posted on January 18, 2004 01:13:40 PM new
WHAT DOES THE GOP'S PLATFORM TELL US ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN THE WAR ON TERROR AND POSSIBLE PLANS THEY HAD TO INVADE IRAQ LONG BEFORE 9/11?
by John S. Ashton
JANUARY 18, 2004 – “The duties of our day are different. But the values of our nation do not change. Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power — or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness. This is the strong heart of America. And this will be the spirit of my administration.” — then-Governor George W. Bush.
Yes, there are lots of winners in the GOP's stated platform, such as the above quote which kicks off the foreign policy section. You wonder how people came to support President Bush and the GOP, look at what they promised - and what their platform, to this very day, still states.
Look at this charge they leveled against the Clinton administration, as stated in their current platform:
"The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration’s diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries."
Let me repeat, this is the Republican Party platform as it stands today talking supposedly about the Clinton administration.
The Platform talks about the state of the union that they were taking over, and it seems, despite all their criticism, that in reality they thought Clinton was leaving America in a great position in the world:
"The Twenty-First Century opens with unique promise for the United States. Democratic values are celebrated on every continent. The productivity and ingenuity of American business are the envy of the world. American innovation is leading the way in the information age. New technology speeds an exchange of ideas that often bear the mark of American inspiration. No other great power challenges American international preeminence. There is every reason for Americans to be extraordinarily optimistic about their future."
Wow, quite a compliment - not quite the horrible state they now try to claim Clinton handed the nation over in. And not quite the state President Bush and the Republicans have the nation in now, huh? This statement alone speaks volumes to what state they actually inherited the nation in, even as they try to bash the Clinton legacy now.
They then go on to make their claim about how, if we elected George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, they would run things:
"Our generation of Americans with its allies and friends can build a different and better world..."
Different? Yes. Better? Hmm...
"...promoting U.S. interests and principles, avoiding the economic convulsions and perilous conflicts that so scarred the century just past. Through a distinctly American internationalism, a new Republican president will build public support for a new strategy that can lead the United States of America toward a more peaceful and prosperous world for us, our children, and future generations. Almost all Americans know they cannot prosper alone in the world. They know that America is safest when ... more and more nations join the United States in an emerging fellowship of freedom."
Wow, these GOP'ers claim maintaining our allies and friends is the most important thing we can do, and if we do this, there will be no big "economic convulsions," like a recession or anything, and no military conflicts. Great, lots of allies, no recession, no military conflicts. I might vote for these guys myself!
The Bush/Limbaughians often act as if Clinton was a foreign policy slacker and that is why 9/11 happened. Let's look at what they outlined as the top threats to the nation foreign-policywise in their platform - the platform they still use this very day.
"The ballistic missile threat to the United States has been persistently dismissed, delaying for years the day when America will have the capability to defend itself against this growing danger."
Right, not exactly talking about dirty bombs or terrorism, but states acquiring ballistic missiles - as in, "Let us build our expensive missile shield, please." No, nothing about Osama or terrorism so far. They continue:
"An initiative to establish free trade throughout the Americas has stalled because of (Clinton's) lack of Presidential leadership."
Ok, three years into Bush's time in office and still no agreement. In fact, relations with Latin America have deteriorated drastically and the possibility of any such agreement are farther off than ever. So, as they put it, I guess we must chalk this up to a "lack of Presidential leadership" on President Bush's part.
And still nothing about Osama or terrorism. Hmm. I'm sure their getting to it, since they're the ones, as they like to insinuate, who would never let Osama run around plotting 9/11 as slacker Clinton and the Democrats did.
"The problems of Mexico have been ignored, as our indispensable neighbor to the south struggled with too little American help to deal with its formidable challenges."
Ok, again not Osama, and again something that is only worse now since President Bush took office. In fact, Clinton helped Mexico a lot, even bailing them out when their currency crashed - against the GOP's whining and crying complaints. While President Bush has... well... started fingerprinting every Mexican who would even visit America as if they were felons.
