Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Another foiled attempt to rewrite history
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, January 26, 2008

We saw a bit of nonsense laid out as some sort of definitive proof that the Bush administration "misled" us into war. The Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism claimed the Bush administration "issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

That calls for a pop quiz.

Who said:
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
Show/Hide
“Iraq’s actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . .”
Show/Hide
“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. . . .”
And:
“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior, which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”
Show/Hide
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible-difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Show/Hide
“I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear…. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. . . . We can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”
Show/Hide
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Show/Hide
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
Show/Hide
“I have seen enough evidence. I don’t know if I’ve seen all the evidence, but I’ve seen enough to be satisfied that there has been a continuing effort by Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War, particularly since 1998, to re-establish and enhance Iraq’s capacity of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear.
Show/Hide

That last bold line is important. What was being said in 2002 was nothing different than what was being said in 1998.

Remember:
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Of course those pretenses obviously existed in 1998 or so the first two quotes would indicate. Consequently, my conclusion is this selective study picked an arbitrary start date which ignored those facts and thus came to a false conclusion. As a consequence, it ought to be taken with the large grain of salt it deserves.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Even better, the study should be rejected.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Are you saying the statements the Bush Adminsitration issued were not false, or that he did not lead us into war?

The rest of this is nonsense.

You could have quotes of people saying that Iraq should be invaded all day, only one man actually issued the command.

Nice try though, keep AN argument alive, even if it’s not a good one, it’s enough for the faithful to hang on to.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Are you saying the statements the Bush Adminsitration issued were not false, or that he did not lead us into war?
No more "false" than those made by the Clinton administration, which began the run up to war with its rhetoric about regime change and WMD in 1998.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The rest of this is nonsense.

You could have quotes of people saying that Iraq should be invaded all day, only one man actually issued the command.
The study wasn’t about the issuance of the command; it was about false statements in the lead-up to the war.

McQ has here demonstrated that the Bush administration was joined in those false statements by all kinds of prominent Democrats who shared his judgment. McQ demonstrated that they publicly claimed that Saddam was dangerous, that Iraq was developing WMD (including nukes), that they were operating in contravention of international law, that he was supporting terrorists (including AQ members).

So it’s directly relevant to a study currently being punted all over the place to impugn the Bush administration. That’s it. Chill.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Nice try though, keep AN argument alive, even if it’s not a good one, it’s enough for the faithful to hang on to
You mean like you’re doing with the "Bush lied us into war" meme right now?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You could have quotes of people saying that Iraq should be invaded all day, only one man actually issued the command.
Not even a nice try with that one. A Command given only after the Senate (77-23 in favor), the House (296-133 in favor) passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Or have you forgotten that little piece of history.

And by the way for the multiculturalists visiting here, the United Nations (Unanimous) voted to pursue actions that led to the war with the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions - Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284.
Nice try though, keep AN argument alive, even if it’s not a good one, it’s enough for the faithful to hang on to.
I’d say we got more to hang on to than you and your whining.

 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
So I guess both Clinton and Bush lied.

Actually, I think they believed their own propaganda, which would make it not a lie, but simply bad leadership.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bad leadership, Scott?

What about the bi-partisan support from Congress and support from a series of UN Resolutions, even when NATO allies were trying to finesse the issues?

It seems to me there is ample evidence that "leadership" was responsible for garnering that support, which, BTW, is a matter of record.

Surely, you as a student of political history will concede that it was far more support (both national and international) than either JFK or LBJ were able to garner for ramping up our support of the South Vietnamese from 1963-1966.

And Bush did not use assassination (as JFK’s administration did) or sheer manufacture of a casus bellum (the Bay of Tonkin Incident) to secure that support.

I would be glad to debate the relative merits of leadership of Bush on the one hand and JFK and LBJ on the other, respecting the two wars.

Further, I submit to you that the JFK/LBJ administrations handled Vietnam far less competantly than the Bush Admin handled Iraq.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Actually, I think they believed their own propaganda, which would make it not a lie, but simply bad leadership.

So Scott, since this was "propaganda", can you please point me to the leader of any country or organization that said otherwise? We have the leaders of the U.K., France, Germany, Canada, Russia, the UN, Turkey, Italy, all the Middle East, ALL saying Saddam had WMDs prior to the war. For crying out loud, even IRAN thought he had them.

Face it, it wasn’t propaganda, except maybe for Hussein’s propaganda. It was taken as fact by the entire world that Iraq had WMDs, and now some want to turn history into a conspiracy. Well, it won’t work.
 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
People are stupid.

