T Nation

Hillary: Dems Better at War

[quote]Hillary: Kosovo Shows Dems Better at Prosecuting Wars

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday that Democrats have historically been more successful waging American wars than Republicans, boasting that during the Kosovo war launched by her husband in 1999, “we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

“I resent it when Republicans say that they’re better on national defense,” the top Democrat told CNN “Late Edition” host Wolf Blitzer. “It was Democratic presidents who prosecuted the wars that were successful in this past century.”

“I am a strong proponent of a national defense that is smart,” Clinton insisted, warming to her role as head of the Democratic Party’s GOP Convention “Truth Squad.”

“What we need to be focused on is which president is more likely to make decisions that will achieve our objective with putting the least amount of lives at risk,” she told CNN, before adding, “You know, we were successful in Kosovo - and we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

Clinton offered the boast after Blitzer asked whether the more than 900 U.S. troops killed so far in Iraq had “died in vain.”[/quote]

There are strong indications that the Bush admin is gearing up for an attack on Iran by the end of April. However, if that doesn’t occur - don’t give up - we can always rely on the Democrats to take us to war!

Well, they can’t be any worse than the all bluster and no brains republicans. However, the real question is whether or not they’ll actually wage a war, isn’t it?

Saying Hilary speaks for the whole left, or even a majority of democrats in this nation is as accurate as saying Bush Jr. is a true conservative, and that his opinions reflect all of the GOP.

Therefore, let me be the first to say:

Hilary Clinton, in this instant, is being an idiot. Both of the modern parties as we’ve seen them in the past decade have only really existed for about 30 years. Her example proves nothing.

However, I will say this:

Bush + Rummy fail at war.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, they can’t be any worse than the all bluster and no brains republicans. However, the real question is whether or not they’ll actually wage a war, isn’t it?[/quote]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what Kerry or Gore would of done with 9/11.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
vroom wrote:
Well, they can’t be any worse than the all bluster and no brains republicans. However, the real question is whether or not they’ll actually wage a war, isn’t it?

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what Kerry or Gore would of done with 9/11.[/quote]

Treated it as a matter for law enforcement. Just like Clinton did when they attacked the WTC the first time.

The Taliban would still be in charge in Afghanistan.

Saddam would be in charge in Iraq.

AQ probably would have hit us again.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Treated it as a matter for law enforcement. Just like Clinton did when they attacked the WTC the first time.

The Taliban would still be in charge in Afghanistan.

Saddam would be in charge in Iraq.

AQ probably would have hit us again.[/quote]

I’m not sure it is fair to say that. 9/11 was a pretty significant eye opener to just about the entire world.

I suspect Afghanistan would still have been hit, but perhaps the wisdom to stay out of Iraq would have been present.

I really don’t see anything having been accomplished in Iraq, yet. For now, it’s simply a temporizing move, which may or may not have been necessary. It has a lot of potential to turn out badly or, hopefully, to turn out well. Though the path to well is not very visible at the moment.

Assuming of course you don’t consider the current costs and losses “bad”.

[quote]nominal Prospect wrote:
Hillary: Kosovo Shows Dems Better at Prosecuting Wars

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday that Democrats have historically been more successful waging American wars than Republicans, boasting that during the Kosovo war launched by her husband in 1999, “we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

“I resent it when Republicans say that they’re better on national defense,” the top Democrat told CNN “Late Edition” host Wolf Blitzer. “It was Democratic presidents who prosecuted the wars that were successful in this past century.”

“I am a strong proponent of a national defense that is smart,” Clinton insisted, warming to her role as head of the Democratic Party’s GOP Convention “Truth Squad.”

“What we need to be focused on is which president is more likely to make decisions that will achieve our objective with putting the least amount of lives at risk,” she told CNN, before adding, “You know, we were successful in Kosovo - and we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

Clinton offered the boast after Blitzer asked whether the more than 900 U.S. troops killed so far in Iraq had “died in vain.”

There are strong indications that the Bush admin is gearing up for an attack on Iran by the end of April. However, if that doesn’t occur - don’t give up - we can always rely on the Democrats to take us to war![/quote]

nm,

Which democrats is she referring to?

If we are talking FDR democrats, she might have a point.

