6.29.2005

Bush Calls for Timetable......In Kosovo

I found this tad bit of info on Cranky Liberal's blog's comment section. Very interesting.

In 1999 Bush was calling for a timetable on the Kosovo conflict:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." George W. Bush-- Houston Chronicle on 4/5/99.

And then on 6/5/99:

“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it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” George W. Bush-- Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

For the record…

...I do not agree with setting a timetable for withdraw. I think it makes absolutely no sense to tell the insurgency that because you have kept up your fighting we will be pulling out in six months or nine months or one year, whatever. It makes no sense.

However, these quotes do demonstrate the hypocrisy with which Bush leads. Kosovo was a 78-day bombing campaign in which no American lives were lost during combat. To call for a timetable then would only suggest that by now, 27 months into a war, Iraq should not only have a timetable but a well-thought-out plan and strategy to achieve the goals of the plan. Iraq has none of that. As I have said before, we are merely managing chaos. The hypocrisy is appalling.

Bush White House Press Release 6/24/05:

"It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're--you're conceding too much to the enemy."

I guess we can add this to the list of questions to ask the president but will never be able to get an answer because he thinks he is ordained by God and should not be questioned.

For Bush, the real war is against anything the neocons consider "liberal." Not against those responsible for 9/11 (bin Laden) and the thousands of lives lost. But, to Bush those who disagree with his handling of Iraq are grouped in the same breath with those responsible for 9/11. It's an abhorent way to do politics.

It is evident from Bush's speech last night that the Republicans have every intention of politicizing 9/11 for their own personal gain. Desparately trying to link 9/11 to Iraq exhibits just how low and really just how wrong Bush is willing to be in order to swarm up some form of support for his blunder.

The American public is no longer believing the Saddam connection to 9/11. Bush you have lied one too many times. Instead of trying to convince Americans that Saddam has a link to 9/11, Bush should have used his speech to define what victory in Iraq will be and how we are going to achieve that goal, or at least give us some sort of sense that some planning is taking place. All we got was that we are staying the same course that created all the chaos and bloodshed in the first place and that we should only give more and more and more.

The speech to me was almost as if Bush was questioning everyone's patriotism. According to Bush, any military campaign should have a timetable and an exit strategy. Why doesn't this one? We all should demand answers.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Leaving aside the hypocrasy and our president's own failure to lay out for us a good victory strategy I'd just to say, in his own defense, that out national security interest and consequently, the need to win,is much higher in Iraq than it ever was in Kosovo.

We might have been embarrassed if our administration decided to cut and run, but the stakes were much lower. Compare that to the political turmoil in the Middle East and the fact that Iraq is strategically placed between two terrorist-sponsoring states.

CaliValleyGirl said...

That's wild.

Reminds me of that Daily Show clip, "Bush vs. Bush".

If you haven't already seen it:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/jon_stewart/index.jhtml

It's hysterical.

Chris said...

Heretic, I see your point and I have to disagree.

The Kosovo Conflict was just as important as the Iraq war. For starters, Kosovo lay smack-dab in the middle of the beginnings of WWI. The Balkans historically have been known to spread conflict throughout all of Europe and the world. I disagree that the stakes were much lower. To stop Milosovich and the genocide taking place, was to learn the mistakes of history. If the stakes were much lower in '99, they would have been so much greater in '01. To wait any longer would have been a mistake.

Compare that to the political turmoil in Europe and their inability to prevent war, much less limit it, in their own back yard and the fact that the Balkans are strategically located between the Muslim and Christian world, and it was the Christian's doing the terrorizing this time in which we were there to liberate the Muslims.

The bombing campaign of Kosovo was just as important as today's conflict. Stopping the spread of war in Europe must be considered vital to America. Our efforts to save Europe were as great then as they ever were.

Remember, though, I think we have to remain in Iraq for quite some time. We broke Iraq, now we have to fix it. We are still in Kosovo. We should be in Iraq for quite some time. But first we have to stop the insurgency.

If Bush called for a timetable on day 10 of Kosovo, where should we be now in Iraq?

The GTL™ said...

Very interesting indeed, MJ. Good read, bro...

Cooper said...

I’m not so sure Kosovo was not more important to us as a nation than Iraq. Iraq is definitely more important to the current administration.

I realize we can not leave, we have to support the troops that are there and we have to stop the insurgency. We, after all caused the insurgency.

I think a “plan” for stopping the insurgency would be nice.

I have to say listening to the timetables that have been thrown around, ten years , six years…etc. I have to wince.

Sminklemeyer said...

Wow, who'd a thunk it. We're way deeper in Iraq than we ever dreamed of in Kosovo. But both places are pretty f#cked up. We are so lucky to be Americans! Happy Independence Day everybody!

frstlymil said...

Ah, but the same rules do not apply to the swaggering former cokehead with the permanent smirk....oh deary me, that was neither kind, nor productive was it....there is a great break down of the problematic nature of Bush's speech at FactCheck.org....

NewsBlog 5000 said...

Even I think it's a little harsh to call him a coc... oh, a cokehead, nevermind.

carla said...

Thanks for visiting PK today. :)

I find it disingenuous of Bush to demand a timetable for Kosovo and claim we can't have one for Iraq.

Whether or not one believes Kosovo is as weighty is really irrelevant. Either we have timetables or we don't. It's either necessary to know when we'll be leaving or it isn't..for either conflict/geography.

That said, the stakes in Iraq are not nearly what they are in Afghanistan. Unfortunately instead of concentrating in that region..we spread ourselves into Iraq. And we may get to the point where we have to make a choice between the two nations. I fear we will not make the right one.

Chris said...

CVG, I think you are just trying to get me to watch The Daily Show. Those are dirty games you are playing ;)

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ Carla.

We cannot have our troops make the ultimate sacrifice in vain. Some wars are more important to win than others and the likelihood of winning some wars better for some than others. Iraq is between two terrorist-sponsoring states - one in close proximity to Israel and the Palestinian territories and one that may be on the way to obtaining nuclear weapons and it is close to our oil-producing strategic partners in the Middle East.

We don't want to cut and run there, but I would be less worried if we failed in Kosovo. That's a regional dispute over territory that would not blow over into a regional crisis. The Russians have lost the Ukraine have already been pushed further back east, the Europeans are fairly united against any sort of conflict among its Europen Union members, and the remnants of the former Yugoslav Republic are too wbeak to have imperialistic ambitions of their own.

I don't mean to be so cold-hearted (or maybe I do) but ethnic genocide is not reason enough to go to war. Mass murder is a part of warfare when people of different religious, racial, or ethnic affiliations fight for power in a country they are forced to live side by side in. One group will try to subdue the other and that is a fact of life.

We can't solve all of the world's problems. If the leaders and those of the favored group were less greedy and allowed the minorities some authomy autonomy, and if the religious establishments in these communities weren't so picky and arrogant about the religious beliefs of the dissenters, there wouldn't be this ethnic strife in the first place, but that is a decision that the people themselves must ultimately reach on their own.