In 1995 Saddam’s son-in-law defected and told us about Iraq’s weaponized anthrax program. Previous to this, Iraq had issued several Full & Final Complete Declarations stating they had no biological program, or wait, only a defensive program, or ummm, an offensive program but no weaponized. After we had the information from the defector, we found the factory and dismantled it.

But would it have been wise in 1996 - 2002 to have thought Iraq had come clean? I don’t think so. In fact, with missing quantities of precursors, shells, and buried centrifuges, there was always going to be serious doubts.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Scott? Scott?
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
BDS and the Soros group doesn’t change history does it. It’s funny to watch the deranged try and rewrite history. Guess they never heard of the Internet.

Congress approved "the order" ... end of story.

As BJ is finding out, the Arkansas campaign trick the continuous lie and the parrot media were able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in 1992, but now it’s not working. Just ask Obama HaHaHa ... Now everyone knows the Clintons, Media Matters and George Soros are all liars, and no one wants their brand of modern day fascism.

Hey let’s have an oldie while we are on history "I didn’t have sex with that woman ..." Right Bill, time for bed.
 
Written By: bill-tb
URL: http://
with missing quantities of precursors, shells, and buried centrifuges, there was always going to be serious doubts.


That brings up another important point. There is an almost criminal amnesia on the left and the media about the state of thought concerning Iraq prior to 9-11. If you will recall, many humanitarian organizations, along with some countries in the UN, were calling for an end to sanctions on Iraq, citing the horrible suffering of the populace, mostly children. It was with this in mind that the UN started its ill-fated but quite lucrative Oil for Food program. It is worth remembering that few people even now doubt that Hussein had at the time of the invasion plenty of resources available to restart his WMD program once the sactitions were removed.

No, I’m not claiming that as a causus belli, but it is worth remembering what, exactly, we were looking at in the near future concering a Saddam-led Iraq.
 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
Propaganda? Once again, Prof. Erb, you are posting stupid, know-nothing, anti-war rhetoric.

Just about everyone believed Hussein had WMD because he had had WMD, he had used WMD, he had been farther along in acquiring nuclear WMD than anyone realized until his son-in-law defected, he had admitted to having more WMD materials than he accounted for destroying, he had been preventing forthright inspections of his WMD sites, he had hidden truck convoys of something in Syria just before the invasion, and WMD, admittedly small quantities, was even been found in Iraq after the invasion. Plus it was clear to any sane, informed person that Hussein was committed to acquiring WMD in the future, whatever the status of Iraqi WMD in the small 2002-2003 window immediately preceding the invasion.

We are dealing with something very different from propaganda and it is sheer intellectual dishonesty on the part of you and the anti-war movement to persist in writing off Hussein’s WMD campaign as propaganda.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
McQ has here demonstrated that the Bush administration was joined in those false statements
Well, that answers my questions...

Are you saying the statements the Bush Adminstration issued were not false, or that he did not lead us into war?

Yes, the administration issued false statements, and yes, Bush led us into war.

Here’s the point you guys seem to miss. Everyone could have been saying the exact same thing as Bush (and many were), but the guy who makes the false statements AND pulls the war trigger bears responsibility.

You guys trying to put responsibility for this war on people who were out of power is ironic, considering that y’all pretend to be the folks who hold personal responsibility as a high value.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You mean like you’re doing with the "Bush lied us into war" meme right now?
If I were posting on a lefty blog maybe, but here I am just pointing that this is all apologetics, deflection, and an attempt to avoid responsibility for this war.

I get it. Q has been a proponent of this war since the beginning, and to his credit, he really did not care if Saddam had WMD’s, or if were proven. However, this was not what Bush sold the American people, so when Bush and the adminsitration made pronouncements of ZERO doubt, people assumed that this meant that we had proof.

For my part, I thought Iraq had WMD’s, and I also believed we were in possession of proof that Iraq had WMD’s. The only thing that stood between my supporting this war or not, was that I believed that we should present that proof before any action. Once I saw Colin Powell in front of the UN, I realized we did not have any proof, and my opinion was that we needed hard evidence before we could launch an invasion.

The administration had an opportunity with the inspections to gather this hard evidence, but made it clear that they just did not care, their faith was enough.

Bush screwed the pooch, plain and simple.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Inspections?
Cap’n, you’re kidding... right?
 
