Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism

[Stray Pooch]

Congress urged regime change in 98, signed into law by Clinton. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine is more accurately the Clinton Doctrine.

Did we invade Iraq in 1998?   I was busy retiring from the Army so maybe I missed that.

Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?  If so, perhaps we CAN call that the Clinton doctrine.  But I am pretty confident that is not the case.

We invaded Iraq in 2004 based on the principles stated in the National Security Strategy of 2002 - not any resolution passed in 1998.

[BT]

Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?

It's not November 2008. Obama's blank slate is starting to look like the artwork of a three year old on an etch a sketch

[BT]

Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?

No but he did launch a ton of missiles aimed at Iraq.

On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

    Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

[Stray Pooch]

Are her favorables within points of Obamas in November 2008?

It's not November 2008. Obama's blank slate is starting to look like the artwork of a three year old on an etch a sketch

So if it is not 2008, which was an election year, and its not 2012 which will be an election year, why are we comparing an incumbent president with a non-candidate?   Things change in a season, much less in two to three years.  If Obama had the ratings in 2008 he has now, he would never have been nominated.  If Obama is Obysmall in 2012, there is always HRC.  Sarah Palin is riding high now, among conservatives.  It remains to be seen if she can win a national election.  So far she is 0-1.

[BT]

Since when do vp candidates win or lose elections?

[Stray Pooch]

Did Bill Clinton state that we could pre-emptively, unilaterally take action against any regime that harbored terrorists?

No but he did launch a ton of missiles aimed at Iraq.

Yes, I know.  Some people called this the "wagging the dog" IIRC but I never took it as such.  But that is not the reason why we invaded in 2004.  Bush ordered the invasion, not Clinton, and he did it based on intelligence from 2003-4 not 1998.  He did it based on (as you said) an authorization congress gave him in 2004, not 1998.  Nobody disputes that troubles with Iraq had been going on for over a decade.  But after the Storm we did not invade Iraq until Bush changed our strategy to the Bush Doctrine.  

[Stray Pooch]

Since when do vp candidates win or lose elections?

I define losing an election this way.

You run for office.

People vote for you.

More people vote for the other guy.



I define the Vice Presidency as an office - as designated above.


I am pretty certain Sarah Palin ran for Vice President in 2008.


I know for certain she isn't VP now.


I'm going to call that losing.  Your mileage may vary.

[BSB]

"The invasions of both Afghanistan AND Iraq were heralded as two fronts in one war, and they were both based on the Bush Doctrine"

Well, Iraq certainly, Afghanistan not realy IMO. I don't see any need to call up the Bush Doctrine in regards to Afghanistan. Our invasion of that country was in response to an attack on our mainland. Iraq, on the other hand was sold on the basis of it being a preemptive attack against a potential friend to Al Qaeda, and one with the ability to assist/greatly benefit terrorist organizations with men, material, scientific knowhow, WMD, and so forth.

[BT]

The authorization came in 2002 preceded by the resolution for regime change in 98, preceded with Saddams non compliance with the terms of the cease fire of the first gulf war and the subsequent placement of UN sanctions.

The first gulf war never ended, the second gulf war was the logical end.

You act like the Bush Doctrine was a major departure from the Clinton Administration. It wasn't.

[BT]

I define losing an election this way.

You run for office.

People vote for you.

More people vote for the other guy.

My ballot did not give me the choice to vote for Palin directly. It was either the McCain ticket or the Obama ticket or a third party ticket.

[Stray Pooch]

My ballot did not give me the choice to vote for Palin directly. It was either the McCain ticket or the Obama ticket or a third party ticket.

Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.  Nevertheless, I don't exactly remember so I won't dispute that point.  What I do know is that she ran and didn't win.  I think the rest is semantics.

[BT]

Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.

So you could have voted for McCain and Biden?

[Stray Pooch]

Actually, I believe mine did, though the candidates were listed together for clarity.

So you could have voted for McCain and Biden?

Theoretically, IIRC, but again I may be wrong.  Even if I had, I expect it might have invalidated the vote. 

This does not change the underlying premise, however, if McCain wins, Palin wins.  If McCain loses, Palin loses.  0-1.

[BT]

I've never considered giving the blame or the credit for a win or loss to anyone other than the head of the ticket.

I'm not sure if many people have.

[Stray Pooch]

I've never considered giving the blame or the credit for a win or loss to anyone other than the head of the ticket.

I'm not sure if many people have.

I'm not really talking about blame or credit - just the result.  Sarah was a choice - like any other running mate - designed to help the Prez candidate's chances.   It didn't work.  If the point of picking a running mate is not increasing the ticket's chances, then she really was just a cute-looking nothing.  And all that talk every election about the significance of the "first choice" a potential president makes is just so much talk.