The current democratic party is full of misfits and malcontents. The majority owe their position to being born with a name that isn’t “George W. Bush.”

They are hardly worth mentioning.

The only person on this forum who thinks the democrats are doing well in Congress, is bradley/lumpy/100meters and his code pink buddies.

Everyone else expected this disaster.

If war with iran is looming in 2008, it his highly unlikely that the country would turn to a modern democrat.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
nominal Prospect wrote:
Hillary: Kosovo Shows Dems Better at Prosecuting Wars

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday that Democrats have historically been more successful waging American wars than Republicans, boasting that during the Kosovo war launched by her husband in 1999, “we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

“I resent it when Republicans say that they’re better on national defense,” the top Democrat told CNN “Late Edition” host Wolf Blitzer. “It was Democratic presidents who prosecuted the wars that were successful in this past century.”

“I am a strong proponent of a national defense that is smart,” Clinton insisted, warming to her role as head of the Democratic Party’s GOP Convention “Truth Squad.”

“What we need to be focused on is which president is more likely to make decisions that will achieve our objective with putting the least amount of lives at risk,” she told CNN, before adding, “You know, we were successful in Kosovo - and we didn’t lose a single American military person.”

Clinton offered the boast after Blitzer asked whether the more than 900 U.S. troops killed so far in Iraq had “died in vain.”

There are strong indications that the Bush admin is gearing up for an attack on Iran by the end of April. However, if that doesn’t occur - don’t give up - we can always rely on the Democrats to take us to war!

nm,

Which democrats is she referring to?

If we are talking FDR democrats, she might have a point.

The current democratic party is full of misfits and malcontents. The majority owe their position to being born with a name that isn’t “George W. Bush.”

They are hardly worth mentioning.

The only person on this forum who thinks the democrats are doing well in Congress, is bradley/lumpy/100meters and his code pink buddies.

Everyone else expected this disaster.

If war with iran is looming in 2008, it his highly unlikely that the country would turn to a modern democrat.

JeffR
[/quote]

Because the modern republicans did an oh-so amazing job with the Iraq war! Everyone just loved it. The American people would just love to have another Bush look a like do the Iran war as well…

[quote]beowolf wrote:

Because the modern republicans did an oh-so amazing job with the Iraq war! Everyone just loved it. The American people would just love to have another Bush look a like do the Iran war as well…[/quote]

beowolf,

Would you do me a favor and walk me through your emotions and your thought processes as you typed this response.

I’d appreciate a timeline.

Did you notice that you weren’t addressing the topic in any substantive way?

Did you notice that you didn’t refute my premise that modern dems are a joke of epic proportions?

Was your mind able to conceive that comparing a looming iranian war to the Iraq War is problematic from a democratic supporter’s standpoint? Since no one is talking invasion of iran, major combat operations are the most likely scenario.

When one looks at the major combat operations component of the Iraq War, it’s planning and execution were nearly flawless.

The Republican Administration deserves applause for the Major Combat Operations.

Further, when your boogeyman, George Bush is gone and Rudy is President, the “I’m not George Bush card” can’t be played.

If the pitiful dems are going to build on any “momentum” from 2006, they are going to have to come up with a reason why Americans should trust them on national security.

Setting withdrawal deadlines in the middle of a major offensive, is not going to instill confidence in anyone except our enemies.

JeffR

I actually don’t think the republicans are that bad at war. I like Colin Powells doctrine of using overwhelming force during the Gulf War.

I read some of Tommy Franks autobiogrpahy and I think the strategy to overthrow the Taliban worked brilliantly. Most of the ground fighting was done by other Afghans and the U.S. supported them from the air and with special forces.

But as soon as that was over they should have sent 100000 U.S. troops to guard the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan but instead those troops went to Iraq.

What I don’t get is why they didn’t use the same strategy to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq instead of invading outright. That way the Iraqis might have felt that they themselves overthrew Saddam and there might not be so much resistance.

I don’t think a Democrat administration would have done anything differently as far as Afghanistan was concerned because Tommy Franks would have still been in charge of CentCom but they probably wouldn’t have attacked Iraq and those 100000 troops would have been sent to Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from comming back. This is just my opinion though.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

Because the modern republicans did an oh-so amazing job with the Iraq war! Everyone just loved it. The American people would just love to have another Bush look a like do the Iran war as well…

beowolf,

Would you do me a favor and walk me through your emotions and your thought processes as you typed this response.

