Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority' [View all]Chathamization
(1,638 posts)118. Bush brings up Iraq number of times, and again, being tougher was one of the main differences he was
pushing.
Here:
(Gore had mentioned him previously, Bush mentions him while talking about the Middle East)
BUSH: ...and that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resolute in your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends.
Later, after being asked if there's any difference policy-wise between himself and Gore, Bush bring up being tougher on Iraq:
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?
BUSH: I do.
Here he's asked about the sanctions, and mentions again that he wants them to be tougher. Then segues into how it was a good thing to join the bombing of Serbia and that Congress shouldn't have limited the president's military options:
MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?
BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher.
MODERATOR: Let's go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?
BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom took hold in that part of the world, but there's a lot of work left to be done, however.
Not isolationist stuff. Sure, Bush says we should be prudent, and so does Gore (see his remarks on Somalia); that's pretty much boilerplate stuff.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I am sure it is.....outwardly we are being told that they are just part of the terrorism we have
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2014
#2
I like that somewhat better than '...Beware the fury of a patient man.' ~ John Dryden.
freshwest
Sep 2014
#65
A lot of their funding is coming from ransom paid for the release of prisioners.
Thinkingabout
Sep 2014
#40
Attacking Saudi Arabia (which I presume is what you meant) would be the worst thing the US could do
YoungDemCA
Sep 2014
#103
I take her seriously. She has a lot of credibility with me, so if she's worried,
TwilightGardener
Sep 2014
#9
Yah, I remember hearing the same thing 12 years ago. The more things change... N/T
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#20
Of course, "this time the threat is unmistakably real" is said every time. Keep in mind that this
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#27
What gets called ISIS is an assortment of armed Sunni groups, a small minority of whom seem to be in
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#64
I haven’t really found one source that’s good. If I had to choose one I’d probably choose Wikipedia,
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#110
In terms of the threat to the US and its interests--why is Boko Haram worse?
TwilightGardener
Sep 2014
#49
You are aware that ISIS is taking in oil revenue, as it controls oil fields?
TwilightGardener
Sep 2014
#58
what vital US interests are threatened by ISIS? (sincere question: I am trying to get more informed)
Vattel
Sep 2014
#75
Allies in the region, oil, military bases and assets, diplomatic personnel, American
TwilightGardener
Sep 2014
#89
They could try to attack us, but I am still not seeing any potential military threat.
Vattel
Sep 2014
#94
Three areas of concern: Iraq itself, where we do bear some responsibility for their
TwilightGardener
Sep 2014
#95
This may be why we have no war criminals. If we did then we would be totally responsible...
L0oniX
Sep 2014
#112
Looks like Warren wants more NSA surveillance against Americans traveling abroad.
Cali_Democrat
Sep 2014
#12
at least now I hope people realize how foolhardy it was to back the Syrian opposition and try to
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2014
#15
the funding issue of ISIS is a bit complicated as this BBC article points out
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2014
#23
I would that all tyrants be disposed - but in some cases - particularly in the Middle East
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2014
#81
If you'd heard the screams coming out of one of Assad's police stations, you might think differently
shaayecanaan
Sep 2014
#87
Yeah, she's very good on some issues and I'm glad she's in the senate, but I wish people would
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#35
Eh, not really. Bush said that we needed a stronger military and should get tougher on Iraq. He was
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#91
I’m not sure how anyone could view Bush’s stance as “cautious isolationist”
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#109
Bush brings up Iraq number of times, and again, being tougher was one of the main differences he was
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#118
Bush mentions Iraq and Hussein each twice. Gore mentions Hussein three times, Lehrer once.
ucrdem
Sep 2014
#119
it actually makes me like her more... even though she seemed to be making it up as she went along
wyldwolf
Sep 2014
#28
p.s. Who thinks Warren is different from Obama and Clinton? if so on what exactly?
randys1
Sep 2014
#31
No, we really don't. Saddam and his regime were saying they werent a threat and didnt have WMD.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#117
So we can throw another trillion at the military industrial complex for another stalemate?
Initech
Sep 2014
#34
"ISIS is only a threat to some distant oil exploration and exploitation outposts..."
oberliner
Sep 2014
#98
Gee, for someone who is "absolutely, positively, no-way no-how running"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#69
My wife (who is not political) saw Elizabeth Warren this week on Letterman and said
B Calm
Sep 2014
#74