America's Debate > Democrats on Iraq-hypocritical?

Google

Sponsored Links

Cube Jockey

Dec 20 2005, 06:28 AM

1.)Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?

These quotes don't really prove much of anything, there are plenty of quotes that could be cited from notable Republicans stating that Iraq wasn't a threat, that it was contained, that they didn't have WMD, etc - many of them from the people currently running the war. In fact there are even several relevant quotes from Bush like his quote on having an exit strategy and how important it was.

What puts this to rest in my opinion is the fact that Congress does not have access to the same intelligence the President has - they have access to what they are given. This story from Knight Ridder has the details:

QUOTE

President Bush and top administration officials have access to a much broader ranger of intelligence reports than members of Congress do, a nonpartisan congressional research agency said in a report Thursday, raising questions about recent assertions by the president.

~snip~

The Congressional Research Service, by contrast, said: "The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."

Unlike members of Congress, the president and his top officials also have the authority to ask U.S. intelligence agencies more extensively for follow-up information, the report said. "As a result, the president and his most senior advisers arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the ... intelligence more accurately than is Congress."

The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.

~snip~

"This report goes to show that members of Congress were not seeing the same picture as the administration," she said. "When the Senate voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, it was based on a more limited scope of prewar intelligence than was available to the administration."

~snip~

Knight Ridder also has reported that the Bush administration relied on information that wasn't shared with Congress, including bogus claims by Iraqi defectors supplied by a former Iraqi exile group.

So in short any claims that Congress had the same intelligence as the President are completely false because the system is setup so it wouldn't even be possible. That is true regardless of any of the quotes here would could have been taken out of context, made because it was the "popular" thing to say or some other reason.

2.)Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?
New information perhaps? Some of those quotes are as old as 1998, almost 8 years ago. Certainly a lot of new information has come to light since then and then of course there is the matter of people like Colin Powell, Rice and others saying as recently as 2000-2002 that Iraq didn't have weapons, that they'd be contained, etc.

3.)Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?
Who knows? They are politicians and they are going to do what their voters want them to do for the most part. So if those people who identify themselves as democrats, liberals, etc are against the war then it is inevitable that Democratic politicians are going to come around. If the pulse in mainstream America is anti-war then you are going to see politicians on both sides turning against it (which we have seen with greater frequency). That is just the reality of politics I'm afraid.

I don't believe there is a single principled politician in Washington, that kind of person could never get elected at that level. The Democrats are no different.

AuthorMusician

Dec 20 2005, 09:39 AM

1.)Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?

These prove that Saddam was being contained in past history through air attacks. No Democrat was pushing for invasion.

2.)Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?

Non-sequitur, as the first question does not establish a heart in the first place. Saddam was being contained. President Bush pushed for invasion with ground forces.

3.)Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?

The push for invasion was a surprise move, one that came fast and furious. It would be more appropriate to dig up quotes where Democrats state that invasion, or liberation if you will, was a necessary move. Once Congress voted the power to President Bush, he took the issue and ran with it, much to the amazement of many.

Are Republicans for the war only because a Republican is running it? I know quotes abound to support that notion, even from the 2000 campaign where President Bush dissed nation building. Why the change of heart?

Obviously, 9/11 changed everything. President Bush spooked, and here we are.

Paladin Elspeth

Dec 20 2005, 01:34 PM

The invasion of Iraq was George W. Bush's baby. The Republican platform of 2000 stated as one of its goals the removal of Saddam Hussein, and it was fortuitous for President Bush II to have the 9/11 attacks during his watch to incense the American people and bring about the acquiescence of some if not enraged determination to have revenge.

The invasion of Afghanistan made sense of the President's goal was to capture Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Iraq, however, was clearly a different story. Clearly George W. Bush had no plan to stand down the massive assault force if Saddam decided to let the weapons inspectors have free rein, his rhetoric to the contrary. The invasion was like date rape, the excuse being that the U.S. had gone too far already to stop what was going to happen.

So picture yourself in Congress. Here's the President who is claiming, on the basis of bogus intelligence (but you don't know that), that Saddam Hussein has the capability of attacking the United States and using nukes to do it. The country is still enraged over the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and the foiled attempt to bomb the White House. You have a feeling in your gut that the planned invasion of Iraq is something Bush wants to check off his "to do" list and that it might be off the subject of retaliating against those who attacked us (Remember the Saudi, not Iraqi, passports found in the rubble?), but you know that if you try to stand against the President you will be vilified, called a traitor, a supporter of the terrorists. You have been assured that the cost won't be that bad, considering Iraq's vast oil reserves. The war shouldn't take long considering the obvious supremacy of U.S., British, and other military forces. But the idea of war doesn't sit well with you somehow.

