1200 Days: Our Foresight = Their Hindsight (Short Version)
July 11, 2006 marks the 1,200th day since Donald Rumsfeld found the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It also marks the 1,210th day since we waged war on Iraq. To date, the thousands of tons of WMD have never been found. We've never been given an explanation of what happened to them. Did Rumsfeld lie about knowing exactly where they were or was he just careless, and after years of tracking them via satellite, just stopped?
Whichever is the case, it's time to hold him and the rest of this administration accountable for the disaster in Iraq. Thanks to the Republicans, we've been reminded again and again that most Democrats did suspect Iraq had WMD. However, Democrats weren't as willing to rush into war until they were sure. Some believed President Bush when he said that war would be our last resort, and so they signed the resolution giving him the discretion and power to make that choice. Now that we know most of what the administration claimed was not true, let's look at what else Democrats said about WMD and the war in Iraq.
[...]But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack. John Kerry, October 9, 2002
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today cosponsored legislation by Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) urging the President to seek specific U.N. Security Council authorization to use military force against Iraq and to give more time for U.N. weapons inspections. The following is Senator Feinstein's address to the Senate: If Iraq is found to pose an imminent threat to the United States, then clearly we have to take action -- with others I hope, if we can. But right now that is not the case. If, indeed, after consultations with the Security Council, the administration has clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an illegal program to produce chemical and biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or possesses these weapons, the time has really come to make it public. Dianne Feinstein, January 29, 2003
Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the Administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The seeming desire of this Administration to wage war alone -- without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress -- was wrong.
First and foremost, the President needs to be honest with the American people -- not only about the benefits of action against Iraq, but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders. We are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal. Tom Daschle, October 10, 2002
Still, 126 of 208 House Democrats yesterday objected to the resolution, a higher number than some had expected. In the Senate, 22 Democrats and one independent opposed the president in a vote just after 1 a.m. Friday. Many cited concerns that Bush might take military action without U.N. approval and provoke a terrorist reprisal from Hussein or from Al- Qaeda or other militant groups.
[...]Yet most lawmakers urged Bush to exhaust all diplomatic options, especially ongoing consultations with the world's most powerful countries at the United Nations, before striking Hussein. The president lost some Democratic support earlier this week when a CIA memo was declassified. It concluded that Hussein is more likely to strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction if he is attacked first.
[...]Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) voted no after learning in a military briefing this week that U.S. soldiers do not have adequate protection against biological weapons. "As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," Baca said. "Would you send someone, knowing they're going to be killed?"
[...]On the floor of the House and Senate, critics said Bush has failed to make a case that Hussein poses a clear and imminent danger to the United States; to delineate plans for a post-Hussein government in Iraq; to outline how the United States would keep a war with Iraq from spilling into Israel and other nations; and to convince them that the broader war on terrorism won't suffer.
[...]In Maryland, Democrats Paul S. Sarbanes and Barbara A. Mikulski opposed it. October 11, 2002
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. Without allies on the ground inside Iraq, we will be handicapping our own efforts. Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others on Dec. 6, 2001
Whereas if Congress takes no action in the current situation where there is adequate time to deliberate and decide, there will be a significant further, if not virtually complete, erosion of congressional authority under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; and
Whereas this resolution takes no position on whether such authorization should or should not be granted by Congress: Now, therefore, be it Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Harkin), July 18, 2002
[...]And let me say that as soon as we go to war, I think all of us that have had arguments against this will make very clear that we support our troops.
[...] Well, I think this is a different situation where I believe that we did have Saddam Hussein contained, that he is a threat in a variety of ways to the region, but that it is not an issue that we had to take upon ourselves right now, and the bigger threat to our national security is what's going on in North Korea.
And this has been kind of an elective issue, and I hope very much that it works out well, because we all have to now pray for our troops. Madeline Albright, 2003
Regarding Iraq, Berger said it was imperative to disarm Hussein, but that the need was not so urgent that the United States must act without international support.
Berger advised against invading Iraq with only British support.
"If we invade as an American-British enterprise, all the risks are greater - the risk that Saddam's loyalists will stand and fight rather than collapse, that the war will create turmoil in the region, that there will be an anti-American backlash around the world. former National Security Adviser Samuel (Sandy) Berger, March 13, 2003
And having the inspectors there, I think, is absolutely crucial. So right now, I would hope we can avoid war.
And your question to Senator Lugar was "Are we in imminent danger?" I don't think anyone's made that case yet, not even your guest from the White House. He really ducked that question.
