PDA

View Full Version : 2000 Presidential Debate - Bush on War


phlix
Apr 23rd, 2008, 12:45 PM
Here's Bush's stand in 2000 on the use of U.S. force around the world. It's an interesting read in hindsight.


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.

ConnieB
Apr 23rd, 2008, 10:29 PM
If I remember correct Bush did propose several increases for the military when he entered office and the congress voted them all down. Just as he did with Social Security, and they voted it down. Remember Congress is more powerful then our president and they do control things more then the public thinks. Right now, Congress is all about playing games/politics and not doing what is best for us as a country.

pinky
Apr 23rd, 2008, 11:05 PM
Unlike during certain impeachment proceedings about 10 years ago......

tiger_rascal
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:28 AM
:eek: :nc:

Annoyedlistner
Apr 24th, 2008, 11:33 AM
If I remember correct Bush did propose several increases for the military when he entered office and the congress voted them all down. Just as he did with Social Security, and they voted it down. Remember Congress is more powerful then our president and they do control things more then the public thinks. Right now, Congress is all about playing games/politics and not doing what is best for us as a country.

So you want to direct bush's problems to congress? Thats freakin typical. Lets not forget that he's had a republican and democratic controlled congress during his tenure, so it doesnt appear to me that congress has been the problem.

phlix
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:11 PM
Let me preface this by saying I love our military. Like any large group of people a certain percentage are bad apples. The best way to regulate this is with proper screening, good leadership by setting good examples and culling bad people as soon as they are detected. In many ways we are not doing this. This is a perfect example of how politicians are not held accountable for things they say when running for office.

The parts of Bush's response that stood out to me are

...whether or not the mission was clear...

Initially it was to remove WMD... later it became a mission to free the Iraqis... now it's to police the Iraq civil war.

whether or not there was an exit strategy

We have no exit strategy. The shiites and sunnis are not going to suddenly bury the hatchet. Look how long it took the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland to stop bombing each other.

...our forces were of high morale and high standing

Abu Ghraib comes to mind (once again a few bad apples, but they also had some bad instructions coming from intelligence officers and leadership near the top). Of course we also had a group of soldiers who raped a young girl and covered it up by killing her entire family. Another group forced some civilians to jump into the river and some drowned. Once again bad apples who had bad examples set by leaders who made comments like "It's fun to shoot people". We also had some bad apples shouting insults via megaphones in Arabic during the invasion like "Iraqi men are impotent... where are you... come and fight us".

...having trouble meeting recruiting goals...

I just heard we are now allowing felons including people convicted of sexual crimes to enter the military.

and well-equipped...

Remember when parents were sending their kids bullet-proof vests and soldiers were using scrap metal from junkyards to fortify their vehicles? I guess that could be blamed on congressional funding.

...we're overextended in too many places...

Yeah and now it's much worse.

He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders

No comment needed.

DoubleEdgeSword
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:32 PM
Excellent points, phlix.

tiger_rascal
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:08 PM
I agree with phlix, those are excellent points and those stood out to me too.