Following is the list of W's accomplishments

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Well, here's something he accomplished. He managed to convince Blair to con his people as well. Here's a UK memo: (just skim through and read the bold, if you must.) Maybe our very own 'Englishman' can let us know what he thinks.


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

? As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005

[emphasis added]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes regarding the document's validity:

"The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents..."

? Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel,
Newsday, May 9, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity..."

? Bush asked to explain UK war memo,
CNN, May 12, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i know you both get as big a thrill getting on bush as dtb gets by taking jabs at clinton, but it's much too early to grade either presidency.....especially bush's.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Any comments on the leaked memo, Al?

Particularly the 'but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy.'

Kinda similar to what a lot of us have been saying all along.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
It's not the first or even 20th legitimate source I've seen with the same accusation of intelligince manipulation to suit Bush's needs.

But I've yet to see any Bush people concede the possibility of it. Why in such denial?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
O/U on the minutes before Freeze posts that(misleading) list of Democrats' partial quotes apparently showing them supporting the notion that Saddam was dangerous.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Don't have much time and list is long do you want since presidency or during life. Would you also like character traits as well?

I might add the liberals toll for Clinton so far is factual accomplishments he is responsible for in his administration.
Welfare Reform
Somolia
Positive characters traits todate--0
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Dogs, please post those outstanding character traits. The best I can come up with is that he is a many times failed business man.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Excuse me I meant Bosnia not Somolia---and on him balancing budget have yet to get factual reason other than he was accountant. What did "he" do to balance budget??
I can tell you what GW did to turn it into a deficit. He he had huge expenditure after 911,funded 2 wars and foolishly in my opinion reformed Medicare which will be a continuing escalating drain. The character traits, later Stevie-one thing at a time.
Maybe you have time to post Bill's till I get to that topic :)

will start with the war or wars should I say.1st a little backround on terrorism. Islamic fundalist had been gaining strength at beginning of Bush Sr term and was allowed to grow into world wide network peaking in Clintons watch--allowed to train openly and unabated.The took down planes-embassies-ships and even made 1st attempt on twin towers with no deterence but threats.Gaining confidence all along with coup de grace or running with tail between legs after Somolia.However will not put all the blame on Bill far worse in my opinion prior to showing the world we would do nothing--we lost the trust of any country that wanted no part of these terrorist. I am on DJV side -- Bush Sr and Swartzkoft were the biggest transgressors of trust in history.
When you give your word and pull out as your allies are slaugtered you not only give boost to terrorist but much worse you destroy confidence of allies.
so 911 and the war.
Bush in his speech that followed stated what was apparent for years (and yes his intial year also where he did little)--terrorism was a world wide threat and the time to stop it was now.
He pointed out the transgressors (axis of evil,term I hate) and said it was war and those that were not with us were against us.
While just coming off 911 and majority of people very angry he was back by most the country even New York--but as time went by the press and people were not as angry and war not as popular but he has stuck to his guns not flip floping once.
The beginning--The war in Afgan was a masterpiece in stratgies taking less time to occupy capital then it took to take Waco compound on our soil.
Two years later a democracy--women voting and holding office--girls being allowed to go to school.Most the Taliban destroyed--no open terrorist training camps---no retreat!
Iraq--Many question reasons.
Bottom line there wouldn't have been war if Saddam would have complied with resolutions--even after he refused he was offered another way to avert war--he and sons leave country.
Why would a person and his sons who know they can not possibly win war still thumb there noses? They didn't think there would be a war--as we are finding out about U.N. payoffs--French payoffs--they thought they had bought off any chance of "their" allies allowing that to happen. WRONG--GW stuck to his guns and said we don't need France and U.N. permission.
The shock and awe was far greater to U.N and France than any in Iraq. Justice, as now they are exposed for their oil for food deterence for not enforcing any resolutions.Now whether you think war was just is ones opinion--The result--Saadam and Sons out--democracy in-U.N. and France exposed--but more importantly we gained trust that we will follow through on commitment not pull out when some start whining and other politicians flip flop.
Now some will argue this had no effect on terrorism but ask Lybia if they thought we finally had someone in office that would walk the walk--and not just talk the talk.How many terrorist had been captured and prosecuted in Saudi-Pakistan-Yemen (the once terrorist hotbed) before GW made his statement "if your not with us your against" and then started proving his point.
and while I can't give him credit for Israel/Palestine (unless he put hit on Arrafat) there has been a fever of democracy worldwide of late.
So for the war on terror I give him an A on the facts that 2 countries once run by brutal regimes are now democracies.Where previously terrorist could train opening in either and Lybia and Pakistan and Suadi and Yemen--they can do so no more.
-and maybe their fatal mistake is they have become so desperate they are now tarketing their fellow Muslums--thats NOT winning any support from fellow Muslims. The true colors are beginning to show.
Now we have NK Iran and Syria to cope with.
NK Pending but I like what I see--at least we are no longer paying them to develop weapons.They keep saying as before pay us and we'll stop--GW says we don't pay people to be good--suffer the consequences--and most importantly has not budged--and am not sure NK peope will starve 3 more years or Kim can wait till next election and hope for someone "More Generous and gullible."