The issue is how do we get this man to disarm? And the fact is the inspectors there is very important. Let them do their work, and they will find those weapons, they will destroy those weapons, and we can avoid war. And that's the key thing. Barbara Boxer, January 26, 2003
Blitzer: You really believe, Senator Boxer, that if the inspectors are there even for many, many more months in a state the size of your home state of California, they'll be able to find the weapons inside Iraq?
(Well, bombing the crap out of Iraq and it's people didn't seem to do the trick either. Cowgirl, July 10, 2006)
This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. Robert Byrd, February 2003
The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear - multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the Al--Qaeda recruiting machine. WESLEY K. CLARK Oct. 14, 2002
"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." Wesley Clark, Jan 21, 2003
France asked Security Council members Wednesday to deliver ``specific information'' about Iraqi weapons programs to U.N. inspectors -- a request aimed at the United States and Britain who claim they have evidence of clandestine Iraqi programs.
He (Jacques Chirac) made the request on the eve of an undated assessment by the inspectors to the council. They are expected to state that no evidence of Iraqi nuclear, chemical or biological weapons has been uncovered since inspections resumed on Nov. 25. UNITED NATIONS (AP), January 8, 2003
President Clinton "never considered war with Iraq an option," the former aide said. "We were encouraged by the UN weapons inspectors and believed they had a good handle on the situation." Bill Clinton in 2003
And -- I'm only suggesting now that we don't need to do this today or tomorrow, Hans Blix has integrity, he is not in a pack with Saddam Hussein, he has been really tough on them. President Bush even cited some of his finding in the State of the Union address.
So what I am suggesting is, the policy of the United States should be, until we play this thing out a little more, to achieve two things. Let's disarm Iraq. If at all possible, let's do it in a way that strengthens world unity, and I am still not sure we can't get that. Legally does he have to go back? No. Bill Clinton in 2003
After voting in favor of the war with Iraq right before the November elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton never had another kind word to say for the war. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Clinton gave an interview on Irish TV in which she said she opposed precipitous action against Iraq. She said Bush should give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time. Ann Coulter, Feb. 27, 2003
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
(Didn't bother to look for a quote for this one....since he's a former REPUBLICAN senator. Cowgirl, July 10, 2006)
Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the Administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The seeming desire of this Administration to wage war alone -- without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress -- was wrong.
First and foremost, the President needs to be honest with the American people -- not only about the benefits of action against Iraq, but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders. We are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal. Bill Clinton in 2002
If it's clear that Saddam is not in the process of disarming, we ought to be willing to use military action...
...I'm not there yet. I think we have to wait and see what [chief weapons inspector] Hans Blix says [in his upcoming report on 1/27]. John Edwards, January 6, 2003
I don't think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify. Al Gore, 2002
[...]At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. [...]What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States. Al Gore, 2002
[...]From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
On Oct. 11, [2002]I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not. Bob Graham, November 18, 2005
I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and other top Administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term. Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002
[...]First, destroying Al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many Al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war. John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
Intrusive and effective UN inspections are the best way, perhaps the only way, to resolve this crisis peacefully. It is important for the United States to support the UN weapons inspectors as long as they are making progress. Without full U.S. support for the inspections, it is difficult to imagine the members of the Security Council uniting behind the multilateral use of force should that be required to disarm Iraq. Carl Levin, Feb 5, 2003
All of these are serious crimes. Not all of them deserve the same response. Not all of them call for war. Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the Administration established a solution -- going to war -- before it defined the problem or the goal. Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
After considering the threat, the costs, and the unanswered questions, I have reached a decision. I will vote against the underlying resolution. I will vote against going to war at this time. Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbors and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders." Ex-UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
(This quote is based on one of the lies told by the Bush administration. Cowgirl, July 10, 2006)
In the past month or so, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the Administration’s approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The Administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism. And Secretary Powell has been working with the United Nations Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm or face the consequences. John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
This is why we have to get this resolution right. And this is why I strongly support the substitute, which emphasizes action by the UN and the international community. It outlines the importance of working with a coalition, and before American lives are placed at risk, exhausting all other options through diplomacy and unfettered inspections. We should do all we can to secure a Security Council endorsement for an invasion of Iraq, and possibly to avoid a war by forcing Saddam to abide by the UN requirements for disarmament. War must always be a last resort. Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Democrats have been accused of flip-flopping on the war in Iraq. That claim is very disingenuous. All Democrats wanted was time to exhaust all other options before sending our sons and daughters to war. They actually gave this war some thought, because someone had to. Now that we know the truth, it's time to hold Bush and his administration accountable for all the death and destruction their reckless actions have caused. No more jokes about WMD. It's time the Republicans answered to the service members, their families, and all the others hurt or killed in this war.
posted by cowgirl4peace at 7:59 AM
1 comments