What other threats do they say we should focus on?
"With weak and wavering policies toward Russia, the (Clinton) administration has diverted its gaze from corruption at the top of the Russian government..."
Russia has now started, for the first time since the Cold War ended, to build new nukes, and has rolled back human rights and democratic policies drastically - while the Bush administration simply says, "Ok, Putin, do what you will." (see President Bush's Naive Foreign Policy Allows Putin To Play Him And Set The Stage For The Second Coming Of The USSR , our story on Russia's current state.)
Wait, they have more to say about Russia, talking about "the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in Chechnya":
"A chorus of empty threats destroyed America’s credibility in the Balkans, so that promised safe havens became killing fields."
Well, if Clinton was guilty of making empty threats, that's still one step better than what President Bush has done - which is simply say, again, "Do as you wish, Putin, I'm too afraid and have weakened America's hand too drastically to even consider standing up to you about anything."
So what's next on the GOP's current foreign policy platform? What horrible situation did they - and do they - promise they will remedy?
"The (Clinton) administration prolonged the war in Kosovo by publicly limiting America’s military options."
Wait a second, the war in Kosovo was too long? They are criticizing the length of that conflict which saw no Americans killed in conflict, lasted a couple of months, and accomplished its mission soundly? Wow, if they say they'll do better than that, I might vote for these guys a second time (can I get two votes?)
"A generation of American efforts to slow proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has unraveled as first India and Pakistan set off their nuclear bombs..."
And President Bush has done what about this since taking office? Oh yeah, said to Pakistan, "Keep all the nukes you want, we are your buddy now."
Still nothing about Osama or terrorism.
They, instead, then go on ranting about Somalia, complaining about how President Clinton undertook:
"(a) humanitarian intervention that escalated thoughtlessly into nation-building at the cost of the lives of courageous Americans."
Thank God President Bush and the Republicans would never get us stuck doing anything like trying to set up a nation, and certainly never cost any "courageous American lives" in the process. They would never have 500+ Americans killed trying to set up a Democracy or to save the people of a nation from brutal circumstances. Great, how can I contribute to these guys!
Now here is something related to the War on Terrorism at last. The GOP party platform Bush ran on - and which they still use today - assails Clinton/Gore for not being foresighted enough. The Bush/Limbaughians assail the Democrats for not handling first Somalia, then Haiti better - yes, massively important situations, and accuse Clinton of:
"Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises..."
Somalia, Haiti. The GOP assailed Clinton for being asleep at the wheel and letting these situations develop. That's great the GOP swears they will be so on the ball! That means for certain they would never do anything like reacting belatedly to the threat Osama and terrorism posed. Bush and the GOP tell us they would never let that happen
Wait, we left out the rest of that sentence. They actually assail Clinton for something more:
"Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises, the administration constantly enlarges the reach of its rhetoric..."
Great, if, by some rare chance, President Bush and the GOP are caught asleep at the wheel and let something like, say, 9/11 happen, only "reacting belatedly to inevitable crises," I am glad that we can rest assure that they would never respond by "constantly enlarg(ing) the reach of (their) rhetoric," making a whole Axis of Evil or something, expanding the scope of their belated response to make it seem like they weren't caught asleep at the wheel, as they accused Clinton/Gore of doing.
They assailed Vice President Gore for doing just this, as they assail in their platform:
"Vice President Gore’s "new security agenda" that adds disease, climate, and all the world’s ethnic or religious conflicts to an undiminished set of existing American responsibilities. If there is some limit to candidate Gore’s new agenda for America as global social worker, he has yet to define it. It is time for America to regain its focus."
Good, if we vote GOP we will never get involved in saving, say, the people of Iraq from their leader or dealing with issues that religious conflicts, such as the conflicts that exist with the Muslim world, are presenting. Gore was just all over the place, huh? Good, these GOP'ers will put an end to paying attention Muslim-related conflicts - you know, all those "ethnic or religious conflicts" Gore was going to get us focused on dealing with because, as they claim, he and Clinton were "reacting belatedly" to the horrible, massive Haiti conflict. (Hmm, I had thought that wasn't such a big thing as 9/11 - my bad, I guess.)