I’d appreciate a timeline.

Did you notice that you weren’t addressing the topic in any substantive way?

Did you notice that you didn’t refute my premise that modern dems are a joke of epic proportions?

Was your mind able to conceive that comparing a looming iranian war to the Iraq War is problematic from a democratic supporter’s standpoint? Since no one is talking invasion of iran, major combat operations are the most likely scenario.

When one looks at the major combat operations component of the Iraq War, it’s planning and execution were nearly flawless.

The Republican Administration deserves applause for the Major Combat Operations.
[/quote]

Huh? We’re talking about the world’s lone superpower, which spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined, taking on the forces of a Third World military that had lost two wars in the previous twenty years, was crippled by sanctions, and was using obsolete Soviet weapons (read up on the tank battles from either Iraq war sometime).

If you want to get excited about that, while minimizing the fact that the administration had no plan for “Phase IV,” then you’re pretty detached from reality.

Agree with you on that last sentence, although I’m not that optimistic about the surge doing anything long-term.

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
I actually don’t think the republicans are that bad at war. I like Colin Powells doctrine of using overwhelming force during the Gulf War.

I read some of Tommy Franks autobiogrpahy and I think the strategy to overthrow the Taliban worked brilliantly. Most of the ground fighting was done by other Afghans and the U.S. supported them from the air and with special forces.

But as soon as that was over they should have sent 100000 U.S. troops to guard the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan but instead those troops went to Iraq.

What I don’t get is why they didn’t use the same strategy to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq instead of invading outright. That way the Iraqis might have felt that they themselves overthrew Saddam and there might not be so much resistance.
[/quote]

Because those forces didn’t exist. Afghanistan was in the throes of a civil war, albeit one the Taliban was winning. Iraq had no viable opposition to Saddam, aside from the Kurds, and he proved he could handle them with ease in 1995. They tried arming Chalabi’s supporters, it was a complete joke. I think “Cobra II” discusses it.

And Tommy Franks was a complete idiot. He checked out after Baghdad was taken, tried to go on a vacation with his wife in the beginning of the occupation, was completely unconcerned about the possibility of an insurgency. He deserves as much blame as a lot of the civilians.

[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
Huh? We’re talking about the world’s lone superpower, which spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined, taking on the forces of a Third World military that had lost two wars in the previous twenty years, was crippled by sanctions, and was using obsolete Soviet weapons (read up on the tank battles from either Iraq war sometime).[/quote]

Hey, gdol.

I recall Afghanistan and the soviet union. I remember a similar on paper difference. Quite a different result, if I recall.

Oh, the fact that you don’t give them credit for a flawless campaign just highlights the fact that you vote straight democrat. (circa 2006)

If I was detached from reality, I certainly wouldn’t look to you for guidance. A guy who votes straight democrat and comes on here trying to say he’s an “independent” is the one who needs to be looking into the source of the “voices.”

Oh, they had a plan for rebuilding Iraq. You may not like it, it may have been flawed, but, there was a plan.

You may be correct. However, it CERTAINLY doesn’t help when the democrats are waving the white flag during the offensive.

If I were lixy and his pals, I’d keep trying to convince the sympathetic (bradley/tme/pox etc…) and just simply wait it out.

JeffR

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
I actually don’t think the republicans are that bad at war. I like Colin Powells doctrine of using overwhelming force during the Gulf War.

I read some of Tommy Franks autobiogrpahy and I think the strategy to overthrow the Taliban worked brilliantly. Most of the ground fighting was done by other Afghans and the U.S. supported them from the air and with special forces.

But as soon as that was over they should have sent 100000 U.S. troops to guard the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan but instead those troops went to Iraq.[/quote]

This was when the administration stopped listening to smart people and starting going in their own direction…

Colin Powell and Tommy Franks would not have botched things up in this way. Shoot, Colin should have run for president before the administration ruined his reputation.

Perhaps (apparently) removing that option from his future doesn’t bother them very much?