Written By: Greybeard
URL: http://pitchpull.blogspot.com/
Inspections?
Cap’n, you’re kidding... right?
Nope
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You mean like you’re doing with the "Bush lied us into war" meme right now?
If I were posting on a lefty blog maybe, but here I am just pointing that this is all apologetics, deflection, and an attempt to avoid responsibility for this war.
Ah.....there you go again.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ah.....there you go again.
Well that was insightful.

Look, this is really simple... five points...

1. What Bill Clinton said in 1998 did not trigger war in 2003

2. Iraq of 1998 is not necessarily the Iraq of 2003

3. After 9/11, getting the AUMF passed was a complete lock, the Repulicans were automatic, and Democrats, knowing the bill was going to pass, could only vote against it to make a statement, that statement being that they are weak on terror (or at least that is what the meme was), regardless of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the WOT.

4. The Bush administration made statements of certitude regarding the WMD’s Iraq was in possession at the time they were making the statements, the certainty with which they made these statements were NOT supported by the intelligence.

5. Bush alone made the decision for invasion/occupation, Congress did not pass a bill that said "Go invade Iraq", they passed a bill that gave the President the authority to do what he already had authority to do under the War Powers Act. In other words, they made a symbolic gesture to honor the President’s request to show a united front and a credible threat of force, in advancement of, and these were the official Bush Administration’s words, "KEEPING THE PEACE".
Q If the President gets the same kind of a vote from the Senate, does he feel that he can immediately or at any point have a free hand to go to war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The President has asked — said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The President has made no decisions about what the next step will be. Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the inspection process, and that’s where the matter currently stands.

Personally, I liked it better when you guys were arguing that you didn’t care what rationale Bush used to get this invasion going, you were just happy that we were invading because you believed that Saddam was a threat.

From my POV, you are the ones trying to rewrite history.

Whatever floats your Swiftboat

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
this was not what Bush sold the American people,.....Everyone could have been saying the exact same thing as Bush (and many were), but the guy who makes the false statements AND pulls the war trigger bears responsibility.

Captain Sarcastic you need remedial lessons in civics and elementary logic and then you need to take an IQ test.

As several examples among many, Hillary Clinton, John Rockefeller, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and John Edwards were among the 77 Senators who voted for the war resolution that was originally drafted by none other than Richard Gephardt. In fact, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both publicly stated that before the vote on the war resolution, they consulted with Clinton administration officials who confirmed the belief that Saddam had WMD.

Thus, many of the same people who now call Bush a liar (e.g. Reid, Kerry and Edwards) and sit back while their fellow Democrats to call him a liar (e.g. Clinton) are the same people who not only persuaded the American people that Saddam had WMD, they also voted to authorize the war. See numbnuts, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power to.....declare war..." For the Iraq war, unlike Clinton who never obtained Congressional authorization for the war against Serbia/Kosovo, Bush went to Congress and they authorized the war.

For the logically impaired, Democrats in the Congress that authorized the Iraq war were as culpable for presenting incorrect information to the American people and "pulling the trigger" on the war as George Bush. Yet, Democrats call Bush a "liar" and use that false claim as one of the bases for their call to "change" Washington by electing a Democrat for president. Democrats have politicized this whole thing to a point where it bears no resemblance to what actually happened in 2002-2003.



 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
4. The Bush administration made statements of certitude regarding the WMD’s Iraq was in possession at the time they were making the statements, the certainty with which they made these statements were NOT supported by the intelligence.

Captain Sarcastic, just as a summary example of how wrong you are, I’ll cite Larry Wilkerson. You might remember him. He was Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff at the State Dept. and he was the left’s darling after he gave his infamous speech in October 2005, criticizing the Bush administration for "hijacking" American foreign policy. Setting aside the absurdity of a bureaucrat at the State Dept. characterizing the conduct of foreign policy by the President as a "hijacking", here is what Wilkerson said about the intelligence on WMD in February 2003 and Colin Powell’s speech before the UN that same month:
Now, on the other matter, I’ve been over that so many times in my head and with hundreds of journalists who are trying to figure it out for themselves – I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. I don’t know – and people say, well, INR (the State Department’s Intelligence div.) dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. Carl Ford and I talked; Tom Finger and I talked, who is now John Negroponte’s deputy, and that was the way INR felt........The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering – which we had called considerably – we had called it very much – we had thrown whole reams of paper out that the White House had created. But George was convinced, John McLaughlin was convinced that what we were presented was accurate. And contrary to what you were hearing in the papers and other places, one of the best relationships we had in fighting terrorists and in intelligence in general was with guess who? The French. In fact, it was probably the best. And they were right there with us.
Even Wilkerson admitted that, although he claims he wasn’t wasn’t convinced by the evidence that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD or a viable nuclear program:
He was going to wait until the international tension was off of him, until the sanctions were down, and then he was going to go back – certainly go back to all of his programs. I mean, I was convinced of that.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Captin, let me get this straight, are you saying that Bush knew the information was wrong at the time of the intiation of the war?