So come on, they've got to get to Osama and terrorism soon. I mean, they're the heroes in the War on Terror, Clinton and Gore were the ones who let it happen, somehow. They have to have mentioned it somewhere in their platform - it should have been right at the top really, if they were so on top of it, unlike Clinton, as they claim. But we'll cut them a break. Yet it has to be in here somewhere, right, something about terrorism?
"A Republican president will identify and pursue vital American national interests... Republicans know what it takes to accomplish this: robust military forces, strong alliances, expanding trade, and resolute diplomacy.
Great, again they say they know "strong alliances" and "resolute diplomacy" are "what it takes" to "secure the peace." Thank goodness they won't be "arrogant" isolationists like they say Clinton was.
"The current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies.
Thank goodness they would never never send our armed forces out without "clear goals" and a "defined exit strategy." They then say:
"(The) American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment."
Our military must be so happy to know President Bush and the Republicans would never increase the "operational requirements" of the military, running them "ragged" or wearing them out. They must be elated President Bush will use them much less than those horrible over-military-users Clinton and Gore did.
Osama... Osama... no, don't see anything yet. But how about this doozy, nailing Clinton for:
"Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions (which) rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment..."
Yes, Clinton really overworked the military. Great to know the GOP and President Bush, in their party's very platform, swear they would never do this.
Osama... Osama...
"The nation is failing to fulfill its ethical, and legal health care obligations to those that are serving or have honorably served in the Armed Forces of the United States."
I won't even bother to comment on Bush's record with this one, it's so obviously pathetic.
Osama... Osama...
"We believe the military must no longer be the object of social experiments... We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."
Is that maybe code for, "We know Osama and terrorism are big threats and will deal with them if elected?" Maybe! Or maybe it's just them focusing on hating gays instead of Osama. I don't want to rush to any conclusions though.
"The U.S. military under the leadership of a Republican President and a Republican Congress will focus on its most demanding task..."
Wait, maybe this is it at last - dealing with terrorism?
"...fighting and winning in combat."
Darn. Wait, finally, here it is! They did talk about preparing for George W. Bush's version of the War on Terrorism:
"The maintenance and expansion of our national cemeteries is a solemn duty; a Republican administration will attend to it."
Too well.
The GOP platform then states:
"The American people cannot be content with the current unemployment rate of recently separated veterans."
No, it must be higher, and the GOP will attend to this, too! Next complaint/promise in this GOP wonder-work:
"In 1991, the United States invited the Soviet Union to join it in removing tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals. Huge reductions were achieved in a matter of months, quickly making the world much safer. Under a Republican president, Russia will again be invited to do the same with respect to strategic nuclear weapons."
Or, as actually is the case, not only did President Bush refuse to fund the program to dismantle the Russian nukes, but, as we reported in the story on Russia mentioned above, he has led the Russians to actually start producing more nukes. Almost like reducing Russia's nuclear arsenal, except, well, the opposite.
Finally, at last, something about WMD's and terrorism. No, for real this time:
"A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies — and should seek the cooperation of Russia and China — in developing realistic strategies using political, economic, and military instruments to deter and defeat the proliferation efforts of others."
Well, either that or we should ignore the situation once we get into office and flip the bird to our friends and allies once we're caught with our pants down. Either way, I guess.
Now we are really into their plan to deal with terrorism. Check this out:
"We need to address threats from both rogue states and terrorist groups — whether delivered by missile, aircraft..."
What was that?
"...aircraft..."
Hold on a second. Didn't Condalezza Rice, maybe on a date like May 16, 2002, say:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
Weird. I guess she just never read the Republican Party platform. I guess no one in the party did, not President Bush, not her. I mean, she doesn't "think anybody could have predicted" something like "threats from... terrorist groups... delivered by... aircraft." Nobody. Except for her party's very platform laid out well before 9/11.
