I would have liked to see this guy run the country ...

• O-Trap

  

  Nope, it's not Ron Paul ...
  
  [video=youtube;jsvf1HU0KHM][/video]
  
  Unfortunately, the guy who actually was in office had an entirely different agenda.
  
  Reps to IWP for finding the clip.
• believer

  

  Eh.........
  
  W, Slick Willy, Willard, Barry Hussein Obama, George Johnson, Ron Paulbot......doesn't matter.
  
  Every politician tells us what we want to hear. Then reality sets in.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1298684 wrote:Eh.........
  
  W, Slick Willy, Willard, Barry Hussein Obama, George Johnson, Ron Paulbot......doesn't matter.
  
  Every politician tells us what we want to hear. Then reality sets in.

  Eh, if someone has a history of telling the truth when it wasn't beneficial for them, I'm more inclined to believe they'll do what they say. Obviously, it's possible that even that is one, long-term, multi-step plan to get to the White House, but if I use Occam's Razor, I certainly feel better about trusting that person versus a person with a history of saying what is always convenient.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;1298690 wrote:Obviously, it's possible that even that is one, long-term, multi-step plan to get to the White House, but if I use Occam's Razor, I certainly feel better about trusting that person versus a person with a history of saying what is always convenient.

  Well the sheeple bought off on the convenient hope & change mantra 4 years ago so - yeah - I see your point.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1298704 wrote:Well the sheeple bought off on the convenient hope & change mantra 4 years ago so - yeah - I see your point.

  Sadly, with this video, it's apparent just how unoriginal that "change" mantra plan actually was.
• gut

  I don't know. Pre-9/11 is a very different world. I think it's a fair question that the guy sitting in the big chair might have a drastic altering of his perception on that morning?
• believer

  

  gut;1298710 wrote:I don't know. Pre-9/11 is a very different world. I think it's a fair question that the guy sitting in the big chair might have a drastic altering of his perception on that morning?

  Naw W was too busy chattin' with the munchkins that morning.
  
  In all seriousness though I think the short answer to that question is yes. How could it not have changed the perception and perspective? Hence my original comment of reality setting in.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1298710 wrote:I don't know. Pre-9/11 is a very different world. I think it's a fair question that the guy sitting in the big chair might have a drastic altering of his perception on that morning?

  I certainly agree that it would have to change the perception, but I'd hope it's not enough to swing the paradigm 100% the other way from "we shouldn't be the world's police."
• HitsRus

  

  gut;1298710 wrote:I don't know. Pre-9/11 is a very different world. I think it's a fair question that the guy sitting in the big chair might have a drastic altering of his perception on that morning?

  
  This....9/11 really changed his priorites and of that of his administration. His 'slogan' was compassionate conservatism...and it might have worked. No matter what people say...Osama really ****ed us up and changed us. And not for the better.
• gut

  O-Trap;1298720 wrote:I certainly agree that it would have to change the perception, but I'd hope it's not enough to swing the paradigm 100% the other way from "we shouldn't be the world's police."

  I'm not sure. Seems a distinction without a difference between "world police" vs. "national security interest". And it was the perception of our security that changed on 9/11. Debate the success if you want, but I don't know that 11+ years later there would have been many to bet against another successful attack in the continental US.
  
  It is perhaps also telling that candidate Obama said one thing, while President Obama fully briefed left the Bush policies substantially unchanged. And the drone assasinations are an interesting topic that I don't think has been much discussed here.
• I Wear Pants

  I found the clip?
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1298746 wrote:I'm not sure. Seems a distinction without a difference between "world police" vs. "national security interest".

  I'm open to hearing how this would be defensed. I certainly see a parallel between protecting my home with a gun and shooting someone else in their home because I think they're going to break into my home in the future.
  

  gut;1298746 wrote:And it was the perception of our security that changed on 9/11. Debate the success if you want, but I don't know that 11+ years later there would have been many to bet against another successful attack in the continental US.

  I don't doubt that many would have believed that. I'm still trying to get from preventing that to overthrowing other countries that are keeping to themselves or, at the worst, looking at us funny.
  
  If nothing else, it screams of paranoia ... separating reaction to overreaction.
  

  gut;1298746 wrote:It is perhaps also telling that candidate Obama said one thing, while President Obama fully briefed left the Bush policies substantially unchanged. And the drone assasinations are an interesting topic that I don't think has been much discussed here.

  
  Perhaps it's worth discussing.
  

  I Wear Pants;1298749 wrote:I found the clip?