 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
4. The Bush administration made statements of certitude regarding the WMD’s Iraq was in possession at the time they were making the statements, the certainty with which they made these statements were NOT supported by the intelligence.
So, when George Tenet told Bush it was a slam dunk, that means it wasn’t supported by the intelligence?

By the way, WMD wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination the only justification for the war. You should read the Authorization of the Use of Military Force to get the entire picture.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
FWIW, I’d bet that anyone arguing in favor of the study would say that all those quotes following Bush’s inauguration would claim that the worthy Senators were "misled" by Bush.

Honestly, I don’t care that Bush lied. Whether he purposely told a lie or whether he relied on honest belief that ended up to be wrong, we’re in the situation that we’re in. I don’t see how harping on how things got started either fixes the situation or brings it to a conclusion in any meaningful sense.

Want your pound of flesh? Go for it. Will your pound of flesh either turn the Middle East into a stable, democratic paradise or instantly withdraw all US forces? Doubt it very much.
 
Written By: Greg
URL: http://
a bit of nonsense laid out as some sort of definitive proof that the Bush administration "misled" us into war.
INTO WAR is the key part of this construction. As Captin Sarcastic rightly notes, when you try to pretend that what Bill Clinton said in 1998 launched an invasion in 2003 you just make yourself look foolish and desperate, and like maybe you don’t really believe that this is the best of all possible wars and the Surge is totally working. Blame shifting and blame sharing are not the hallmarks of successful policy.

Here’s a little quiz for you, which of the many people who thought Saddam was a bad guy decided that he was such a big threat that we ought to invade and occupy Iraq?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Here’s a little quiz for you, which of the many people who thought Saddam was a bad guy decided that he was such a big threat that we ought to invade and occupy Iraq?

Uh, everybody who voted for this?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

——snip——-

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports.......

....and on and on.




 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
Here’s a little quiz for you, which of the many people who thought Saddam was a bad guy decided that he was such a big threat that we ought to invade and occupy Iraq?

Uh, everybody who voted for this?
Uh, WRONG, or did you not read the WHITEHOUSE official statement as to the PURPOSE of the AUMF, to KEEP THE PEACE (that would mean avoiding war for those with reading difficulties).

AUMF authorized NOTHING, it was symbolic, the WH themselves, in this quote, and elsewhere, consistently insisted that it had the authority under the War Powers Act to invade Iraq. The basis for asking for AUMF was not for authority, do you get it, it was to show Saddam a united front, with the stated purpose of AVOIDING war.




Q If the President gets the same kind of a vote from the Senate, does he feel that he can immediately or at any point have a free hand to go to war?


MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The President has asked — said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The President has made no decisions about what the next step will be. Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the inspection process, and that’s where the matter currently stands.



Do you get that!
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, under the Constitution, Helen, the President, of course, does have the authority –
No need for AUMF, it’s window dressing, symbolism.

You people really do make me laugh.

Go drink your Kool Aid.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Here Captin:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."


Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002


"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks — and we should not minimize the risks — we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,


Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut




 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
So, at the time, were they false statements?

That some of the statements were latter proved false is immaterial to the decision made at the time it was made.

5 years on, and the left STILL wants to argue and debate this.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"AUMF authorized NOTHING, it was symbolic,"

And the deployment of troops, ships, planes, etc. to the region was also symbolic? Pretty expensive symbolism. The invasion was not instantaneous. If the Congress critters had any objection they had months to stop the process or at least state their objections, privately if nothing else. They didn’t. Even Kerry can’t produce a journal noting his objection to anything other than symbolism.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Answer my question, Cap: when the director of the CIA told Bush that the case for WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk, how is that interpreted as the intelligence not supporting the certainty of Bush’s statements?

As far as the War Powers Act, that’s good for only 60 days (90 in some cases). It would have covered an invasion, but nothing else.
The basis for asking for AUMF was not for authority, do you get it, it was to show Saddam a united front, with the stated purpose of AVOIDING war.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. The AUMF authorized war. Please show us where in the text of the act that the stated purpose was avoiding war.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
How entertaining, do you know you are using an out of context quote to make your case, or is this just the snippet from your apologetic "AUMF, not the President, started this war" website?