What's worse, many of these Democrats were bad-mouthing Saddam Hussein for some time. The dictator had been in disfavor since his attempt to annex Kuwait. Democrats had painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric, and now they were being called upon to back up their words.

It would have been nice to see more backbone among the Democrats in Congress who had reservations about giving the President carte blanche to wage undeclared war. It would have been courageous to insist that members of Congress retain the responsibility of declaring war against the enemy.

It was a rush to war. Delegating the power of declaring war to the Congress was intended to make the lawmakers take time to think out such a grave decision. But the buck was passed, and Bush was all too ready to accept it.

So are Democrats hypocritical about all this? Some are. But some aren't, and the responsibility for this Iraq experience rests squarely on George W. Bush's shoulders.

Ted

Dec 20 2005, 02:14 PM

QUOTE
Questions for debate:

1.)Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?

Absolutely. In fact we know that there were no inspectors in Iraq 1998-2002 because Iraq booted them and the Clinton Admin. Did squat after 3 days of bombing. We must remember that the inspectors only got back in because GWB put 50,000 troops on the Iraq border and pushed through a tough new UN Resolution (which Iraq ignored). Thus the available intel was virtually the same on WMD from 1998 (when so many Dems rushed to say how dangerous Iraq was) to 2002-03. And IMO history will tell us how “false” the info was. The fact that we did not find WMD does not mean they did not have them. Moveing them out of country would have been easy given that we had no agents in the a position to knowe when that was happening.

QUOTE

2.)Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?

Pure partisan politics. And we have to be fair and say that to some extent the Republicans would be doing some of this if Gore was President. IMO this is why so many of us distrust politicians.

QUOTE
3.)Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?

Of course and this is especially true with mid-term elections coming up and the Bush ratings down. The Dems will jump on anything they can twist to hurt the President. This is to be expected.

QUOTE

Iraq, however, was clearly a different story. Clearly George W. Bush had no plan to stand down the massive assault force if Saddam decided to let the weapons inspectors have free rein, his rhetoric to the contrary. The invasion was like date rape, the excuse being that the U.S. had gone too far already to stop what was going to happen

.

Well actually this is not the case Paladin. Bush would have "stood down" the second Iraq complied with 1441 The inspectors could have looked for years (as they had done before) and found nothing. What Iraq was required to do per UN 1441 was to bring out for destruction the WMD they admitted they produced or prove they had destroyed them. They never did either and thus you would think the UN would have wanted to move on them. But as we know today the UN was bought by Saddam and countries like France were NEVER going to authorize force against Iraq – in fact those morons lobbied in 1999 to have all sanction dropped! Knowing the UN would never move GWB put a time limit on the wait for cooperation and when that ran out he moved.

nebraska29

Dec 20 2005, 02:49 PM

Ted-I believe that others would argue that while the U.N. places ultimatums on nations, it is only the U.N. that enforces them, it isn't up to individual nations to act on behalf of the U.N. However, we digress.......

Yet another example of possible hypocrisy-Sen. Reid at Patriot Act signing. It's one thing to be against it from day one as say Bernie Sanders was or Barbara Lee. But to attend the signing, gleaming from ear to ear only to a few years later, celebrate that it went down in flames? What is up with that?

Lesly

Dec 20 2005, 02:56 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 09:14 AM)

Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?
In fact we know that there were no inspectors in Iraq 1998-2002 because Iraq booted them and the Clinton Admin. Did squat after 3 days of bombing. We must remember that the inspectors only got back in because GWB put 50,000 troops on the Iraq border and pushed through a tough new UN Resolution (which Iraq ignored). Thus the available intel was virtually the same on WMD from 1998 (when so many Dems rushed to say how dangerous Iraq was) to 2002-03.

This is almost the exact thing you said here and I debunked here in the Was Bush mislead by the intelligence? thread. I also stated Congress (Republicans and Democrats) did not have access to the same intelligence as the White House earlier in the same thread, which you did not refute.

I dislike participating in run-up-to-the-invasion threads because how often supporting the pretext for the invasion throw up exaggerations, misstatements, or just repeat falsehoods as if stating otherwise would magically sweep our military service members out of Iraq and bring them back to the U.S.

Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?
They realized the White House wasn’t forthcoming about the intelligence and lost confidence because the lack of post-invasion planning cost unnecessary lives.

Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?
I suspect this is part of the reason. Speaking for myself at this point I would have settled for any politician who could’ve knocked some sense into Bremmer. Presenting a unified front in Congress when it’s time to vote is politics. Presenting a unified front to shoot down every dissenting opinion pointing out weaknesses in the implementation stage of rebuilding Iraq is inexcusable.

aevans176

Dec 20 2005, 03:10 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Dec 20 2005, 07:34 AM)

It would have been nice to see more backbone among the Democrats in Congress who had reservations about giving the President carte blanche to wage undeclared war. It would have been courageous to insist that members of Congress retain the responsibility of declaring war against the enemy.

It was a rush to war. Delegating the power of declaring war to the Congress was intended to make the lawmakers take time to think out such a grave decision. But the buck was passed, and Bush was all too ready to accept it.

So are Democrats hypocritical about all this? Some are. But some aren't, and the responsibility for this Iraq experience rests squarely on George W. Bush's shoulders.

The reality is that the war was voted on based upon intelligence that Bush was given, faulty or not.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10461235/

I'm not a big W fan at all, but moreover because I'm a fiscal responsibility/capitalist Republican. However, the reality was that congress had all the time in the world to make responsible decisions if they felt like not enough/the improper evidence was presented.

However, going to war, at the time, was POLITICALLY PRUDENT!!!!The American population was behind it.

The funny thing is that many Republicans are asking what comes now?? What do we do about the war as it is today???

The answer is unequivocally YES. There are many Democrats that are being vastly hypocritical. However, they're politicians, and that's what's seemingly popular at the time with their voting base. What did you all really expect??? I hope you really didn't expect DNC super-stars to be pillars of moral rectitude... few politicians fit that bill on either side of the aisle...

Lesly

Dec 20 2005, 03:23 PM

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 20 2005, 10:10 AM)

However, going to war, at the time, was POLITICALLY PRUDENT!!!!The American population was behind it.

There are many Democrats that are being vastly hypocritical. However, they're politicians, and that's what's seemingly popular at the time with their voting base. What did you all really expect??? I hope you really didn't expect DNC super-stars to be pillars of moral rectitude... few politicians fit that bill on either side of the aisle...

How is the public backing the Congress in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion (I don’t think supporting the president = supporting an invasion) and politicians acting on the public’s support “prudent,” but politicians acting on the public’s waning support for an indefinite tour as part of the MNF translate into a lack of moral rectitude, no-Bush-fan?

Ted

Dec 20 2005, 03:41 PM

QUOTE

Lesley:

This is almost the exact thing you said here and I debunked here in the Was Bush mislead by the intelligence? thread. I also stated Congress (Republicans and Democrats) did not have access to the same intelligence as the White House earlier in the same thread, which you did not refute.

Debunked? You never addressed it. To say on the one hand the UN had the best intel and then on the other that some other source was the authority is ludicrous. And I used the word “illegally” because from DAY ONE in 1991 Iraq was required to bring out WMD and destroy them under UN supervision. This is why Blix called it illegal (not me).

I love the liberal mentality on the WMD subject. We can’t find it so it ‘may” have been destroyed is all that has been said. And if so you would think Iraq would have provided proof so that they could have avoided a war they could not win.

And if they were all done with WMD then what is Blix referring to here in this quote :

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
If you want to “debunk me” then take each statement by Blix I have posted and tell me that we knew it was incorrect and why. If they are “misstatements” SHOW ME WHERE. 5,000 liters of Anthrax is enough to kill everyone in the world 4 times or so.

Yes Blix wanted more time and IMO we should have given it to him although the result would have been the same. Saddam had ZERO incentive to destroy WMD he spent billions to acquire especially after 1998 when the inspectors were gone.

Google

Sponsored Links

Lesly

Dec 20 2005, 04:43 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 10:41 AM)

QUOTE

Lesly:

This is almost the exact thing you said here and I debunked here in the Was Bush mislead by the intelligence? thread. I also stated Congress (Republicans and Democrats) did not have access to the same intelligence as the White House earlier in the same thread, which you did not refute.

Debunked? You never addressed it. To say on the one hand the UN had the best intel and then on the other that some other source was the authority is ludicrous. And I used the word “illegally” because from DAY ONE in 1991 Iraq was required to bring out WMD and destroy them under UN supervision. This is why Blix called it illegal (not me).

The first question on this thread asks whether Congress was privy to the same intel Bush had. I made a reference to a report: Congress doesn’t see same intelligence as president. Please provide a source other than Bush and WHIG members (Carl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Andrew Card, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Rice, Hadley, Libby and Cheney) supporting your position that Congress was privy to the same intelligence.

What “other source” are you saying I said was the authority? If we were so concerned with Iraq legally dismantling its WMD capabilities we wouldn’t have interfered with the process by spying on them and later bombing said facilities.