One thing I don’t get about the invasion of Iraq. Why the hell didn’t they secure Anbar province from the very beginning? That area was teeming with Sunni insurgents. And they came from Syria and Jordan by just walking across the border. That’s how Zarqawi entered Iraq.

!YVAN EHT NIOJ

I don’t know if Dems are generally better at War than Republicans as a whole, but a lot of people will agree that the Bush administration has really screwed up in Iraq with mismanagement and incompetence.

Also, I don’t see how Bushies can claim they are good at national defense, when Bush was in charge on 911, and they couldn’t pull their thumbs out of their own asses in time to do anything.

A person couldn’t fail any worse, than these people failed America on 911.

And then Bush drags us into a quagmire in Iraq, using lies to sell the war to the public.

So how is that possibly “good on national defense”??? They fuckin’ suck on national defense!!! They’re terrible!!!

The only thing Vice President Bush and President Cheney have done successfully, is give tax cuts to the rich, and that’s just payback for their campaign contributors. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a really smart deal they have going… just donate 10 or 20 thousand dollars, and you might get yourself a 100 thousand dollar tax cut. That’s a great return on your investment!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, they can’t be any worse than the all bluster and no brains republicans. However, the real question is whether or not they’ll actually wage a war, isn’t it?[/quote]

No vroom, it really isn’t. It never has been.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Which democrats is she referring to?
[/quote]
How about the ones who bombed Serbia in 1999? Were you asleep when that happened? I clearly remember reading Freerepublic at the time and the conservative base was absolutely up in arms at Clinton’s unprovoked aggression in the Balkans. It was a big topic online, not so much in the MSM.

Antiwar.com, the site that you dismiss as “liberal propaganda” whenever I link it, was created at that time to expose the lies of the Clinton war machine. Irony.

And it’s true that Dems have been responsible for the majority of America’s overseas conflicts. The very concept of “humanitarian intervention” used by both parties to justify war comes straight from the progressive movement on the left that took hold after WWI.

Amazing how little people know.
Amazing how anyone thinks the mainstream left is truly “anti-war”.

Silly neocons. Just wait until a democratic admin gets its own 9/11. Of course, you would complain about a democratic admin regardless of what happened.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

Because the modern republicans did an oh-so amazing job with the Iraq war! Everyone just loved it. The American people would just love to have another Bush look a like do the Iran war as well…

beowolf,

Would you do me a favor and walk me through your emotions and your thought processes as you typed this response.

I’d appreciate a timeline.

Did you notice that you weren’t addressing the topic in any substantive way?

Did you notice that you didn’t refute my premise that modern dems are a joke of epic proportions?

Was your mind able to conceive that comparing a looming iranian war to the Iraq War is problematic from a democratic supporter’s standpoint? Since no one is talking invasion of iran, major combat operations are the most likely scenario.

When one looks at the major combat operations component of the Iraq War, it’s planning and execution were nearly flawless.

The Republican Administration deserves applause for the Major Combat Operations.

Further, when your boogeyman, George Bush is gone and Rudy is President, the “I’m not George Bush card” can’t be played.

If the pitiful dems are going to build on any “momentum” from 2006, they are going to have to come up with a reason why Americans should trust them on national security.

Setting withdrawal deadlines in the middle of a major offensive, is not going to instill confidence in anyone except our enemies.

JeffR

[/quote]
I was simply pointing out that Iraq has been the biggest military fiasco in US history. Dems and the GOP don’t suck at war and don’t rock at it either. It’s a matter of circumstance, militaristic planning, and the actual people DOING the planning. Neither party as a whole is any better at security than the other.

Admit Bush fucked up big time, right now. He lied to get us in the war. He didn’t plan the post-war. He lost the war. Who gives a shit if the first couple of weeks went really great? It’s not too hard to topple a dictator when your the major military power int he world. They did some good their, but not nearly enough to make up for the complete lack of post-war planning.

Neither party has a a single good idea what to do about this war. Thats because it’s a goddamn stupid war, and we never should have gone in the first place. I don’t know what we should do now, all I know is what we’ve been doing so far hasn’t exactly worked the way we thought it would. That means change is needed.

Last but not least to address the topic:

Hillary is a politician. If Bush said the GOP was better at war, he’d be equally as stupid in saying so.