2000 Presidential Election Debate

[Diplomat]

From the 2000 Presidential Election Debate:

LEHRER: New question.

How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.


Discuss.


-Diplomat

[Dynasty]

In the autumn of 1941, a signifcant majority of Americans believed that we should not be involved in the wars being fought overseas by other nations.

Events change people's opinions. Good Presidents are willing to change too rather than cling to old ideas.

[andyfox]

FDR felt that the essence of good leadership was to try things, rather than settle for things as they are. If what you try doesn't work, though, he suggested trying something else, rather than clinging to the failed first idea.

[paland]

The leadership of the USA is a very terrible regime. It will go down in history as a very black mark on this nation. The shame of it all.

I can honestly say this about the top of the Bush Administration. "What a bunch of retards!"

[jdl22]

They always argue that he was saying this before September 11 and that everything has changed now but I disagree. What he was saying was actually good imo and it even works with the idea that terrorists want to kill us all. If only he could follow his own advice (actually it's fairly unlikely that he came up with these lines).

To me this is the most interesting line:

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...

[Diplomat]

That's the line that struck me as being the oddest as well. That, and the nation-building stuff.

-Diplomat

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Events change people's opinions. Good Presidents are willing to change too rather than cling to old ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, except that the idea for invading Iraq and building a democracy there wasn't formulated post 9-11 in the administration. That was the justification for the current foreign policy, not the trigger for a new set of ideas.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
FDR felt that the essence of good leadership was to try things, rather than settle for things as they are. If what you try doesn't work, though, he suggested trying something else, rather than clinging to the failed first idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure we're all glad that FDR didn't decide the war against either Germany or Japan was a failure after after some catastrophic loss of American life.

We're probably also almost as glad that Truman didn't decided the Marshall Plan was a failure after it failed to achieve immediate results.

Why are people so impatient about Iraq? Did you expect it to be completely peaceful and an economic juggernaut in just one year?

[elwoodblues]

I don't know, why were we so impatient with the UN weapons inspectors?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, why were we so impatient with the UN weapons inspectors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Patience wears out after twelve years.