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 10:41 AM)

I love the liberal mentality on the WMD subject. We can’t find it so it ‘may’ have been destroyed is all that has been said. And if so you would think Iraq would have provided proof so that they could have avoided a war they could not win.

It’s nice you love something about us but it doesn’t further debate. As I have stated, it’s rather difficult to generate a paper trail showing you’ve gotten rid of the evidence when a foreign country bombs it out of existence for you.

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 10:41 AM)

And if they were all done with WMD then what is Blix referring to here in this quote:

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

If you want to “debunk me” then take each statement by Blix I have posted and tell me that we knew it was incorrect and why. If they are “misstatements” SHOW ME WHERE. 5,000 liters of Anthrax is enough to kill everyone in the world 4 times or so.

Ted I will not “debunk” why Blix wanted more time for inspections. He would not have asked if he felt his research was thorough enough to conclude Iraq’s WMD capabilities one way or the other. You, on the other hand, don’t have any reservations about making conclusions Blix was not allowed to arrive at

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 10:41 AM)

Yes Blix wanted more time and IMO we should have given it to him although the result would have been the same.

Indeed. Iraq did not possess the bio/chem/nuclear abs, arms, and delivery systems to threaten its neighbors, let alone the U.S.

nebraska29

Dec 20 2005, 04:49 PM

I could see how the discussion of whether or not democrats and the president were on th same page when it came to intelligence has some bearing to this topic, though it is not exclusively what this thread is about. The quotes provided by me(and other links) deal with democrats who even before Bush assumed the presidency, were on board about getting Iraq and talking it up as a threat. Why have they now changed tune? I'm asking if this is not hypocritical given that what the president has stated in the past, is literally, no different than what Clinton stated before him.

Lesly

Dec 20 2005, 05:05 PM

QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 20 2005, 11:49 AM)

The quotes provided by me (and other links) deal with democrats who even before Bush assumed the presidency, were on board about getting Iraq and talking it up as a threat. Why have they now changed tune? I'm asking if this is not hypocritical given that what the president has stated in the past, is literally, no different than what Clinton stated before him.

From what I know I can only attribute this to saber-rattling following the highs and lows of available intelligence reports coming from our agents and defectors. Otherwise, how do you explain one administration puffing up like a peacock in front of the mic and another administration denying Saddam posed a threat before 9/11? If we relied on intelligence to initiate wars I think we would earn international contempt.

moif

Dec 20 2005, 05:32 PM

1.)Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?

Yes, I think fair to admit that so many people agreed with the course of action GW Bush took earlier on. I know I did, though this was mostly because I thought Tony Blair was at least partly credible when he made his 45 minute claim.

2.)Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?

Because they are obliged to? After all, their job is to provide an alternative to GW Bush...

3.)Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?

I'm not a democrat but I guess I might be if I were an American. Considering that I was willing to believe Tony Blair and not GW Bush making the case for war, then I can't deny that a lot of democrats might just be influenced by the fact that GW Bush is president... but I think its also safe to say that if a more presidential republican were president then perhaps he'd get more support.

I can't help thinking that a man (or woman for that matter) who showed maybe just a few more leadership qualities than GW Bush has done, might just get more support in the face of diversity. Supporting GW Bush feels like supporting a spoiled brat who throws a tantrum when ever he doesn't get what he wants.

After all, all things considered, the war in Iraq is not a failure. GW Bush just manages to makes it appear so.

Being completely objective though, I have to admit that the low body count of coalition troops after 2 years of conflict as well as the continued existence of voting is rather impressive.

I can't help think that the US failure in Iraq is really an abject failure of leadership.

edited for spelling

Ted

Dec 20 2005, 06:15 PM

QUOTE

Lesly
The first question on this thread asks whether Congress was privy to the same intel Bush had. I made a reference to a report: Congress doesn’t see same intelligence as president. Please provide a source other than Bush and WHIG members (Carl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Andrew Card, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Rice, Hadley, Libby and Cheney) supporting your position that Congress was privy to the same intelligence.

Well this is easy to say but let’s remember that many members received the fully classified briefings and they all know that we cannot debate the “fact” for that very reason. So we have no idea if the intel was substantially different or not. In fact we now think all the intel was poor but that does not say that any info the Congress did not see would have lead them not to approve the War. What intel exactly are you referring to?

QUOTE

It’s nice you love something about us but it doesn’t further debate. As I have stated, it’s rather difficult to generate a paper trail showing you’ve gotten rid of the evidence when a foreign country bombs it out of existence for you.

