Bush on "Timetables"

[The Decider]

What a difference eight years makes.....

“I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command...I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Republican Presidential Candidate, George W. Bush, 1999


June 5, 1999
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Clinton War Policies Draw Barrage of GOP Criticism
Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service

Washington - Most of the Republican presidential contenders continued a rolling drumbeat of criticism against President Clinton’s policies in Kosovo even after the NATO air war produced an apparent peace deal this week.

Before the Yugoslavian Parliament’s vote accepting the Western alliance’s demand for the withdrawal of all Serbian troops from Kosovo, Republicans called White House military policies an “insane war” and the “result of a series of blunders.”

There were few signs of back pedaling yesterday.

“I say thank God it’s over,” television commentator Patrick Buchanan said. “We have killed 2,000 innocent civilians in Serbia. There are a million refugees that did not exist 12 weeks ago. Clinton may spin this as a political victory, but this is a disaster for everyone who’s been involved in it.”

Buchanan focused much of his recent campaign speeches on Kosovo, which he termed an “illegal and unconstitutional war” because it was not authorized by Congress. He repeatedly said he is “unalterably opposed” to NATO air attacks.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle also was unrelenting in his opposition. “A more feckless policy is hard to imagine,” he said last month. Quayle said yesterday that the settlement with Belgrade “could have been secured months ago” if Clinton had been more flexible in accepting a peacekeeping force under United Nations command.

“The Clinton administration squandered substantial resources and, far more importantly, our nation’s credibility in the pursuit of matters wholly unrelated to America’s vital national security interests. It was a terrible mistake that has established a troubling precedent,” Quayle said.

The two frontrunners in the crowded GOP field, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and former Transportation and Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, had generally supported the use of American warplanes in Yugoslavia. But they found cause for concern with the apparent conditions of the impending peace.

"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command,” Bush said Thursday. “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load...”

Think Progress » FLASHBACK: In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable (Full Texts)

[bishop]

pelosi laid that out quite well today, after bush decided to veto the spending bill.

at this point, the democratic base needs to really step things up and tell their party leaders how they feel. it's now a choice between continuing to fund/support this war and choosing to cut off the funding and end our involvement in this debacle. if the base doesn't push their case hard enough, they're most likely going to cave in to bush.

[The Decider]

Quote by: bishop pelosi laid that out quite well today, after bush decided to veto the spending bill. at this point, the democratic base needs to really step things up and tell their party leaders how they feel. it's now a choice between continuing to fund/support this war and choosing to cut off the funding and end our involvement in this debacle. if the base doesn't push their case hard enough, they're most likely going to cave in to bush.

I saw the Pelosi outtake on CNN too...it was effective, I agree.

However, even if every Democrat voted to defund the war now, it wouldn't survive another Bush veto. The votes just aren't there yet for a veto-proof "super-majority." The next best thing are non -binding "benchmarks" and frequent budget votes. As the war continues to deteriorate, every budget approval becomes riskier for Republicans as the election year approaches. Votes and deadlines will keep Bush busy throughout this year into next. The Republicans, not the Democrats, will be the ones to ultimately pressure Bush to make further concessions.

This squeeze strategy worked well during Watergate. Although the Democrats controlled Congress, they didn't want to begin a divisive impeachment of Nixon. They held hearings and votes all during the summer of 1974 until the Republicans themselves marched up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and told Nixon that they were abandoning him.

The Democrats have no other choices except for refusing to vote for any war money and letting the military starve financially in Iraq. Bush and his cronies would love to brand the Democrats as "hurting the military." That strategy wont' happen.

[Slevin57]

I would put it in the category of political mistake. It only distances people out there who think politicians are full of sh*t.

I said the other day, If this second war in Iraq had been a democratic induced war, the republicans would be doing a 180.

It's not about truth and it's not about justice. It's about politics.

[bishop]

the war itself was all politics, rather than a genuine desire to protect the country from wmd's or terrorism..

i could care less if the motivation amongst politicians to end the war is to score political points. the ends justify the means as far as i'm concerned.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Slevin57 I would put it in the category of political mistake. It only distances people out there who think politicians are full of sh*t. I said the other day, If this second war in Iraq had been a democratic induced war, the republicans would be doing a 180. It's not about truth and it's not about justice. It's about politics.

Your theory needs work. Most Democratic politicians supported the first Gulf War, as they do the current war in Afghanistan.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: The Decider Your theory needs work. Most Democratic politicians supported the first Gulf War, as they do the current war in Afghanistan.

I beg to differ...

Almost every republican voted for the First Persian Gulf War. Two-thirds of House Democrats and forty-five of fifty-six Democratic senators cast negative votes.

The few Democratic senators voting for war (Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman) provided the necessary margin..

President Clinton did not need congressional authorization for Operation Desert Fox because it wasn't considered a "war". But you can bet most republicans were against it.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Slevin57 I beg to differ... Almost every republican voted for the First Persian Gulf War. Two-thirds of House Democrats and forty-five of fifty-six Democratic senators cast negative votes. The few Democratic senators voting for war (Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman) provided the necessary margin.

You're right about the House vote, but a majority of Democratic senators supported the war in the Senate. In any case, once the war started, most of the opposition evaporated. The war had UN approval and a large coalition of allies.

And, of course, you forgot about the Afghanistan War which still enjoys Democratic support. We could add the Vietnam and Korean Wars to the list also.

Your theory has holes in it.

[Slevin57]

Communism was received much differently in America than Terrorism. I wouldn't put Vietnam and Korea in the same category as my theory.

The Afghanistan war was supported by them all because it was our official response to 9/11.

I thought it was pretty obvious wars are going to get the support of both Democrats and Republicans if the war is considered successful by the American people.

The Gulf War.. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52-47 vote, like I said.

After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a report came out that said a hospital worker reported seeing Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor. This story was later revealed to be a hoax, BUT this pushed congress to vote for the war. I believe 6 senators even said that this event alone caused them to vote for it.

Once the war became successful, they had no problem saying they were for the war, despite having voted against it.

In either case, my example is of a war where opposition is split. I hear the phrase "along party lines" alot. My theory applies during these party lines vote. If everyone supports it...there is not a possibility of a 180.

The Persian Gulf War Resolution

The Persian Gulf War Resolution January 12, 1991 {The following resolution, House Joint Resolution 77, was adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 250 to 183. The Senate approved the measure (originally introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 2) by a vote of 52 to 47.}

US UK France Iraq Kuwait War 1990-1991
Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision ... - Google Book Search
AMERICAN FUTURE » Blog Archive » Kerry on the Gulf War (1990-1991)

[Century 25]

I believe this country will sink further into chaos.. neither party is going to stave off our decline.. the only chance would be if we had a vote by popular consensus.. and that is not in the realm of possibility.. too bad..

[xyzer]

Decider..I'm scratching my head over this one?

"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command,” Bush said Thursday. “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load...”

What possible connection does a statement about the use of US troops under a UN commanded operation, have with the US led(commanded) invasion and expulsion of Saddam Hussein? Bush was talking about using our troops under UN commanders and rightly said we would have to know how long and how they would be used? Time frames mean different things to different people?

Consider the source for this nonsensical attempt to somehow tie the president to something he said years back,before he was president, about a completly different operation that has since ensued? Is it not wierd?

[xyzer]

slevin57..Interesting aside evident from your post of the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress..

Whereas, Iraq’s conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace;

Does not this indicate that those who voted Yes on this resolution lied to the country about WMD? Or is it just more convenient to use Bush as the punching bag? Obviously the Congress beleived the same intelligence as the administration and our president. Saddam had WMD!!!!!