Letters to the Editor
-
why not observe the obvious?
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee is circulating a compilation of video clips showing Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats talking tough about Iraq in the past. Bush said yesterday of his Democratic critics: "They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now."
It has been my experience that when people rebut this line of attack, they never seem to use the most obvious observation:
Sure they thought he was dangerous when Clinton was feeding them the intel... but not so dangerous they had to invade. That is, until the Bush whitehouse started making their case.
-
Bush is away, but Iraq attacks continue
Sorry Tim, but I'm not buying The Big Lie from the Republicrats either. Many of us knew full well that DerBu$hler was lying at the time, and 23 members of the US Senate voted against the lies and Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). If anything, Hillary and company who are now feigning "I didn't know" should be seen as admitting they are too damn dumb to be holding high public office!
For the roll call vote, separating those with and without a clue--or conscience--in the US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
-
BUSH IS AWAY
I think Mr. Clark (below) is being a bit unrealistic about the motives of those Democrats who voted to give Bush permission to seek to contain the threat that Saddam presented. Of course all of us without a conservative agenda knew that Saddam did not present the danger that the Bush administration insisted he did. However, none of us had any evidence to support our belief. Conversely, congress was presented with "evidence" that it did not have the time to investigate. Bush had sold the war with Iraq to a majority of the American public who placed great pressure on their elected representatives to support the President in time of war (on terror). Congress had to believe that the President was telling the truth in his role as Commander and Chief. If everything our President said has been true about Saddam and Iraq, then voting to grant authority to contain that threat was a prudent thing to do. I think even Mr. Clark would agree that the vote would have been different if all the intelligence had been shared with Congress that was known at the time. Before the vote in Congress we now know that the Bush administration knew there was no Niger connection, no connection between Saddam and 9/11, no stores of biological weapons and no demonstrable capacity to build rockets. I believe that withholding that information rises to derelection of duty by the Commander and Chief. This war is not the fault of a few Democrats in Congress who mistakenly believed that George W. Bush would not lie about such an important issue. This war is solely the responsibility of George W. Bush.
-
Bush away but everyone is very busy
I am just absorbing the news about a Gaza border crossing agreement brokered by Condi Rice between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The timing is interesting - from an administration who has not been interested in getting the Israelis to compromise on anything, a "success" story seems badly needed right now. Perhaps this can also be read that the administration is finally connecting the dots between extremism and untenable the situation in the Palestinian Territories.
-
It's a marketing campaign, not a debate
I have to agree with Clark (below, I hope). There was evidence available to the Democrats, of a conspiracy to manipulate intelligence to justify war on Iraq, albeit some of it circumstantial:
- The Wolfowitz/NeoCon policy paper written in the early 90s describing a plan for democratizing the Middle East,
- News reports of Bush's post 9/11 shift away from old standard Republicanism to the NeoCons,
- Leaks regarding Rumsfield/Cheney pushing for Iraq invasion within days of 9/11,
- Colin Powell's initial reluctance to invade Iraq,
- Statements by not 1, but 2 UN weapons inspectors casting doubts on the existence of WMDs in Iraq,
- Within days of most of Bush's wild intelligence claims there was some refutation of the same printed in major papers,
The Bush Administration just turned up the volume. It's a marketing campaign, not a debate. The other side of the campaign is that if you don't support the troops, if you don't back the President in a time of crisis, if you don't believe the lies, you are a traitor. Rove is still calling the left traitors. Cheney never has stopped talking about the connection between Al Queda and Hussein. He couldn't care less about evidence.
Yes the Democrats were lied to, yes they didn't get all the information, but most Democrats made a politically expeditious decision. "If Bush is right or, if he's wrong but the war goes well, I win by backing him. If Bush is wrong and the war goes wrong, I still win because, well, Bush was wrong."
To have any hope of holding Bush responsible, the Democrats have to own the argument, which they are rarely able to do these days. To argue whether or not the Democrats had privy to all the data or not is playing into the Republicans' hands. If they can convince the American people that both sides messed up, Republicans win. This isn't the issue.
Bush lied directly to the people. He lied to the world. He trumped up evidence to send our people to war and also, by the way, kill 10s of thousands of innocent people. He's arguably increased terrorism worldwide. He certainly has now made the connection between Iraq and Al Queda that didn't exist before. (Something, BTW, that the over-disparaged intelligence community predicted.)
Admittedly, the fact that most Democrats went along doesn't make them look too good. But that shouldn't let the Commander and Chief off the hook.
(IMO, the two people who know the truth and in their heart of hearts are itching to tell the story are Colin Powell and George Tenet.)
-
Tim Grieve's good article about Iraq attacks
When NeoCons pass around articles about Democrats under Clinton worrying about Iraq's WMD, they forget to point out that during the Clinton administration, we did not "go it alone" but moved through the UN or the regional organization in the area of the problem.
The UN was indeed pursuing what was happening with the sanctions against IRAQ -- but they felt that Iraq was indeed complying at least in large part. I believe by the time Bush came into office, the UN was winding down its Iraq investigation.
Bush should simply have stuck with the UN initiative and not lost over 2000 American lives and goodness knows how many civilians and non-combatants.
And, by the way, how can W. stand there in China and urge more freedom when in this country he has shut down our freedom of speech, of association, of gun ownership, of habeas corpus, and on and on. He believes we are living under a military dictatorship. One that believes in torture.