The Idiocy of the Left

[Lord Rahl]

I was listening to some radio and Mr. Levin brought up a very good point. The Left complains about how unjust the War in Iraq is. Well, the Left will also fail to mention that their savior Bill Clinton went to war with Yugoslavia without United States or UN approval. It also broke the law of the War Powers Act. The War in Iraq unjust? Please...

First off, the War Powers Act states that the President must have Congress approve of military operations abroad before 60 days has passed of the operations. Now, the war between NATO forces and Yugoslavia lasted longer than 60 days. From March 24 to June 10, 1999 more specifically. Second, how was Clinton able to get away with fighting a war against Yugoslavia when he didn't have permission from either one to do so? This is hypocrisy!

Now, Bush and the neocons are evil because we are killing many civilians with our bombs and such. Before the Kosovo War it is believed some 2,000 people had been killed. After the war conservative estimates are around 6,000 by US and NATO bombs. If one checks Iraq Body Count we see that "conservative" estimates start at about 55,000. If one checks the database and they scroll down, they will find that the vast majority of deaths are caused by terrorist activity rather than US forces. Does this mean the deaths aren't important? No, but fighting a war against terrorists (by the way, a war which was approved by Congress with a vote of 296-133) is much harder to battle through cleanly than simply having 1,000 aircraft flying 38,000 combat missions. Remember that some critics have accused the Clinton administration of leading a war with Yugoslavia under the false pretense of genocide. Does this war sound familiar to the War in Iraq? I hope it does.

So what do I think of all of this? Well, there are a great many hypocrites in the world (the worst ones in Washington). There is a reason why the War in Iraq is horrible and the Kosovo War was not. But why? I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because people simply hate Bush and will use the War in Iraq to try and take him down. I really don't have a good idea. I can see why people might not like Bush but I don't see how he can be hated so much and a man like Clinton who was impeached wasn't. It is either idiocy or ignorance. I prefer to believe the former.
__________________________________________

To read more about the problems with Kosovo read this article, Read
And to read about how Congress thinks they can check the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, Read

[Kscott]

Why do I oppose the Iraq war? Because it plunged a country into chaos resulting in the death of thousands of innocent and a great increase in terrorist activity. We have very little power to stabilize the country and more likely than not democracy in Iraq will not last terribly long.

I forsaw the problems we are facing now prior to the war and felt the war was very misguided. Bush made an enormous blunder that cost American lives, money, and reputation abroad. Not to mention the 50-60 thousand Iraqis that have died as a result of war. Not to mention giving a whole new generation reason to join the jihad.

Clinton made some mistakes, but he greatly helped the country internally and gave us a much more respected face to the outside world. Was the Balkans a mistake? Probably, however nowhere close to the blunder Iraq was. I really don't see how one can argue otherwise.

[Sétanta]

Yeah but the increase in terrorism is in Iraq, not America. If they started bombing America a la the show 24, then I would agree with you. Might he have made a blunder, yes, but that doesn't disprove the fallacy the leftists make every time it suits their politics. Iraq may have been a blunder, but it was legal, Yugoslavia wasn't. Not to mention that doing so makes Clinton guilty of breaking Federal and International Law, it was still a dumb thing to do. Clinton was quite possibly one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, not to mention being a disguisting criminal.

Good post, Rahl.

[Kscott]

Yeah but the increase in terrorism is in Iraq, not America. If they started bombing America a la the show 24, then I would agree with you.

So terrorism is fine as long as its not in America?

Might he have made a blunder, yes, but that doesn't disprove the fallacy the leftists make every time it suits their politics.

fallacy? I personally think that both were blunders, but Iraq by far had the most far reaching negative consequences. As such Im more apposed to it.

The Iraq war was more legal who is saying otherwise?

Clinton was quite possibly one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, not to mention being a disguisting criminal.

If you really want I could compose a list of presidents who not only were far worse, but he broke the law considerably more.

And really he cant be considered a criminal as nobody tried him for breacking the War Powers Act, which I personally feel is extremely unconstitutional and had Clinton be punished for breaking it I think the Supreme Court would have agreed.

If you mean he is a criminal for perjury I guess you have a case, but then again the selfish Republicans who tried to remove a president for purely partisan means are much more of criminals than Clinton could ever be.

I just find in amusing how so many have an axe to grind on non Republicans. They are against one war more than another one. That must make them hypocrites
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can sympathize with that opinion. Do you also believe in withdrawing now or soon?

Im glad Im not one who has to make that decision because either choice leads is unfavorable.

Kscott, you seem to be skimming my arguments. I see what your arguments are but what you are arguing and what I am arguing seem to not be so similar.

Well mainly because I dont see the hypocrisy you seem is so evident. I mean Clinton went to a war as well yes, but really they are very dissimilar. If Bush had done exactly what Clinton did, but was a Republican I would not dislike him so. My and many's problem with Bush is he has isolated America from the international community.

Clinton did not do this, but infact did much to aid our relations in the world. So where exactly is the hypocrisy?

[greek302]

Nobody really cares about the UN. The reason the left is pissed of is that 3 thousand Americans have died and probably about 100k Iraqis since we invaded iraq. And after 9/11 bush did the worst possible thing he could have done. It's just one bad expensive decision after another.

[Lord Rahl]

Why do I oppose the Iraq war? Because it plunged a country into chaos resulting in the death of thousands of innocent and a great increase in terrorist activity. We have very little power to stabilize the country and more likely than not democracy in Iraq will not last terribly long.