Huh? Clinton himself has said we did NOT get Iraq’s WMD in the 3 days of bombing and certainly Blix did not think so either. And if you remember Saddam said he destroyed the WMD in 1991 so the proof should have always been available.

QUOTE

Ted I will not “debunk” why Blix wanted more time for inspections. He would not have asked if he felt his research was thorough enough to conclude Iraq’s WMD capabilities one way or the other. You, on the other hand, don’t have any reservations about making conclusions Blix was not allowed to arrive at

So you misinterpreted my statements if you don’t care to respond. Fine. Blix stated Iraq had certain stockpiles of WMD and this was the definitive intel at the time and was used by the White House and Congress to make the decision to go to war. PERIOD. And if you just want to babble that the intel said he did not have the WMD at the time then you have to deal with the Blix statements I have posted. If you do not then you agree with me.
He could not “conclude” anything since to do that Iraq would have had to comply with 1441! And it seems clear they never intended to do that – doesn’t it. They spit out the same old 12,000 page report and insulted the UN.
We KNOW Iraq was hiding info because the man running his WMD programs defected and told us so.

Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

So while you can try to say the Intel was manipulated you cannot say “what” that is since there is so much of it including the above. Notice above that Saddam, in 1995, admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium, as well as bio-weapons.

Bottom line is simply this. Iraq had to comply to 1441 and never did. Yes Blix wanted more time, and maybe we should have given it to him. IMO no new info would have been revealed but that is all 20/20 hindsight. The intel from around the world and the UN was enough to justify moving on Iraq.

Paladin Elspeth

Dec 20 2005, 11:34 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 20 2005, 09:14 AM)

QUOTE
Questions for debate:

1.)Do these quotes prove the president's assertions that everyone was knowledgeable of information, albeit false information it turned out?

Absolutely. In fact we know that there were no inspectors in Iraq 1998-2002 because Iraq booted them and the Clinton Admin. Did squat after 3 days of bombing. We must remember that the inspectors only got back in because GWB put 50,000 troops on the Iraq border and pushed through a tough new UN Resolution (which Iraq ignored). Thus the available intel was virtually the same on WMD from 1998 (when so many Dems rushed to say how dangerous Iraq was) to 2002-03. And IMO history will tell us how “false” the info was. The fact that we did not find WMD does not mean they did not have them. Moveing them out of country would have been easy given that we had no agents in the a position to knowe when that was happening.

QUOTE

2.)Why have those quoted have had such a change of heart?

Pure partisan politics. And we have to be fair and say that to some extent the Republicans would be doing some of this if Gore was President. IMO this is why so many of us distrust politicians.

QUOTE
3.)Are the democrats only opposing the war because a republican is running it? Why or why not?

Of course and this is especially true with mid-term elections coming up and the Bush ratings down. The Dems will jump on anything they can twist to hurt the President. This is to be expected.

QUOTE

Iraq, however, was clearly a different story. Clearly George W. Bush had no plan to stand down the massive assault force if Saddam decided to let the weapons inspectors have free rein, his rhetoric to the contrary. The invasion was like date rape, the excuse being that the U.S. had gone too far already to stop what was going to happen

.

Well actually this is not the case Paladin. Bush would have "stood down" the second Iraq complied with 1441 The inspectors could have looked for years (as they had done before) and found nothing. What Iraq was required to do per UN 1441 was to bring out for destruction the WMD they admitted they produced or prove they had destroyed them. They never did either and thus you would think the UN would have wanted to move on them. But as we know today the UN was bought by Saddam and countries like France were NEVER going to authorize force against Iraq – in fact those morons lobbied in 1999 to have all sanction dropped! Knowing the UN would never move GWB put a time limit on the wait for cooperation and when that ran out he moved.

Actually, Ted, Saddam Hussein did capitulate to having the UN weapons inspectors come back, about a week before the invasion was initiated. Doesn't anybody else here remember that?

As I said, it was like a date rape. Bush had already committed U.S. forces to that region, and they were ready to be deployed. At that point, nothing Saddam said would have stopped the invasion from taking place as planned.

johnlocke

Dec 21 2005, 03:53 AM

QUOTE

Actually, Ted, Saddam Hussein did capitulate to having the UN weapons inspectors come back, about a week before the invasion was initiated. Doesn't anybody else here remember that?

I remember that PE. I also remember that he was up to his old hide-n-seek style games of spying on inspectors to find out where they would be and then denying them access until he could clean the areas. If he really had no WMD it seems wierd that he would do such things. Even at that time Mohammed ElBaradai said he was not giving full cooperation (as was asked by the President Bush under pain of war), and if he was trying to bluff the world so he could save face and not look like a push over he did it to his own detriment.

