Original Message: ----------------- From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"
>> Bush wasn't interested in nation building....both his statements and his >> actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of >> effort.....before 9-11. >The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who, >in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan >Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney? I'll answer this one quickly because it is a point that can easily be adressed with a few quotes. With all due respect, Doug, I think you are getting old like I am and forgot who was on which side in the debate over withrawing from the Balkins. :-) The following website states the two positions quote well: <quote of position 1> Some foreign policy experts argue that peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions are an appropriate use of American military power in pursuit of U.S. interests abroad. Resources unique to the military should be harnessed in support of international efforts to resolve humanitarian crises and in UN or alliance peace operations. They emphasize that the U.S. should provide international leadership in preventing and or ending violence, using military power as necessary to do so. <end quote> <quote of position 2> Other national security experts assert that peacekeeping operations distract the military from its principal mission, which is to defend U.S. territory and the physical security of its citizens, and to promote American interests abroad. They point out that the use of military forces must be limited in order for the military to remain prepared for strategic combat missions and major regional conflicts. It is also critical for the U.S. military to be active in collective defense arrangements with important allies in areas such as Europe and Asia. The unique demands of peacekeeping erode the military's war-fighting capacity and leave it unprepared to defend security interests. <end quote> The first position, working with our allies in Europe was the position advocated by Powell. The second position, was Rumsfeld's and Cheney's. We can see that from other websites. For Powell's position, we have: http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2001-June/001868.html <quote> Stay with your words. I was impressed with the very clear message Colin Powell conveyed to other ministers and me both in Skopje and Budapest: the United States will maintain its presence in southeast Europe. It?s a very good message, with certain political weight. Such a message has put an end to all gossiping. <end quote> Joe Biden, nicely summarized Rumsfeld's position in a Senate speech against it, given at: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229872&&; <quote> Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take strong issue with remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as summarized in the Washington Post on May 18 and subsequently reproduced in their entirety on the paper's website, that he is ``pushing'' to pull U.S. troops out of Bosnia. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, ``the military job [in Bosnia] was done three or four years ago.'' <end quote> In addition, Powell actually was winning this arguement. He lost most of the arguements with Rumsfeld and Cheney, but did win some. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