  I thought you did. If not, I blame it on the bourbon.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't recall having ever seen that video before. But perhaps you could blame that on all the beer.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298746 wrote:I'm not sure. Seems a distinction without a difference between "world police" vs. "national security interest". And it was the perception of our security that changed on 9/11. Debate the success if you want, but I don't know that 11+ years later there would have been many to bet against another successful attack in the continental US.
  
  It is perhaps also telling that candidate Obama said one thing, while President Obama fully briefed left the Bush policies substantially unchanged. And the drone assasinations are an interesting topic that I don't think has been much discussed here.

  Pretty sure I've talked about how awful it is that we murder people with robots from the sky.
• gut

  O-Trap;1298766 wrote: I don't doubt that many would have believed that. I'm still trying to get from preventing that to overthrowing other countries that are keeping to themselves or, at the worst, looking at us funny.
  
  If nothing else, it screams of paranoia ... separating reaction to overreaction.

  It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
  
  First off, bad intel or not, the position on Iraq was hardly original. Everyone pretty much THOUGHT Saddam had WMD's, there was debate over the threat, debate perhaps skewed by various economic interests in the region. And it's not as if he wasn't in violation of several UN resolutions which, as an alternative to the US playing world police is also problematic with an impotent security council.
  
  And he had acted up before. Hardly a stretch to think that would happen again. And the broader issue of the Middle East, a flourishing democracy there is likely part, maybe the necessary prerequisite, of a long-term viable solution. I would hardly characterize as some great reversal of course, much less paranoia (especially when viewed thru the prism of 9/11).
  
  You may disagree with even most of that, but it was hardly an illogical position or representative of a complete 180 - what Bush is poo-pooing in that video is really US exceptionalism, a completely separate issue from national security. You make it sound like paranoia gave way to imperialism, and neither would be accurate.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1298767 wrote:I don't recall having ever seen that video before. But perhaps you could blame that on all the beer.

  No beer today. Just bourbon that was given as a birthday present.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298770 wrote:It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
  
  First off, bad intel or not, the position on Iraq was hardly original. Everyone pretty much THOUGHT Saddam had WMD's, there was debate over the threat, debate perhaps skewed by various economic interests in the region. And it's not as if he wasn't in violation of several UN resolutions which, as an alternative to the US playing world police is also problematic with an impotent security council.
  
  And he had acted up before. Hardly a stretch to think that would happen again. And the broader issue of the Middle East, a flourishing democracy there is likely part, maybe the necessary prerequisite, of a long-term viable solution. I would hardly characterize as some great reversal of course, much less paranoia (especially when viewed thru the prism of 9/11).
  
  You may disagree with even most of that, but it was hardly an illogical position or representative of a complete 180 - what Bush is poo-pooing in that video is really US exceptionalism, a completely separate issue from national security. You make it sound like paranoia gave way to imperialism, and neither would be accurate.

  False.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298768 wrote:Pretty sure I've talked about how awful it is that we murder people with robots from the sky.

  As opposed to doing it with soldiers in harms way?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298774 wrote:False.

  Pardon me. Most everyone believed that. Intel is rarely 100%. I don't care to rehash all that, but the fact of the matter is you didn't even need the WMD case if the security council wasn't deadset on being impotent.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298778 wrote:Pardon me. Most everyone believed that. Intel is rarely 100%. I don't care to rehash all that, but the fact of the matter is you didn't even need the WMD case if the security council wasn't deadset on being impotent.

  "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -Colin Powell Feb 2001
  
  "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." -Condoleeza Rice July 2001
  
  And then the argument we got was that Saddam still had weapons left over from when he had such a large military and was invading his neighbors and such. One of the positions is obviously not true, they cannot both be true. We absolutely did need the WMD case. Without that we don't convince our citizens let alone all the other nations to go in with us.
  

  gut;1298775 wrote:As opposed to doing it with soldiers in harms way?

  I'd prefer we not do it at all. It only creates generations of people in the region who absolutely hate everything about the US. Hell there's recently been studies that say as few as 1 in 50 that we're killing in Pakistan are actually insurgents/terrorists/whathaveyou. So that's 49 people who's families will forever hate the US for every one terrorist we kill.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298781 wrote:We absolutely did need the WMD case. Without that we don't convince our citizens let alone all the other nations to go in with us.

  Hmmm, that's interesting, isn't it? Different opinions on the security council aside, distorting the "reality" you're projecting to manipulate public opinion isn't exactly going out of style. People get offended when they catch the gubmit doing it, but it keeps happening because they fall so easily for it when it's what they want to believe.
  