I can sympathize with that opinion. Do you also believe in withdrawing now or soon?

I forsaw the problems we are facing now prior to the war and felt the war was very misguided. Bush made an enormous blunder that cost American lives, money, and reputation abroad. Not to mention the 50-60 thousand Iraqis that have died as a result of war. Not to mention giving a whole new generation reason to join the jihad.

The fact is that we are in the war now. Whatever mistakes you believe have been made don't matter so much until after the war is over. If the mistakes end up making us lose the war then we will see why. If the mistakes end up being compromised and we win the war then the mistakes will not be of the importance above the victory. We often hail the victory of WWII but we hardly speak of the failures.

Clinton made some mistakes, but he greatly helped the country internally and gave us a much more respected face to the outside world. Was the Balkans a mistake? Probably, however nowhere close to the blunder Iraq was. I really don't see how one can argue otherwise.

My point of my original post was to explain the hypocrisy in the world about Bush and mainly the War in Iraq.

Clinton failed to kill Osama and if anyone asks about that it seems that they are hissed at, like the question shouldn't be asked or no one wants it to be asked. Why does Clinton seem so...good? Well, he was President during a time when the economy was good, he got us out of Somalia ASAP, and he involved himself in a war from tens of thousands of feet. It is easy to look good when that happens.

Yeah but the increase in terrorism is in Iraq, not America. If they started bombing America a la the show 24, then I would agree with you. Might he have made a blunder, yes, but that doesn't disprove the fallacy the leftists make every time it suits their politics. Iraq may have been a blunder, but it was legal, Yugoslavia wasn't. Not to mention that doing so makes Clinton guilty of breaking Federal and International Law, it was still a dumb thing to do. Clinton was quite possibly one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, not to mention being a disguisting criminal.

Good post, Rahl.

Why thank you, sir.

Kscott, you seem to be skimming my arguments. I see what your arguments are but what you are arguing and what I am arguing seem to not be so similar.

[PacSubCom]

Who's the left?

[Kscott]

Anyone more liberal Socially, economically, or politically than the Republicans.

[Manji]

Who's the left?

and his ilk, of course.

[Last Roman]

Who's the left?

good question.

anyhoo

You're making a grave assumption Rahl. Who said I (assuming I'm part of this "left") supported the war in former Yugoslavia?

There is a reason why the War in Iraq is horrible and the Kosovo War was not. But why? I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because people simply hate Bush and will use the War in Iraq to try and take him down. I really don't have a good idea. I can see why people might not like Bush but I don't see how he can be hated so much and a man like Clinton who was impeached wasn't. It is either idiocy or ignorance. I prefer to believe the former.

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush should be impeached for lying about a war which has cost us billions, sent thousands of our troops to die in vain and cost thousands of innocent Iraqis their lives. Slightly different. Should Clinton have gotten in trouble for his meddling in the Balkans? Probably. But his meddling wasn't nearly as bad as Bush's.

[sdjenkyn]

The irony in this thread starts with the first post questioning the lefts intentions and integrity but uses the iragbodycount.org as reference to support the fallacy of the neocons and bush. iragbodycount.org is a leftist group and there numbers arent to be trusted more then anyone elses.

[Lord Rahl]

The irony in this thread starts with the first post questioning the lefts intentions and integrity but uses the iragbodycount.org as reference to support the fallacy of the neocons and bush. iragbodycount.org is a leftist group and there numbers arent to be trusted more then anyone elses.

Think about why I would choose a left wing source when I'm obviously a right winger.

First of all, submit evidence that your numinous and ill-defined "Left" regards Bill Clinton as its "savior".

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45249
http://news.independent.co.uk/people...icle312061.ece
http://www.michaelbrito.com/2006/12/...-bill-clinton/

Secondly, read carefully the following:

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-act

in order to understand that your protestation on the grounds of the War Powers Act is both irrelevant and insignificant.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you trying to tell me that since other Presidents violated the act then it was ok for Clinton to do so as well?

Further, you will need to recognize that in order for a matter such as Yugoslavia to have had any valid impact upon the conduct or performance of the Clinton Administration's policies, it would have to have been effectively protested by Congress.

Well, with Clinton's Congress mostly Republican (I believe) I can see how having him conduct a relatively easy and safe war wouldn't be protested so much. It is a bit different with a war that includes many thousands of troops.

Also, it may help you to realize that the response to Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a NATO affair, and the United States can hardly be expected to remain uninvolved where a NATO operation is concerned. Also, from a purely political standpoint, it is probably unwise for someone to oppose the action in Yugoslavia, since the Serbs were engaged in a form of Nazi-esque butchery.

I agree with you there.

Well, it's simple. "Clinton" did not wage a war against Yugoslavia, which is not a state at all, nor was it one at the time of the NATO action. Moreover, President Clinton did not really do anything other than honor the American obligations with regard to NATO operations in the European theater, in response to atrocities and potentially regionally-destabilizing violence in the former Yugoslavia. Basically, what you're talking about applies not even in the slightest. Here's a link on NATO that may help you to understand what was actually going on, from a structural standpoint:

http://www.answers.com/topic/nato

Thanks for your input, btw. I am no expert on the subject and I certainly wasn't old enough to really care about Kosovo and such when it was happening. I simply see a double standard and wish to reveal it.