In all honesty on the matter we were going to attack him no matter what, we just needed justification and WMD worked. Even as far back as the old Blood for Oil thread back in 2003 I admitted that I didn't care if he had WMD or not but that we needed to change the front of the War on Terror and that I thought that the President's plan in Iraq was actually for that purpose. Then we did and I believe that Americans are safer now for having done it, even if no one else does and I believe 100% that history will vindicate me and hold President Bush in high esteem. None of that should suggest that I never thought he had weapons of WMD just like many Democrats in office did.

AuthorMusician

Dec 21 2005, 12:17 PM

QUOTE

I dislike participating in run-up-to-the-invasion threads because how often supporting the pretext for the invasion throw up exaggerations, misstatements, or just repeat falsehoods as if stating otherwise would magically sweep our military service members out of Iraq and bring them back to the U.S.

Lesly,

Yep, that sums it up. The debate should be about when we bring the troops back home, not what sales pitches were used to get them there in the first place.

I'm sorry the US public bought what turned out to be if not lies, then gross exaggerations of reality. One can argue that the Demos who voted to give Bush invasion power were reflecting the desires of their constituents. This is a republic, as Republicans love to remind us.

If we are supposed to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, how about Demos too? It's not their fault that Bush pushed for war at the earliest possible time, even before 2002 elections. That simply wasn't possible, but he did push for it. This surprised a lot of people, yours truly included. I couldn't believe his imprudence for what looked like cheap political gain. I also remember various businesses salivating at the new markets that would open up, like cell phones. Rather disgusting, I thought. But then, the project was supposed to be a slam dunk, wasn't it.

Thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of bucks later, people are having second thoughts. The Repubs holler, hey! But you were for this too!

Not exactly.

aevans176

Dec 22 2005, 02:33 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 21 2005, 06:17 AM)

QUOTE

I dislike participating in run-up-to-the-invasion threads because how often supporting the pretext for the invasion throw up exaggerations, misstatements, or just repeat falsehoods as if stating otherwise would magically sweep our military service members out of Iraq and bring them back to the U.S.

Lesly,

Yep, that sums it up. The debate should be about when we bring the troops back home, not what sales pitches were used to get them there in the first place.

I'm sorry the US public bought what turned out to be if not lies, then gross exaggerations of reality. One can argue that the Demos who voted to give Bush invasion power were reflecting the desires of their constituents. This is a republic, as Republicans love to remind us.

If we are supposed to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, how about Demos too? It's not their fault that Bush pushed for war at the earliest possible time, even before 2002 elections. That simply wasn't possible, but he did push for it. This surprised a lot of people, yours truly included. I couldn't believe his imprudence for what looked like cheap political gain. I also remember various businesses salivating at the new markets that would open up, like cell phones. Rather disgusting, I thought. But then, the project was supposed to be a slam dunk, wasn't it.

Thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of bucks later, people are having second thoughts. The Repubs holler, hey! But you were for this too!

Not exactly.

Maybe not you personally Authormusician, but frankly, the Democrats were for the war. It's a fact.

We can post the quotes from numerous Democrats, we can discuss the intelligence and the inconclusive talking points of liberals on how the President intentionally misled the public (of course which is pure conspiracy-theory conjecture), and we can talk about whether the intelligence was cooked or otherwise altered to make a case.

The truth about the scenario is plain to see.

Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the war, never questioned intelligence or the war effort publicly (of course until public opinion changed), and yes the topic of discussion should be ending the war as of late

However, pointing fingers without a truly introspective look in the mirror is juvenile and near-sighted for Democrats. I personally feel like if the war doesn't necessarily turn out to be prudent, the entirety of the American government should stand and accept responsibility.

Need I post the quotes from the Clinton administration speaking on how dangerous S Hussein was? (I have 1/2 dozen from the Clintons themselves)...
Need we post the voting records of the democrats on the issue of war? that's a no brainer....
Finally, need we discuss the chain of command and protocol for a Congressman to intercede and speak personally with the President?? (let me give a hint, the only person inbetwixt is the VP...)

Like many truly die-hard Capitalist Republicans, the war has wained for entirely too long without a public directive, no clear strategy, and even if our media just doesn't portray it well.... we don't truly have a clear picture of what's going on. (Even us in the military ourselves...)

Are the democrats hypocritical??? Let's just read the definition of hypocrite...(from wordreference.com)
1 hypocrite, dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender

a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Seems pretty clear to me....
Merry Christmas y'all.

