTY SHIFTS ON ROLES ABROAD
Boston Globe, THIRD, Sec. METRO, p 1 (10-31-1994)
By Anthony Flint, Globe Staff

The race between Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and challenger Mitt Romney has thus far been dominated by domestic matters such as crime and welfare, but both men would also play a role in what may be the campaign's most neglected issue: foreign affairs.

And their views on how the United States should conduct itself in the post-Cold War world provide yet another sharp contrast in philosophy and approach -- and say much about how Republicans and Democrats have in many ways switched places in their global outlook.

Kennedy, who points proudly to a record of accomplishments in foreign affairs, from Northern Ireland to the Middle East, is most often described as a classic liberal dove -- opposing defense buildups and military intervention, preferring to focus on problems at home.

But lately, and certainly since President Clinton has been in office, Kennedy has embraced the new Democratic doctrine of international involvement -- supporting action in Haiti, for example.

Romney, meanwhile, who has no experience in government but who developed a world perspective in travels for his businesses, is the candidate of a party that has spent decades emphasizing a strong defense and the energetic fight against communism.

But while hoping to appear tough and clear-eyed on foreign affairs, Romney has adopted the more cautious, contemporary Republican philosophy against the United States intervening in post-Cold War hotspots. His outlook is similar to the view taken by former defense secretary Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: that the United States should only take action when specific national interests are at stake.

"In any endeavor, you start with what your objectives are, and develop a strategy to achieve them," Romney said in an interview. "I look at conflict and say, is there a substantial US interest at stake."

Romney said he supports US intervention only when four conditions are met: when US national security interests are at stake, when intervention would help the establishment of world peace, when the United States can clearly promote democracy and human rights, and when intervention promotes global free enterprise.

He would have supported President Bush's action against Iraq in 1991, he said, but opposed the idea of invading Haiti. He supports involvement in Somalia or Rwanda, but only if the United States sticks to the business of humanitarian aid, not government-building.

"It's the broad Republican position right now -- that we're getting involved in too many sideshows, and that we should only go in when we know what we want to do, when we can win, and when we know we can get out," said Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a scholar at The Brookings Institution in Washington.

Kennedy acknowledges the complexity of the post-Cold War era, now that the lid of the "pressure cooker" of a two-superpower world has been lifted. If Romney leans slightly toward an isolationist stance, Kennedy embraces a doctrine of selected, multilateral interventionism.

"We are working in a new framework to try to deal with it," Kennedy said in Thursday's debate at Holyoke Community College. "Clearly it is much better if we deal with it in a multinational way . . . to get other countries involved so that the US will not be involved in every place around the world."

The view reflects the evolving foreign policy coming out of the White House and the State Department: that the United States has a responsibility to intervene abroad, to promote democracy and free markets and human rights, but should do so in cooperation with the United Nations.

Indeed, both Romney and Kennedy are in some measure defining themselves on foreign affairs in the larger context of the current partisan posturing in Washington. With a Democrat in the White House, it is now the Republicans who are second-guessing the president's actions and powers on foreign involvement. Just as some Democrats clamored for more congressional approval of President Bush's 1991 action against Iraq, many Republicans want more say in sending troops back to the Gulf to deal with renewed tensions there.

"It's an extraordinary spectacle, and everyone's keeping a straight face," said Burton Yale Pines, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington-based think-tank,

At least since Eugene McCarthy, Pines said, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been "reflexive" on foreign affairs: no American military role beyond its borders. Liberals were against Reagan's invasion of Grenada, against Desert Storm in Iraq, against even putting midrange missiles in Germany at the height of the Cold War.

Now it's the Republicans saying go slow, Pines said, invoking the War Powers Act and fretting that the US military is stretching itself too thin.

With that reality as a backdrop, Romney is focusing mostly on Kennedy's past record, when Republicans were in office. He paints a portrait of a liberal Democrat second-guessing America's use of force at every turn.

"His foreign policy positions, with the benefit of hindsight, have been 180 degrees off," Romney said.

In addition to citing Kennedy's vote against the Gulf War, Romney criticizes Kennedy for opposing the Reagan defense buildup, which Romney said helped prompt the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also accused Kennedy of essentially taking the wrong side in the 1980s conflicts in Central America. And Romney shows no hesitation to go even further back in history, to Kennedy's eventual muted opposition to the Vietnam War.

"I was disturbed even then of his criticism of the effort there at a time when we had men and women on the ground in Vietnam," Romney said, suggesting his own my-country-right-or-wrong position. "There are times to be critical, but once we have lives at risk, we stand behind the commander in chief."

[whometense]

11. shocker.

Mittens is a man of true republican principles.

Which is to say, an immoral piece of hypocritical shit.

[ProSense]

17. McCain on the NIE

The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House, sensing the importance of the issue of Iraq during an election year, moved quickly to counter the impact of the NIE report. White House spokesman Peter Watkins said the Bush administration "sharply disagreed" with the findings of the 16 intelligence agencies, saying "anti-American fervor in the Muslim world began long before the Sept. 11 attacks."

"Their hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight," Watkins said. "Those seeds were planted decades ago." He said the administration has sought in Iraq to root out hotbeds of terrorism before they grow. "Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back," Watkins said.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also have highlighted the war in Iraq as the main thrust in the fight against terrorism, contending that the world is safer overall without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a likely presidential candidate in 2008, agreed with the White House view that radicalism predates the toppling of Saddam, and that fundamentalists are always looking for reasons to recruit new jihadists.

Snip...

But The New York Times reports that some Democratic and Republican politicians felt the report was another indication of an already bad situation in Iraq. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said it showed that the Bush administration policy in Iraq was acting as a "recruiting poster" for terrorists. Republican Sen. Arlen Spectre of Pennsylvania said on CNN that "the war in Iraq has intensified Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism," although he added "that's a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

Why doesn't he just respond: "What Bush said"?

[kerrygoddess]

21. Great post from Greenwald

I posted it this morning...
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4285

Wonderful to see others in the blogosphere remembering how steadfast JK has been.