This is the first quote, I didn’t bother to check the rest, but since the first one fails, then the rest are automatically suspect.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Now some context...

From the same statement by Clinton, in fact, the paragraph immediately preceding your out of context quote...
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
And she closed the speech with this...
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.
The people that supported this believed that the President was required to get new Security Council authorization. Of course the WH had different ideas, but that’s a different story.

Oh, and finally, who exactly was THE DECIDER?


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This is the first quote, I didn’t bother to check the rest

Of course you didn’t. You had to spin so hard to try (unsuccessfully) to get out of that one.

Oh, and finally, who exactly was THE DECIDER?

Congress. Without the vote, a sustained invasion of Iraq would have been impossible.

All those democrats who spoke, in public, on the record, supporting the invasion of Iraq, are they liars, or cowards, or just plain stupid?
 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
Congress. Without the vote, a sustained invasion of Iraq would have been impossible.
Talk about spinning. COngress could pull the funding TODAY, and they don’t, yet you think they would have refused to fund the troops after 90 days in country, stranding the troops.

The WH said, over and over again that they did not need Congress’ approval, so were they lying then, or are you lying now?

Are you drinking grape Kool Aid?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Once again, Cap:

1. How is Tenet’s statement indicative that the intelligence didn’t support Bush’s "certainty"?

2. Where in the text of the AUMF does it say that its express purpose is to avoid war?
Talk about spinning. COngress could pull the funding TODAY, and they don’t, yet you think they would have refused to fund the troops after 90 days in country, stranding the troops.
You still don’t get it. Bush did the proper thing by going to Congress first and getting authorization for war. Whether he could have started an invasion under the War Powers Act is moot, the fact remains that Congresss authorized the invasion.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Talk about spinning. COngress could pull the funding TODAY, and they don’t, yet you think they would have refused to fund the troops after 90 days in country, stranding the troops.

Your question is nonsense (like everything else you wrote) because the vote was actually held before the invasion. So the brave democrats could have voted prior to the war not to support it, making the invasion a highly questionable action.

The WH said, over and over again that they did not need Congress’ approval, so were they lying then, or are you lying now?


Under the war powers act, they don’t need congressional approval for the first 60 to 90 days. AFTER that, however, congress must step in. Congress made that point moot because they APPROVED THE INVASION in that confusingly named (at least for you) Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq .

Do you get that? Congress authored a RESOLUTION to AUTHORIZE the USE of United States ARMED FORCES Against Iraq. It cannot be any clearer, unless you choose not to understand.


And while I’m honored you reply to me, there are other good questions asked of you that you are ignoring. I wonder why?
 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
1. How is Tenet’s statement indicative that the intelligence didn’t support Bush’s "certainty"?
Tenet’s misconstrued statement was made well after the WH issued hundreds of assertions of certitude regarding SPECIFIC WMD knowledge, which were not backed up by certitude of intelligence. As for the statement itself, there’s this...

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. (Tenet indicated that the comment was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq, and that, in his opinion, the best way to convince the people would be by explaining the dangers posed by Iraq’s WMD i.e., the public relations sale of the war via the WMD, according to Tenet, would be a "slam dunk").
2. Where in the text of the AUMF does it say that its express purpose is to avoid war?
You present a false dilemma, essentially suggesting that if the text of the AUMF does not indicate that it’s purpose was to avoid war, then it could not possibly be intended to avoid war, and yet, that is precisely what the WH, and many of the people who voted for the AUMF stated was their intention by passage of this bill.

MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The President has asked — said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The President has made no decisions about what the next step will be. Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the inspection process, and that’s where the matter currently stands.

Buzz, try again.
And while I’m honored you reply to me, there are other good questions asked of you that you are ignoring. I wonder why?
Feel better?

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Feel better?

Uh, you’re supposed to answer the questions, not run away from them screaming like your hair was on fire.
 
Written By: TomB
URL: http://
So, basically those people who supported the AUMF, didn’t want to use military force, they just supported it because they thought diplomacy would work.

SO, they were making false statements and committing this country to a path that COULD LEAD TO WAR, even though they didn’t want to lead the country to war.

It was my hope that the threat of war would lead Saddam to opening up his country to full inspections.

But it didn’t happen that way.

It was my faintest hope that the Presidents ultimatum on the eve of war would lead Saddam to moving back from the brink.

But it didn’t happen that way either.