Yes, NATO launched a war against Yugoslavia but still, with the War Powers Act as I understand, Clinton still had to ask Congress for authorization. Legally speaking here. The UN wasn't involved, from what I think, because Yugoslavia wasn't a country within the UN at the time. That sounds weird to me but whatever. Bush invaded a country (Iraq) which has worse cases of genocide, which also attempted to gain WMD's, and refused to let UN inspectors in before for many years which was in violation of UN laws. That should have been legal jurisdiction to invade if the UN voted so. It didn't however but the US Congress did.

If indeed these people you mention are regarded as evil, there are likely several more citable reasons than collateral casualties. Among these are concerns over the erosion of American civil liberties, the gall of a President who never even showed up for Air National Guard duty putting soldiers in harm's way, and an absurdly obtuse and secretive---even deliberately deceptive---administration that uses questionable means to manipulate public opinion. Those who are manipulated successfully often show signs of a complete and total inability to reason, and a general disregard for certain uncomfortable facts regarding the corporate corruption and gross criminality associated with a certain scion of the Bush family.

Ok, if we debate about all of this then we'll be going on many tangents but I'll try to answer as much as I can. American civil liberties, Bush's "spying" scandal we have these days is very similar to Clinton's Echelon program. And, in an era where United States soil has been attacked with thousands killed instead of attacks several thousands of miles away I think surveillance of phone calls and emails of suspected individuals is a good thing. Besides, the surveillance by Bush's administration is based on international information, not domestic. Second, Clinton didn't do anything in Vietnam either. Was what Bush did in the Air National Guard honorable? No. Neither was Clinton's avoidance or Kerry's follies both during and after the war. In summation, politicians (for the most part) are idiots. I think we can all agree with that.

This appears to have nothing to do with your contention of hypocrisy based upon the War Powers Act of 1973.

I know. It is another argument. My point is that both wars resulted with horrible civilian casualties so the conduct of the Kosovo War wasn't so respectful as it seems people try to not to mention it for one reason or another.

You lead me to believe that you believe so, yes.

As explained above.

I'm surprised by this conclusion...

Por que?

Oh, I see. Since the atrocities of the Kosovo situation did not directly affect American citizens, whereas 9-11 did, the Bush administration should be permitted to plunge America into deep debt, embroil us in a tangential and chaotic regional conflict, and deceive the American people and the world as to the casus belli for said war. That's an impressive contention.

Not...exactly to how you are stating it. Clinton didn't do anything sufficient about terrorist attacks during his time as President. Since Bush had 9/11 during his I think we all know that the situation changed, a lot. It is a mix of politics, popular opinion, and common sense. So, with what it seems you are supporting, we should have done nothing about 9/11 and became an isolationist country once again? What has history shown what that does?

Yes. This is called politics. Whatever one side does, the opposition will...well, oppose.

Exactly my point. These politics are hypocritical.

So it appears.

So it is.

Washington has no monopoly on hypocrisy, my friend.

No, but they have a monopoly on the money and power of the hypocrisy.

So, you have a problem with "irrational" opposition to Bush, yet are willing to engage in "irrational" criticism of Clinton. I would submit that this is not the basis for a persuasive argument. But, then again, neither is a thread titled, "The Idiocy of the Left" particularly indicative of much in the way of reasoned, unbiased presentation of evidence.

Not so much. Criticism of Bush and his actions is a good thing. Making them to seem what they aren't is not a good thing. Criticism of what the actions of Clinton compared to those of Bush leads me to think that there is a double standard. I used Clinton as an example for obvious reason. It seemed that people loved Clinton and he was President before Bush. It seems that people hate Bush and he is President after Clinton. I see a good chance for comparison. My question is why such a drastic difference? Obviously the thread of my title is biased. What better way to attract interest in a forum with those I referenced in the title?

I think that you will find that many posts of mine are quite unbiased when I elaborate more. I must make a broad statement at first to introduce discussion. If I don't then no one will want to read a massive, unbiased essay by me.

Ok...one down...

I think the reason your 'left' are annoyed about Iraq is because a relatively stable country has been made a much worse place to live for no real valid reason. Except to stop Saddam supporting terrorists, apparently. Unfortunately, there were no terrorists in Iraq until the country was destabalised by the invasion.

Nazi Germany was a stable country too. That doesn't mean it was all well.

With Iraq, no one wins (invaders or locals), with Yugoslavia, eveyone won. There was no basis for invading Iraq, which is sad. It's also sad that people have become so desparate to believe that it was a just invasion that they think that the Iraqi people are better off after being 'liberated'.

Wait, what? From the article,

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4897_0_3_0_C/

Our media like to talk about Iraq, because they think the issue will damage Bush, but Kosovo gets no mention, except when Clinton himself or former officials of his administration bring it up and claim it as a foreign policy success. There is no coverage of the anti-Christian Jihad underway there. But seven years after the illegal Kosovo intervention, the September 15 Washington Post reports on a new World Bank study on fragile or failing states that "can breed terrorism." One of them is listed as Kosovo, which is not a state—not yet. Actually, in the report itself, Kosovo is identified as a "territory," not a province of Serbia, but the point remains valid. Kosovo is identified as being "outside the control of a recognized and reputable government," offering "fertile soil on which terrorism could thrive." Terrorism is thriving there, of course, because it was Clinton's official policy to support the terrorist KLA and remove Kosovo from Serbian control.