Lesly

Dec 22 2005, 05:07 PM

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 22 2005, 09:33 AM)

Merry Christmas y'all.

Merry Christmas. When you have a moment could you explain what sets political prudence apart from political hypocrisy in the post below?

QUOTE(Lesly @ Dec 20 2005, 10:23 AM)

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 20 2005, 10:10 AM)

However, going to war, at the time, was POLITICALLY PRUDENT!!!!The American population was behind it.

There are many Democrats that are being vastly hypocritical. However, they're politicians, and that's what's seemingly popular at the time with their voting base. What did you all really expect??? I hope you really didn't expect DNC super-stars to be pillars of moral rectitude... few politicians fit that bill on either side of the aisle...

How is the public backing the Congress in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion (I don’t think supporting the president = supporting an invasion) and politicians acting on the public’s support “prudent,” but politicians acting on the public’s waning support for an indefinite tour as part of the MNF translate into a lack of moral rectitude, no-Bush-fan?

Ted

Dec 27 2005, 06:36 PM

QUOTE

Actually, Ted, Saddam Hussein did capitulate to having the UN weapons inspectors come back, about a week before the invasion was initiated. Doesn't anybody else here remember that?

As I said, it was like a date rape

PE I have no idea what you are referring to. WE told inspectors to leave after the invasion plan started to move forward. Of course Saddam wanted them back – he knew we would not attack while they were there.

I may have missed something but I never herd him say he would comply with UN 1441 (or any other resolution for that matter).

After 12 years his times was up – and the UN should have moved on him. I guess we now know why that wasn’t going to happen.

whyshouldi

Dec 27 2005, 07:11 PM

There are republicans that do not support the war also, just thought I would toss that in there. At some point would it be hypocritical of anyone to not support the war? People can also have the "change of heart" on issues, more so when the are not crystal clear in the area of being objective.

Did all the democrats support the war? What did the war mean at first? is it the same meaning now?
Is it simply wrong in some peoples eyes to disagree with Bush?

Ted

Dec 29 2005, 08:17 PM

QUOTE(whyshouldi @ Dec 27 2005, 03:11 PM)

There are republicans that do not support the war also, just thought I would toss that in there. At some point would it be hypocritical of anyone to not support the war? People can also have the "change of heart" on issues, more so when the are not crystal clear in the area of being objective.

Did all the democrats support the war? What did the war mean at first? is it the same meaning now?
Is it simply wrong in some peoples eyes to disagree with Bush?

There are people from both parties who do not support the war (as is there right). The point is that Dems who came out strongly for Clinton’s attack on Iraq are just as hypocritical now as Republicans were then for opposing the 1998 attack on Iraq. I supported Clinton’s move then but felt he never carried it through with the UN.

Unfortunately the “Monica” issues may have prevented Bill from keeping the pressure on Iraq at the UN. Instead he essentially dropped it and left it for the next President to deal with.

Paladin Elspeth

Dec 29 2005, 08:46 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 27 2005, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE

Actually, Ted, Saddam Hussein did capitulate to having the UN weapons inspectors come back, about a week before the invasion was initiated. Doesn't anybody else here remember that?

As I said, it was like a date rape

PE I have no idea what you are referring to. WE told inspectors to leave after the invasion plan started to move forward. Of course Saddam wanted them back – he knew we would not attack while they were there.

I may have missed something but I never herd him say he would comply with UN 1441 (or any other resolution for that matter).

After 12 years his times was up – and the UN should have moved on him. I guess we now know why that wasn’t going to happen.

Iraq agrees in principle to destroy missiles

UN inspectors verify destruction of biological weapons

The Iraqi government was moving on it, even though Saddam Hussein had stalled for as long as he had. At least somebody in his government had decided that it was better to start complying with UN inspectors than to have the country invaded. I personally think Saddam Hussein was out of touch with what was going on because he was surrounded by yes-men (sort of like another politician--but that is the subject for another thread).

This Bush administration was hell-bent for leather and, as JohnLocke mentioned earlier (HE remembers, and we are nowhere near each other on the political spectrum), it really didn't matter what Saddam did; Iraq was going to be attacked. That's why I compared it to date rape: "No" somehow isn't heard by the perpetrator of the act, and Bush turned a deaf ear to UN inspectors and Iraqis who at the eleventh hour decided to cooperate again with the UN inspectors. That's right: the U.S. ordered them to pull out--certainly not the action of a power interested in staying out of war and continuing to pursue a non-violent course.

As a consequence, thousands of Americans have died and many thousands more have lives forever changed because George W. Bush just HAD to invade Iraq as part of his "War on Terrah" when al-Qaeda was entrenched in surrounding countries, but not in Iraq. Nice job, George.

