Iraq - and the 2000 presidential debates.

Taking into account my last post on the fact that Iraq was on the table in the first meetings this administration had when coming into power - perhaps a look back at the 2000 election campaign might be in order, starting with the debates.

Here's one exchange, in the first Gore-Bush debate :

BUSH: Well, I'm pleased with the results of the election. As the vice president said, it's time for the man to go. It means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO. That's why it's important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on Mr. Milosevic. But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well. Be a wonderful time for the Russians to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic that it's in his best interest and his country's best interest. The Russians have sway in that part of the world. We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. It's an encouraging election. It's time for the man to leave.

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

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

MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?

BUSH: No.

MODERATOR: Why not?

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

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

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals.

Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.

- October 3, 2000

The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

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

Yet a few months later, as shown above, the president is doing EXACTLY what he said he wasn't going to do. He's starting to plan to attack Iraq.

That implies :

- nation building

- destroying alliances (as was the case)

- no clear mission going in (the initial mission was against a threat that wasn't there)

- no exit strategy ( we still don't have one, three years into the war)

The result ? Even more problems with morale, and recruitment - and an overextended military.

He also said this that night :

BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so.

Who has divided the nation more, who has made decisions without 'basing them on solid principles" ?

Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won't pay any tax at all. It's a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own.

Are the wealthiest Americans now paying more tax ? They actually received a huge reduction in this latest budget - and in a recession, and in a government that is in fact larger than it was under Clinton.

Perhaps we should now apply this part of the Bush doctrine, as he expressed it in that first debate :

BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote.

Now onto the second debate:

BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.

BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But --

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

October 11, 2000

The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is.

Your question was deployment.

It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world.

See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.

The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world.

Again, months later - he's completely changed his tune. US troops are being considered not to be peacekeepers, but to engage in an all out war to invade Iraq. Insufficient amounts of troops will be used, and lack essential equipment to portect themselves - like body armour and armoured vehicles.

The result will be a lot of men injured and killed, in a rush to war.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What would you make -- what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis?

BUSH: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well. To build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.

October 17, 2000

The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html

There is no mention of any impending war on Iraq, and actually that answer seems to negate the idea totally.

Now let's move on to the last debate, between the Vice-Presidential candidates. Here we start to see the path being laid out, a far different one than the President has previously spoken about in regards to the Middle East.

In fact, it's almost a polar opposite - strange as it seems.

CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions, and an inspection regime was in place under the U.N. and it was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, the work he had been doing that had not been destroyed during the war in biological and chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program.

Unfortunately now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and French are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and thumbing their nose at the international sanctions regime.

We're in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to -- to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America's armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?

CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors.

There may be occasion when it's appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars.

And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We've seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War.

At the same time we've seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he's now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We're overcommitted and underresourced.

This has had some other unfortunate effects.

I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in '95 getting ready to get out of the service because he's only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He's concerned if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost. It's a legitimate concern, the fact the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. It's a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them good leadership and build up the forces.

CHENEY: When we don't give them the spare parts they need, when we don't give our pilots the flying hours they need, when we don't give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let's them know why they're putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale. That's an extraordinarily valuable trust.

There is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than his role as Commander in Chief. When he decides when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that's old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties in the next conflict if we don't look to those basic problems now.

This administration has a bad track record in this regard, and it's available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk to our men and women in uniform, and wants to spend time with the members of the Joint Chiefs, wants to look at readiness levels and other -- other indicators.

Final point, the issue of procurement is very important because we're running now off the buildup of the investment we made during the Reagan years. As that equipment gets old, it has to be replaced. We've taken money out of the procurement budget to support other ventures. We have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military.

CHENEY: You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. Our imports are at an all-time record high. In June we imported almost 12 million barrels of oil a day. We have other problems. We don't have refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for ten years. They're operating at 96% or 97% capacity. Even with more crude available they're probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating oil. We have a growing problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. We ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction.

CHENEY: Partly because he didn't point the finger of blame looking for scapegoats he was quick to share the credit. He ended up, as a result of that activity, having the top Democrat in the state, Bob Bulloch, endorse George Bush for reelection.

It's possible to change the tone. It is possible to get people to work together and to begin to focus on achieving results.

I think it will take new leadership. I don't think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various groups for failings. I think you have to be able to reach out and work together and build coalitions. I think George W. Bush has done it in Texas and can do it at the national level.

October 5, 2000

The Lieberman-Cheney Vice Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html

These debates were a perfect opportunity to start to voice the need for intervention in Iraq, as we see Cheney slowly starting to in this last debate. The American voting public, in listening to these words, makes a choice to believe their words - and elect them to power.

The future president has told the American people he does not want to nation build. He's also intimated that negotiation is better than warfare.

The second he is elected - it all changes overnight.

The first meetings held discuss war,and oil. Cheney's viewpoint is magnified, and Bush's disappears. Nothing in Iraq changes in those few months between the debates, and that first meeting of the administration. No mention is really made of any serious threat from Iraq during the election, and the debates. Yet suddenly, war is on the table the minute they get elected into power, as shown in those FOIA documents.

The American voter was deceived,never stood a chance, and was given a completely wrong picture of what was to come at the end of the first term in office. The plans for that started the first day they met, and go against everything that was presented to the American people in the election campaign - and in the debates.