Kosovo isn't a merry place.

If Iraq is a nice place to live in 5 years time, I still won't agree with the invasion, too many have been killed already to be able to make it justified.

I can see your point but...you are looking at all negatives it seems. If Iraq is a nice place to live in 5 years (which I highly doubt as it will probably be over a decade until the region could be stable) then that will mean 50,000,000 people will be able to vote freely among other things.

I think people are just pissed off because it hasn't gone the way, or at the speed everyone expected. Now, it's not even working at all. It failed in a huge way. $$$$ and death spent with no good outcome. Then they try to blame Democrats when they have all 3 branches of government. funny.

ok...Blame Clinton and Bush....blame both. Now what?

All three branches? Uh...maybe the Executive Branch buddy but the others...nah.

I don't think the Left thinks the war is unjust from a legal standpoint, I think they believe it is unjust because the justification for going to war was completely erroneous. I think the Left believes the president lied to them about the intel, or at the very least ignored any dissenting intel.

Which would make it illegal. If the Bush administration lied then everything was illegal. I know what you're saying though.

The simple fact is that the Iraq war has been one diasterous blunder after another. The administration has been criminally negligent in its duty from the moment Bush strutted under that "Mission Accomplished" banner in a flightsuit.

That was a mistake. As soon as I saw that I knew it was bad. Sure, we toppled Saddam's regime but you can't just stop there.

3000 dead Americans, another 25,000 wounded and what have we accomplished? While we have been pissing away our blood and treasure in a country that didn't have any WMDs, the other two members of the "Axis of Evil" have either tested a nuclear weapon or are in the process of making a nuclear weapon.

What have we accomplished? Well, think of something. Don't ignore what has been accomplished. And with Iran and North Korea I will say what I always say. If we went to war with those countries it would make Iraq seem like a picnic. A war with either one of those countries would result in a draft. I guarantee it. So, don't spit about Iran and North Korea. Either we go to war with them now or later. That is what it will come down to.

Talk about generalization of the left, many of the sources that critisized Clinton for exaggeration about the genocide in Kosovo were infact what you would consider LEFTIST. Yet here you are claiming that the left supported Clinton in Kosovo and opposes bush in Iraq. Perhaps the so called idiocy of the left is really the delusions of the right.

Generalizations get discussion going. Uh...criticism is criticism. I criticize the Bush administration. Does that mean I'm delusional because I am a conservative? No.

Perhaps it is because Clinton was nearly impeached (he wasn't actually impeached, because funnily enough the rightwing groups trying to impeach him didn't have any evidence to support most of their accusations against him) for lying about a blowjob , whereas no action has been taken against Bush for lying about a war, allowing 9/11 to occur, mass incompetence both with domestic and foreign policy, neglect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, legalizing torture, renditions, setting up a concentration camp outside of US legal jurisdiction and abusing his presidential powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton

President Bill Clinton was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives and subsequently acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.

He was impeached. He just wasn't thrown out of office. If the Congress wants Bush out then they can call for him to be impeached. No action has been taken because...no one has done anything other than talk badly about him. As with allowing 9/11 to occur...that would be a very hard thing to argue. About Gitmo, I talked to a soldier who was based there and it is quite different from what the news has. Those kept there are given a lot of things that they really don't deserve. Abusing Presidential powers...like what? We're getting off topic though...

This is not really a credible point to bring up, mainly because the basis for that vote was the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2002, a triumph for Bush and Co., and also one of the most flawed intelligence documents in the history of US military intelligence.

I'll agree with that. I put that in sort of "in the moment".

The November 2002 NIE was constructed after months of cherrypicking; filtering out sources that contested with the administrations projections for how the war would go, ignoring pertinent intelligence regarding the decrepit and defunct status of Saddam's WMD programs (no evidence exists proving Saddam had any functional weapons programs after 1998, and this was known at the time), and had absolutely no text regarding a plan for what would happen when combat operations ceased and the occupation began.

I agree that Saddam's regime didn't have the capabilities to be an immediate threat to the United States as the Bush administration claimed. It is a fact, however, that Saddam broke UN resolutions and did try to pursue WMD development after the Gulf War. The initial invasion went well, I believe but the occupation didn't do well at all. Between those events mistakes were made. Mistakes that would end up killing a lot of people.

People like to point fingers at the Democrats (and Republicans who have since changed their stance on the war) and accuse them of voting in favor of the war and then "flip-flopping." This accusation doesn't hold water because of how flawed the NIE they based their voting on was. They voted based on intelligence that the administration had knowingly and clandestinely altered and filtered to present the direst predictions of Saddam's weapons capabilities, and the rosiest picture for how the war would be fought. It was political manipulation at its best. Unfortunately for Bush and Co., their incompetence lead to events during the war that would reveal the NIE to be exactly what it was: a load of crap. Unfortunately, the votes had already been cast, and they had already gotten the war they wanted.

I don't care so much about the initial vote as much as what many Democrats in the Congress want to do now. I'm more concerned about their flip flopping on issues after the invasion such as troop levels. The Dems were screaming for Bush to add more troops because if he didn't Iraq would be a bloodbath. And now since Bush is sending more troops and with a plan which seems pretty damn good the Dems are saying it won't help and...Iraq will be a bloodbath. It is stuff like that which angers me.

First of all, you're talking about this as if the left wing of politics is one single conspiratorial organization. That notion is just absurd as the notion of a right-wing conspiracy or a global zionist conspiracy. Such misconceptions are utter tripe and total crap.

Agreed. As I've explained before. Generalizations cause discussion. If I wanted to write a stupidly long and unbiased essay then I wouldn't get this sort of discussion. People wouldn't read it and people wouldn't want to reply to it. Well, mine wasn't too long and people have read it and have replied to it. I didn't write all of this to look good. I did it to talk.

Second, the war in Yugoslavia was justified. A ****ing genocide was going on in Kosovo, we had no time to wrangle around. Clinton used the same preemptive strike option that your savior George Bush did. Additionally, your misconception of how the US fought in there is wrong. The US fought as part of NATO, an international coalition. We did not fight the conflict alone, nor did Clinton breach any laws in aiding the NATO taskforce.

Saddam killed more people than Milosevic did. Does that make the War in Iraq more justified? The US is fighting in Iraq with allies as well. Let us not forget Afghanistan either.

Third and finally: not all leftists agree that the war in Iraq is totally unjustified. I just think it's a pointless and aimless venture, expensive both in money and human lives. Once again, making sweeping generalizations and making statements based on misconceptory information is purely irrational.

Thank God! Finally someone explains a more moderate view. Thank you for your insight Max.

If Clinton = "the left".
But even Nader isn't left enough for me.
Then what does that make me?

A commie You had to have seen that coming.

In any case I'm just ROFLMAO at all those right-wingers who keep apologizing for their leader.
First they elected a looser who failed miserably.
And now they aren't even man enough to admit their mistake.
Priceless, just priceless LOL.

I don't think so. Read what I write. Don't just look at it. It is one thing to have a discussion with people about something they wrote and you read. It is another to try and argue with someone about something they wrote but you just looked at.

Factual or not, this is an odd infatuation with the past unlikely to do anyone any good.

The shared disease of political partisans is the extent to which their self-identification is at odds with who they are and what they believe in. It's rare for a jaundiced polemic to prove particularly evocative of sensible, civil debate, and this is no exception. Thanks for the tribal display gentlemen!

Isn't it great!

For more explanation and opinion I found this article very interesting,

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i...sullivan111103

The subject [of a conversation between Clark and the New Yorker reporter Peter Boyer] was how the war in Iraq, which Clark calls a "historic blunder," differed from the 1999 war over Kosovo, which Clark commanded. Clark was welcomed into the campaign by many Democrats as the triumphant commander of Kosovo, and he uses the lessons of Kosovo to explain his criticism of the Iraq war. In a speech at the University of Iowa College of Law, on September 19th, Clark had declared that chief among America's mistakes was that it had gone to war in Iraq without "the mantle of authority" bestowed by United Nations approval. But hadn't the Kosovo war also been conducted without the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council? Yes, Clark allowed, and in that regard the Kosovo war was "technically illegal." He went on, "The Russians and the Chinese said they would both veto it. There was never a chance that it would be authorized." That situation did not seem entirely dissimilar from the prewar maneuverings regarding Iraq, when France and Germany said that they would oppose any Security Council resolution authorizing an immediate war; Bush bypassed the U.N. and resorted to an alliance with Prime Minister Tony Blair's Britain and sundry lesser members of the "coalition of the willing." But there was one more important difference, Clark said: the war against Serbia was waged to stop the imminent threat of ethnic cleansing in the disputed province of Kosovo; the war in Iraq, he said, was waged under false pretenses.

Let's go back here. Clark essentially concedes that the war in Kosovo was, under international law, indistinguishable from the war in Iraq. Actually, even that's not entirely true. It should be recalled that the United States and its allies, particularly Great Britain, secured a 15-0 Security Council Resolution demanding complete and unfettered access to potential sites of WMD development--or else--in Iraq. The "else" was subject to debate, but the notion that it ruled out any military action is one only Dominique de Villepin would argue with a straight face. No such 15-0 vote occurred at any time before the Kosovo war. So, if anything, the war against Iraq had more international legitimacy than the war in Kosovo. If viewed as a continuation of the 1991 war--the terms of which cease-fire Saddam had grotesquely and systematically violated--it was impeccably legitimate. The 1991 war, after all, was one of very few post-World War II conflicts that had unimpeachable U.N. credentials.

Thank God! I'm done!

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I agree that Saddam's regime didn't have the capabilities to be an immediate threat to the United States as the Bush administration claimed. It is a fact, however, that Saddam broke UN resolutions and did try to pursue WMD development after the Gulf War. The initial invasion went well, I believe but the occupation didn't do well at all. Between those events mistakes were made. Mistakes that would end up killing a lot of people.

Well then before you continue slamming your arch-nemesis Clinton, you should be aware that it was his operation (Desert Fox, I believe) in 1998 that sealed the deal on all of Saddam's weapons programs.

Most Republicans called Desert Fox a farce, a wag-the-dog bombing campaign meant only to distract the media from Monica Lewinsky and present the facade of actually punishing Saddam for his inspections intransigence. Fortunately, they were dead wrong, which we now know. Experts on the ground in Iraq knew that Desert Fox crippled what was left of Saddam's WMD programs, and afterwards, he never renewed them because he realized that the US would find out and destroy them, and the money spent on it would be wasted. In the meantime, he kept up the diplomatic illusion that he maintained his programs. Intel was difficult to come by after this because Desert Fox shook his regime to the core, and he thereafter cracked down on all dissidents and possible informers.

[mrjesushat]

Think about why I would choose a left wing source when I'm obviously a right winger.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45249
http://news.independent.co.uk/people...icle312061.ece
http://www.michaelbrito.com/2006/12/...-bill-clinton/

These are the opinions of some people. Also, you will note that the citations you have provided us with make reference to Clinton as "Savior" in terms of a question of perception. Were it worth our time to conduct such a survey, a survey of American self-defined "Leftists", asking whether or not they regarded Bill Clinton as "the Savior" would probably come up disappointingly for you, I'm afraid. The point is that this is an absurdly extreme way to characterize the "Left" (a messy term, at best) and Clinton (a politically very messy fellow).

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you trying to tell me that since other Presidents violated the act then it was ok for Clinton to do so as well?

Yep. I'm telling you that very few people care about what you've argued, all things considered. And bear in mind here, I'm a Libertarian...what is called a Classical Liberal. I like guns and I abhor religion in politics. I also believe in strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. So while I am personally bothered by the fact that Presidents wage war outside the boundaries of their Constitutional powers, most people don't give two figs. Point being, not too many persuasive arguments attacking Bush policies begin with, "Well, he violated the 1973 War Powers Act...".

Well, with Clinton's Congress mostly Republican (I believe) I can see how having him conduct a relatively easy and safe war wouldn't be protested so much. It is a bit different with a war that includes many thousands of troops.

No soldier I know calls war, "easy and safe". Moreover, you are now arguing that it's okay for the Republicans to ignore Constitutionality, on the grounds that Clinton should be attacked for violating the 1973 War Powers Act. Which draws a "huh?" from me, and I'm certain that I'm not alone on that one.

Thanks for your input, btw. I am no expert on the subject and I certainly wasn't old enough to really care about Kosovo and such when it was happening. I simply see a double standard and wish to reveal it.

Indeed, which was why I thought you should know more about the Kosovo situation. You see a double standard where there is none, because the "wars" you are comparing are apples & oranges, comparatively speaking.

Yes, NATO launched a war against Yugoslavia but still, with the War Powers Act as I understand, Clinton still had to ask Congress for authorization. Legally speaking here.

Actually, this isn't entirely so. A NATO operation involves pre-existing treaty obligations on the part of the United States, and as Head of State, Head of Government, and Comander in Chief, it is the responsibility of the President of the United States to see those obligations fulfilled, barring cancellation of said obligations by the U.S. Senate. Which did not happen, obviously.

The UN wasn't involved, from what I think, because Yugoslavia wasn't a country within the UN at the time. That sounds weird to me but whatever.

The U.N. is involved to this day. NATO created "safe zones" and made it possible for the KLA to "secure" Kosovo. All of these things are subject to operational analysis; the point is that the UN was not considered as capable nor as responsible as was NATO. On the diplomatic front, the UN was and is very involved. Also, bear in mind that geopolitically speaking, this was more about taking responsibility for the regions encompassing the territory of a former "soft-ally" in the Cold War. Josip "Tito" Broz may have been a socialist, but he was not a good friend of the Soviet Union. Since the Warsaw pact had been dissolved, and the Russians were in no shape to deal with the situation either militarily or diplomatically, this left things in the hands of NATO.

Bush invaded a country (Iraq) which has worse cases of genocide

This is a subjective argument, which many Bosnians, Croats and ethnic Albanians would take issue with.

which also attempted to gain WMD's,

Sure they did. Which is why we found all those WMDs that the economically and militarily crippled, post First Gulf War Saddam regime went out and bought on credit.

and refused to let UN inspectors in before for many years which was in violation of UN laws.

Hanz Blix.

That should have been legal jurisdiction to invade if the UN voted so.

Yes, had they voted so.

It didn't however but the US Congress did.

Wait...which body represents the theoretical consensus of world opinion?

American civil liberties, Bush's "spying" scandal we have these days is very similar to Clinton's Echelon program.

They're not even close. Do I like Echelon? Hell no. Is it akin to euphemistic crap like "enemy combatants aren't covered by the Geneva Convention", secret CIA torture facilities, violations of the 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendments, false casus belli for tangential conflicts motivated by God-knows-what in reality, and the propagation of an attitude of fear and intolerance in no way contiguous with the right and proper character of this nation? Um...I'd say no. Echelon is/was a system designed to allow electronic and digital information to be tracked. Can it be abused? My friend, I guarantee you that it is being abused, right now. Is it attaching electrodes to the testes of poor, confused Afghani gentlemen who aren't even entirely certain what's going on, much less why they are somewhere in Cuba, Eastern Europe or Central Asia, being debriefed? Absolutely not.

And, in an era where United States soil has been attacked with thousands killed instead of attacks several thousands of miles away I think surveillance of phone calls and emails of suspected individuals is a good thing.

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin.

Besides, the surveillance by Bush's administration is based on international information, not domestic.

So tyrants will always assure us.

Second, Clinton didn't do anything in Vietnam either.

One of the reasons that, for all I like the man, I have never trusted him, nor regarded him as an exemplary individual. However, I respected his consistency in objecting to needless wars. What man is a better citizen? He that opposes war, yet serves in it, or he that opposes war, and makes a practice of his opposition?

Was what Bush did in the Air National Guard honorable? No. Neither was Clinton's avoidance

Fair.

or Kerry's follies both during and after the war.