Ted

Dec 29 2005, 09:04 PM

QUOTE

Quote PE: The Iraq government was moving on it, even though Saddam Hussein had stalled for as long as he had. At least somebody in his government had decided that it was better to start complying with UN inspectors than to have the country invaded. I personally think Saddam Hussein was out of touch with what was going on because he was surrounded by yes-men (sort of like another politician--but that is the subject for another thread).

Show me something that proves the Iraqi “government” was doing a thing. As I have posted – Blix’s last report to the UN shows anything but cooperation. They sent back the same old 12,000 page report and made no effort to comply with 1441. Sure they were ready for the same old hind-n-seek game we played with this monster since 1991 but the Resolution was clear. Iraq had to bring OUT the WMD or PROVE they destroyed them and there was no indication they were going to do either. If you have some from the time please post it.

And I agree that Bush was hot (maybe too hot) to get the Iraq issues settled. IMO he could have waited and should have tried to push the UN to do their job. Perhaps if the Oil for Food scandal had happened sooner or we had waited the UN might have moved but that is all peculation now.

And Saddam, as the ISG report documents, was not “out of touch” with his people. He was in firm control and if you remember he purged dozens of his staff (and their families) for disloyalty even killing the brother of his wife.

Paladin Elspeth

Dec 29 2005, 09:11 PM

I respectfully disagree. I think it was a "don't tell Dad" scenario, if you will. Saddam would brook no dissent from those immediately under his command, but that did not mean that weapons weren't being sent out the back door by those further down the food chain--if--they still had some to sell and ship out.

Oh, you might not have seen the links I was adding to the post just previous to yours. Or you might have.

But the WMD's that Rumsfeld was so certain (and Cheney too) were located west, east and north of Baghdad (I don't think I'm misquoting him--might have gotten one direction wrong) never materialized.

I also believe that Saddam's posturing had everything to do with not letting Iran think that Iraq was vulnerable. Under those circumstances, he had a very fine line to walk. I'm wondering if that was ever taken into consideration by the leaders of our government.

Now Iran is being painted as the next threat, and if the Bush administration is going to bust a move, they'd better have more and better intelligence.

But maybe this time the Democrats won't have talked themselves into a corner, and they won't feel intimidated about not marching in lock-step with the Prez. The real question is, will it even matter what they think next time, with the enhanced powers that Bush has now?

Ted

Dec 29 2005, 09:32 PM

QUOTE

Quote PE - I respectfully disagree. I think it was a "don't tell Dad" scenario, if you will. Saddam would brook no dissent from those immediately under his command, but that did not mean that weapons weren't being sent out the back door by those further down the food chain.

The weapons were almost certainly “sent out the back door” but I am sure if they were Saddam knew all about it.

QUOTE

But the WMD's that Rumsfeld was so certain (and Cheney too) were located west, east and north of Baghdad (I don't think I'm misquoting him--might have gotten one direction wrong) never materialized.

I also believe that Saddam's posturing had everything to do with not letting Iran think that Iraq was vulnerable. Under those circumstances, he had a very fine line to walk. I'm wondering if that was ever taken into consideration by the leaders of our government.

I agree here. This is the worst debacle of the conflict. We should NOT have attacked without knowing EXACTLY where the WMD were hidden. IMO Tennant and others were so sure they were there that Bush felt he had to find them. The sad fact was we had not one CIA operative inside the Iraqi command structure and this meant out intel was mediocre at best.

I don’t know what you mean by Saddam “posturing” on WMD. When we invaded in 1991 he said he had “nothing” – what we found was an advanced nuclear program and proof that he had produced tons of WMD. He then admitted he had done so – and NOT before.

QUOTE

As a consequence, thousands of Americans have died and many thousands more have lives forever changed because George W. Bush just HAD to invade Iraq as part of his "War on Terrah" when al-Qaeda was entrenched in surrounding countries, but not in Iraq

‘Well AQ was ousted from their main camp as you remember and if Bill had taken them more seriously (more than a “police” problem) there might not have been a 9/11. And yea we have attracted lots of terrorists to Iraq which IMO is a good thing – because there we can kill them without having to chase them around in out cities.

As far as the 2,000 casualties – this is the cost of war. Certainly this cnnot be compared to the war of my generation (Vietnam) where we had no vital interest, we never captured the “Baghdad” or deposed the “leader” but because of that moron LBJ who tried to run the war from his office we DID throw away 58,000 American lives – that is nearly 200 a WEEK 29 times more than Iraq – and we LOST!!!