If I have stated something that isn't fact let me know and I'll amend it.
 

SALTY DOG

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 3, 2003
370
2
0
71
19th hole
I guess one accomplishment would be the 2004
election....since I don't cut and paste, would
someone please cut and paste the red and blue
states INCLUDING THE COUNTIES....some of
you have a short dick...I mean memory... :mj07:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I know the tax cut is starting to hurt bad. Were going broke. For sure when they add in 204 billion for Iraq witch is still not over. And for some reason they don't like to count it in the budget.So lets try and screw S/S to make up for it. Great gas prices. Milk to.
Health care reaches new highs about every 6 months. Stock market still below what was handed to him. He may end up only president with a 8 year loss in the market. He's 5 for 5 already.
Borders so screwed up average Joes had to man it to help stop the flow. It's like he can only think about Iraq, His brother,and the Rich. Oh yes his other cause S S. I know it's not in any big trouble right now like medicare is but can't tell 43 that.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I guess he did fix two elections so he should get credit for that I guess. :shrug: And when the country is under possible attack and his wife is being evacuated from the White House he is so important they let him ride his bike and don't disturb him. But I dunno if that is an accomplishment or not?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
helped clean up steroids in baseball. i genuinely appreciate that. i like baseball again! not a major issue, but something that was tackled well imo.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
OK DJV We'll take ecomomics next.Have a hard time with this one becuase as I stated previously I can't think of much a pres or his administration has to do with economics--however there is one I can point to and not a plus in my opinion and that was Medicare reform--an escalating expense that was not necessary ESPECIALLY in light of other expenses (cost of war).
Overall I think econmy is in great shape considering all the events that have occurred--thanks to the reslience of free enterprise.

and a bit on why I think a pres or administration has little to do with economy and events that occur dictate it and DJV and others per his--
"He may end up only president with a 8 year loss in the market"

would like you to believe that Clinton created the economy and not the dot.com bubble or burst. Maybe they can explain why after the bust at the end of his tenure the market dropped over 2000 points from Sept to Oct 2000 just prior to Bush taking over.Yep hit below 10,000(9,975) on 10-18-00. Odd how most equate this drop to Bush's tenure.

as for Bushes tax cut--while most tax "payers" liked it I will say considering the events taking place it was timing was questionable.

Economy grade will be below average solely for his medicare bill.
I would give Bill nod for welfare reform but give the house and senate an A+ for nixing the gov ran health care which would have been HUGE disaster.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The health care problem might have been problem only for insurance companies who did dot want to take part. The American people being able to get care at fair prices would not have any problem. Believe market was above 10100 by January 1 2001.
If you think insurance companies selling $800 a month premiums with $1500 yearly deducts and $15 office co pays is fair. I don't. I see record profits at many insurance companies. At those prices I wonder why. Heck there are folks that pay less for there house a month.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Funny how the President never has anything to with the economy according to Republicans...well that's because EVERY time one of them is in office it goes to shit.

Yeah, I would want to distance my ass from that record too.

I would also like to point out that President Slappy Jack has a majority ( a "mandate" according to him ) and still I just don't see anything going on to improve America's infrastructure or economic competivenness.

But hey, Haliburton is doing great!
 

SALTY DOG

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 3, 2003
370
2
0
71
19th hole
It's damn near funny how the two completely
polarized factions of this board can be broke
down by who believes the glass is half full and
who believes the glass is half empty....I have
always been and will always be a positive mental
atitude person and am happy to wake in the
morning and face the day...I thank GOD the
glass is half full.... :clap:
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I'm thirsty. ...dammit, now my glass is only 1/4 full! ....ahh, or is it 3/4 empty? :)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top