Whoops! Lest the Conservative mind-train railroad you into errata, please bear in mind that Kerry is what our Founders might have regarded as a model citizen. Being an educated and politically interested young man, he undertook to serve in the military. Finding the Vietnam War to be wanting in valid goal, ideal or judgment (in his opinion), he returned to the U.S. and opposed it publicly. This defines a man who is both war hero and civil hero. You may not think so, but this hardly has anything to do with the historical facts regarding his actions. The fact that a jealous and cowardly man may question the medals of his betters does not make those medals ill-earned or undeserved.

In summation, politicians (for the most part) are idiots. I think we can all agree with that.

A generalization which I hope, some day, you will see the flaws in. There are, from time to time, persons of genuine ability and dignity to be found in the halls of power. I find them rarely, but even I find them, and I am a professional cynic.

Clinton didn't do anything sufficient about terrorist attacks during his time as President.

A commonly held myth propagated by certain asanine and traitorous scions of neo-Conservatism (or what I am now calling, "the Imperial Party"). Here, read this:

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatri...27clinton.html

Since Bush had 9/11 during his I think we all know that the situation changed, a lot.

Yes, as Louis Freeh told us, John Ashcroft's pre 9-11 termination of terrorism intelligence-exchange partly blinded U.S. intelligence agencies at the time they most needed to share information. Also, as Richard Clarke told us, Bush's bizarre (or, not-so-bizarre) obsession with Iraq worked against more important initiatives countering real terrorists, as opposed to quasi-significant, former U.S.-supported dictators.

A link for you:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

Now, granted, that's CBS News, which many Conservatives simply cannot bring themselves to believe, since it has a nasty tendency to report facts. These are, of course, regarded as "spun", since they do not accord with the Neo-Con view of the world. Sadly, all attempts to characterize at least the above article as biased will be easily countered, since the article contains a link to the opposing viewpoint. So, this might just be valid news, and not a piece of garbage floating in the polemic seas of discord and chaos.

It is a mix of politics, popular opinion, and common sense. So, with what it seems you are supporting, we should have done nothing about 9/11 and became an isolationist country once again? What has history shown what that does?

Huh? Who said we should have done nothing about 9-11? In point of fact, my friend, you'll find that I'm a tad more radical than most people you will meet. My personal response to 9-11 would have involved the total destruction of Saudi Arabia, including Mecca and Medina. And here's the thing...I like Muslims. I like their culture, their dedication to their beliefs, and the level of kindness and honesty that I often finds characterizes Muslims. I am actually good friends with a number of Muslims, some of whom are also of Arabic descent. But the fact is, the Saudis to this day continue to fund Wahabist schools that preach hatred for the West. They are fair-weather friends, at best, taking our money for oil on the one hand, and encouraging global jihadism on the other. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. That's why we should have started there, and rolled on through any other group of people that decided (unwisely) to side with the Saudis.

And yes, I'd have been first in line at my local recruiting office, had this been the response.

Not so much. Criticism of Bush and his actions is a good thing. Making them to seem what they aren't is not a good thing. Criticism of what the actions of Clinton compared to those of Bush leads me to think that there is a double standard.

You are getting caught up in opposition politics, I think.

I used Clinton as an example for obvious reason. It seemed that people loved Clinton and he was President before Bush. It seems that people hate Bush and he is President after Clinton.

I disagree. The "Left" loved Clinton, while the "Right" loves Bush. Both sides will generate a strong polemic atmosphere when they are out of favor, and cry "unfair, unfair" when they are in favor. I urge you to be a citizen of the United States, and not a political running dog.

[mrjesushat]

I was listening to some radio and Mr. Levin brought up a very good point. The Left complains about how unjust the War in Iraq is. Well, the Left will also fail to mention that their savior Bill Clinton went to war with Yugoslavia without United States or UN approval. It also broke the law of the War Powers Act. The War in Iraq unjust? Please...

First of all, submit evidence that your numinous and ill-defined "Left" regards Bill Clinton as its "savior". Secondly, read carefully the following:

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-powers-act

in order to understand that your protestation on the grounds of the War Powers Act is both irrelevant and insignificant.

Further, you will need to recognize that in order for a matter such as Yugoslavia to have had any valid impact upon the conduct or performance of the Clinton Administration's policies, it would have to have been effectively protested by Congress.

Also, it may help you to realize that the response to Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a NATO affair, and the United States can hardly be expected to remain uninvolved where a NATO operation is concerned. Also, from a purely political standpoint, it is probably unwise for someone to oppose the action in Yugoslavia, since the Serbs were engaged in a form of Nazi-esque butchery.

First off, the War Powers Act states that the President must have Congress approve of military operations abroad before 60 days has passed of the operations. Now, the war between NATO forces and Yugoslavia lasted longer than 60 days. From March 24 to June 10, 1999 more specifically. Second, how was Clinton able to get away with fighting a war against Yugoslavia when he didn't have permission from either one to do so? This is hypocrisy!

Well, it's simple. "Clinton" did not wage a war against Yugoslavia, which is not a state at all, nor was it one at the time of the NATO action. Moreover, President Clinton did not really do anything other than honor the American obligations with regard to NATO operations in the European theater, in response to atrocities and potentially regionally-destabilizing violence in the former Yugoslavia. Basically, what you're talking about applies not even in the slightest. Here's a link on NATO that may help you to understand what was actually going on, from a structural standpoint:

http://www.answers.com/topic/nato

Now, Bush and the neocons are evil because we are killing many civilians with our bombs and such.

If indeed these people you mention are regarded as evil, there are likely several more citable reasons than collateral casualties. Among these are concerns over the erosion of American civil liberties, the gall of a President who never even showed up for Air National Guard duty putting soldiers in harm's way, and an absurdly obtuse and secretive---even deliberately deceptive---administration that uses questionable means to manipulate public opinion. Those who are manipulated successfully often show signs of a complete and total inability to reason, and a general disregard for certain uncomfortable facts regarding the corporate corruption and gross criminality associated with a certain scion of the Bush family.

Before the Kosovo War it is believed some 2,000 people had been killed. After the war conservative estimates are around 6,000 by US and NATO bombs. If one checks Iraq Body Count we see that "conservative" estimates start at about 55,000. If one checks the database and they scroll down, they will find that the vast majority of deaths are caused by terrorist activity rather than US forces.

This appears to have nothing to do with your contention of hypocrisy based upon the War Powers Act of 1973.

Does this mean the deaths aren't important?

You lead me to believe that you believe so, yes.

No

I'm surprised by this conclusion...

but fighting a war against terrorists (by the way, a war which was approved by Congress with a vote of 296-133) is much harder to battle through cleanly than simply having 1,000 aircraft flying 38,000 combat missions.

Oh, I see. Since the atrocities of the Kosovo situation did not directly affect American citizens, whereas 9-11 did, the Bush administration should be permitted to plunge America into deep debt, embroil us in a tangential and chaotic regional conflict, and deceive the American people and the world as to the casus belli for said war. That's an impressive contention.

Remember that some critics have accused the Clinton administration of leading a war with Yugoslavia under the false pretense of genocide. Does this war sound familiar to the War in Iraq? I hope it does.

Yes. This is called politics. Whatever one side does, the opposition will...well, oppose.

So what do I think of all of this? Well, there are a great many hypocrites in the world

So it appears.

(the worst ones in Washington).

Washington has no monopoly on hypocrisy, my friend.

There is a reason why the War in Iraq is horrible and the Kosovo War was not. But why? I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because people simply hate Bush and will use the War in Iraq to try and take him down. I really don't have a good idea. I can see why people might not like Bush but I don't see how he can be hated so much and a man like Clinton who was impeached wasn't. It is either idiocy or ignorance. I prefer to believe the former.

So, you have a problem with "irrational" opposition to Bush, yet are willing to engage in "irrational" criticism of Clinton. I would submit that this is not the basis for a persuasive argument. But, then again, neither is a thread titled, "The Idiocy of the Left" particularly indicative of much in the way of reasoned, unbiased presentation of evidence.

[harm]

I think people are just pissed off because it hasn't gone the way, or at the speed everyone expected. Now, it's not even working at all. It failed in a huge way. $$$$ and death spent with no good outcome. Then they try to blame Democrats when they have all 3 branches of government. funny.

ok...Blame Clinton and Bush....blame both. Now what?

[Kscott]

I think people are just pissed off because it hasn't gone the way, or at the speed everyone expected. Now, it's not even working at all. It failed in a huge way. $$$$ and death spent with no good outcome. Then they try to blame Democrats when they have all 3 branches of government. funny.

ok...Blame Clinton and Bush....blame both. Now what?

Actually it has gone almost 100% as I expected. In fact its gone 100% as any person with a grasp of history would have expected. Win all the engagements but be unable to break the will of the opposition. If you don't remember there were massive protests all over the world against the invasion of Iraq as people forsaw the problems.

[Richard]

I imagine George was expecting more people would be stupid enough to believe his plan A (Saddam helps terrorists), B (he has WMDs to kill America and must be stopped), or C (Help the poor Iraqis, they're being oppressed!). All of which failed (except C, it worked but the alternative turned out to be worse than oppression)

Only one of which was even half just (C), and he managed to bugger it up anyway and make things worse. I'd rather be oppressed but be able to walk down the street safely than be a bit freer but risk being blown up at the police station.

[Richard]

I think the reason your 'left' are annoyed about Iraq is because a relatively stable country has been made a much worse place to live for no real valid reason. Except to stop Saddam supporting terrorists, apparently. Unfortunately, there were no terrorists in Iraq until the country was destabalised by the invasion.

With Iraq, no one wins (invaders or locals), with Yugoslavia, eveyone won. There was no basis for invading Iraq, which is sad. It's also sad that people have become so desparate to believe that it was a just invasion that they think that the Iraqi people are better off after being 'liberated'.

If Iraq is a nice place to live in 5 years time, I still won't agree with the invasion, too many have been killed already to be able to make it justified.

[Hotspur]

I don't think the Left thinks the war is unjust from a legal standpoint, I think they believe it is unjust because the justification for going to war was completely erroneous. I think the Left believes the president lied to them about the intel, or at the very least ignored any dissenting intel.

The simple fact is that the Iraq war has been one diasterous blunder after another. The administration has been criminally negligent in its duty from the moment Bush strutted under that "Mission Accomplished" banner in a flightsuit.

3000 dead Americans, another 25,000 wounded and what have we accomplished? While we have been pissing away our blood and treasure in a country that didn't have any WMDs, the other two members of the "Axis of Evil" have either tested a nuclear weapon or are in the process of making a nuclear weapon.