"The weak leadership and neglect of the (Clinton) administration have allowed America’s intelligence capabilities... to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation surprises such as Iraq’s renewed chemical and biological weapons programs..."
You mean the one they didn't have? How could Clinton have missed that?
But yes, funny, not a word about Osama or Al Qaeda, but someone familiar to us all now was mentioned:
"Token air strikes against Iraq could not long mask the collapse of an inspection regime that had — until then — at least kept an ambitious, murderous tyrant from acquiring additional nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."
No, he wasn't planning on attacking Iraq with something more than just "token air strikes" well before 9/11... heck, even well before he was elected. Couldn't be.
"When, in late 1998, the administration decided to take military action, it did too little, too late."
No, they weren't already thinking about doing more, years before 9/11, were they? But, just in case maybe they were, what exactly were they "not" planning on doing?
"A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein..."
Oh good. At least if we do the thing they are supposedly not already planning, we will be "patient" and work with the "international" community.
"We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq."
Are they really sure they are not planning something, something more than just "token air strikes," something bigger that will lead to the "removal of Saddam Hussein," even, as they say, prior to the "restoration of international inspections?" Are they certain? Because it sounds a bit like they were bent on taking Saddam out. Maybe I am just reading too much into them clearly saying Saddam must either be removed from power or he must be removed from power using something more than just "token air strikes."
Ah, at last, they truly deal with "Terrorism." This is the meat we have been waiting for. Osama, Al Qeada, Afghanistan, something good. Let's see what they had to say:
"Republicans endorse the four principles of U.S. counterterrorism policy... First, we will make no concessions to terrorists.
Ok, I don't recall them ever giving any cigarettes to Osama or anything - nothing but the weapons, cash, and training they gave him throughout the 1980's. The continue:
"Second, we will isolate, pressure, and punish the state sponsors of terrorism. Third, we will bring individual terrorists to justice. Past and potential terrorists will know that America will never stop hunting them. Fourth, we will provide assistance to other governments combating terrorism. Fighting international terrorism requires international collaboration. Once again, allies matter."
Great, when President Bush gets into office he knows he has to go after state sponsors of terror, like Afghanistan, punish past terrorists, like Osama, and realize how important it is to work with allies. Well, either that or he will do nothing that the platform promised he would while Osama bakes up and carries out a plan to take out the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon. And then, afterwards, when he does finally begin to act - too late - he will do it while thumbing his nose at our allies who he said "matter" so much.
Well, I guess that's it for their foreign policy platform. Crazy, I didn't notice a single reference to Osama or Al Qaeda or Afghanistan or the Taliban. When they talk about terrorism there is lots of talk about Saddam. They also talk about Iran, North Korea. But, for some odd reason, no Osama or Afghanistan. Weird. Almost seems like they were going to come into office and completely fail to deal with Osama and Al Qaeda - or even acknowledge their existence in any way - and instead focus on finding a way to get the world to let them send something more than "token air strikes" Saddam's way.
Oh well. I'm sure if we look more closely at the other parts of their foreign policy platform we will find more consistency. I'm certain there will be nothing like them saying...
"Tariffs should be cut further."
...and then coming into office and doing something like raising steel tariffs. Well, that actually is in their platform and what they did. But for sure there will be nothing like them saying...
"The next Republican president will pay serious and sustained attention to the American neighborhood... He will work with key democracies like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and — above all — Mexico... guided by the principles of... regard for the variety of peoples and cultures that make up the Western Hemisphere."
...and then deciding to book people from each of these nations as if they were all criminals, with fingerprinting and mugshots, while exempting white people from white people countries from having to do this. No, that... well, that's in there, too. But they certainly wouldn't say:
"The United States needs its European allies to help with key regional security problems as they arise, since America also has global responsibilities...
...and then, once elected, say, "Our Europeans allies are irrelevant." Well, they did that, too.
I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to wonder a little bit about this GOP and the validity of the claims they make in their platform.