  But on another note he was in violation of numerous resolutions. You can't hope to hand-off the responsibility of world police when the UN is unwilling to take up the burden. It WAS an issue of national security because as long as the US remained under the thumb of the UN no one had anything to worry about.
  
  I'm not sure how "history" remembers it, but I remember quite well the consensus was pretty much he had them, but France and Russia didn't want to take the steps to put an end to the debate. It was pretty much a given that he had them, most of the debates (internationally) centered around could he or would he use them. France was really the only one [of the SC] objecting on cause, which may or may not have been influence by financial interests. I believe Russia objected on principle, desperately clinging to superpower status of bygone years.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1298770 wrote:It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
  
  First off, bad intel or not, the position on Iraq was hardly original. Everyone pretty much THOUGHT Saddam had WMD's, there was debate over the threat, debate perhaps skewed by various economic interests in the region. And it's not as if he wasn't in violation of several UN resolutions which, as an alternative to the US playing world police is also problematic with an impotent security council.

  Oh he definitely was. Hussein was certainly not as pure as the driven snow.
  
  Again, though, we have WMDs as well. Autonomous nations, and all that. Breaking rules or not, it's not our place to enforce, you know?
  
  The economic reasons make us sound more like world raiders than world police. Either way, that's not something I think makes for a viable defense.
  

  gut;1298770 wrote:And he had acted up before. Hardly a stretch to think that would happen again.

  Hell, it's the Middle East. EVERYONE has acted up before. Turmoil there is part of life. It's been happening for thousands of years.
  

  gut;1298770 wrote:And the broader issue of the Middle East, a flourishing democracy there is likely part, maybe the necessary prerequisite, of a long-term viable solution. I would hardly characterize as some great reversal of course, much less paranoia (especially when viewed thru the prism of 9/11).

  After the thousands of years of violence, I think the idea of a "viable solution" over there is a short-sighted pipe dream. It would be nice, so I certainly don't blame people for really wanting it, but I don't think history allows for a viable solution.
  
  And actually, I'd suggest that the prism of 9/11 is precisely what catalyzed such paranoia.
  
  Compare it to a person walking down the street who gets sucker punched right in the nose. The nose swells up and impedes the vision in both eyes. Instead of going to get a splint on his face to protect the nose from getting damaged while it heals, the man sticks around and begins flailing about, trying to hit anything that he perceived SOUNDS like it could be another punch coming his way. He does not hit his assailant until the fourth connection.
  
  He has now assailed three people in his effort to hit the fourth because he overreacted.
  
  I would suggest that, at best, it would appear, in hindsight of course, that America was that guy.
  
  The talk of "spreading democracy" and arbitrarily picking dictators to take down is what seemed to, at the very least, turn the flailing into becoming the law enforcement of planet earth.
  

  gut;1298770 wrote:You may disagree with even most of that, but it was hardly an illogical position or representative of a complete 180 - what Bush is poo-pooing in that video is really US exceptionalism, a completely separate issue from national security.

  Oh, I agree that there is a definitive distinction between national security and an almost ethnocentrism. You won't hear any argument from me on that.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298784 wrote:Hmmm, that's interesting, isn't it? Different opinions on the security council aside, distorting the "reality" you're projecting to manipulate public opinion isn't exactly going out of style. People get offended when they catch the gubmit doing it, but it keeps happening because they fall so easily for it when it's what they want to believe.
  
  But on another note he was in violation of numerous resolutions. You can't hope to hand-off the responsibility of world police when the UN is unwilling to take up the burden. It WAS an issue of national security because as long as the US remained under the thumb of the UN no one had anything to worry about.
  
  I'm not sure how "history" remembers it, but I remember quite well the consensus was pretty much he had them, but France and Russia didn't want to take the steps to put an end to the debate. It was pretty much a given that he had them, most of the debates (internationally) centered around could he or would he use them. France was really the only one [of the SC] objecting on cause, which may or may not have been influence by financial interests. I believe Russia objected on principle, desperately clinging to superpower status of bygone years.

  I was simply quoting the people who were in charge of these types of decisions.
  
  It wasn't a matter of national security. Iraq showed no interest nor were they capable of attacking the US or our interests. And the argument that he was harboring Al-Qaeda is bunk because he hated them.
• jmog

  There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 changed now only the Presidency of Bush II but his whole world view.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1298862 wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 changed now only the Presidency of Bush II but his whole world view.

  It certainly changed mine.