The onus, after 13 years of deception, was on Saddam to open up his country, and submit to proper inspections.

But it didn’t happen that way.

Plenty was found after the fact, that was never hinted at in UN reports.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Ah yes the AUMF. TomB, I think your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the word "authorization". Guess what, my drivers license authorizes me to drive, but curiously the state of California doesn’t take responosibility if I run down a pedestrian.

Your argument is precisely analagous to the suggestion that I am not responsible for running down that person because the State of California should have made the test harder so that people like me who are going to kill pedestrians shouldn’t have been authorized to drive. It doesn’t pass the laugh test for personal responsibility, nor for presidential responsibility.

And again, since when did all you Iraq War cheerleaders become so intent on spreading the blame for this debacle around?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You present a false dilemma, essentially suggesting that if the text of the AUMF does not indicate that it’s purpose was to avoid war, then it could not possibly be intended to avoid war, and yet, that is precisely what the WH, and many of the people who voted for the AUMF stated was their intention by passage of this bill.
No, this isn’t a false dilemma. I never made such a claim; I merely pointed out that the authorization voted on by Congress didn’t say anything about avoiding war. Let me refresh the point:

You said:
The basis for asking for AUMF was not for authority, do you get it, it was to show Saddam a united front, with the stated purpose of AVOIDING war
Since the purpose of the resolution was to authorize war, it’s a bit disingenous to claim that Congress authorized war with the purpose of avoiding war.

As far as Tenet’s backtracking, Woodward’s accout of the events is summarized:
According to Woodward, the media reports of smiling Iraqis leading inspectors around, opening up buildings and saying, "See, there’s nothing here," infuriated Bush, who then would read intelligence reports showing the Iraqis were moving and concealing things.

He was told the "things" the Iraqis were moving and concealing were probably WMD. Finding that "less than convincing," Bush asked for a more detailed briefing by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin, which took place on Dec. 21 , 2002.

McLaughlin’s version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence.

"Nice try," Bush said when the CIA official was finished. "I don’t think this quite – it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin’s boss, and said, "I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we’ve got?"

"It’s a slam-dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air.

Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you?"

"Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk," Tenet repeated.

Tenet’s claim that the slam dunk he referred to was selling the war via WMD to the American public doesn’t ring true. The context of his statement says otherwise. It sounds like Bush was skeptical of the CIA’s conclusions and Tenet did his best to reassure Bush the conclusions were correct. So, your canard about the intelligence not supporting Bush’s certainty is incorrect: it’s clear the CIA was confident in its own conclusions.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
And again, since when did all you Iraq War cheerleaders become so intent on spreading the blame for this debacle around?
You’re missing the point, Retief. It’s not a matter of spreading around blame. It’s the simple realization that a large majority of Congress, when looking at the same data Bush saw, came to the same conclusion about Saddam Hussein.

Is that so hard a truth to accept?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
So, basically those people who supported the AUMF, didn’t want to use military force, they just supported it because they thought diplomacy would work.
According to the statements made BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Bush did NOT want war (but we know better NOW, don’t we?)
SO, they were making false statements and committing this country to a path that COULD LEAD TO WAR, even though they didn’t want to lead the country to war.
Not wanting war and accepting that if all else failed, war was a possibility is so far of a stretch from saying that passing the AUMF without wanting war as to be laughably dishonest.
It was my hope that the threat of war would lead Saddam to opening up his country to full inspections.

But it didn’t happen that way.
Really?

From Hans Blix report on March 7, 2003...


Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters which were not settled by the talks Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei and I had with Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in Resolution 1441 have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.

Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the "no-fly" zones were overcome.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
It was my faintest hope that the Presidents ultimatum on the eve of war would lead Saddam to moving back from the brink.

But it didn’t happen that way either.
Really?

In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq’s Ba’athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.
The onus, after 13 years of deception, was on Saddam to open up his country, and submit to proper inspections.

But it didn’t happen that way.
Yes, it did happen that way, but we know that’s not what Bush wanted, Bush just wanted Saddam out, and no amount of cooperation was going to stop him from moving to the last resort long before other options had been exhausted.
Plenty was found after the fact, that was never hinted at in UN reports.
Plenty?

George W Bush, August 26, 2006

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t,


On a lighter note, let me at least throw you this bone. Had this ill concieved war turned out very well, Democrats would be pawing all over themselves to point their support of it, and how they declared war. To which of course Republicans would be saying that the Democrats were irrelevant, and had no effect as the decision, and the action, were 100% the President’s doing.

But please, keep writing History.2
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider