Is Campaign '08 gonna be great or what?

hereshoping · February 24, 2007, 10:13am

Oh, okay, sorry. I thought he might actually believe what he says to be true. :)

He was speaking of the dems every-which-way, whatever-way-the-wind-is-blowing views on the war.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 10:34am

See. That drives me nuts. The Dems supported the war because they believed the Republican administration. Now, it is perfectly obvious that the administration lied about WMD intelligence. Lied about having a post-war plan. Lied about not letting Iraq take the emphasis away from fighting terrorism. Iraq is a total, unmitigated disaster on every level and the Democrats are saying enough is a enough.

And, the Republicans have the gall to hang the whichever way the wind is blowing tag on them. Let me ask you a question? How could you have brain activity and a pulse and NOT have changed your mind, at least a little bit, about Iraq?

hereshoping · February 24, 2007, 10:53am

“The Democrats are saying enough is enough.”

Oh, really? Why don’t they pull funding then? No–they want it every-which-way, don’t they. Hence, the moral consistency of a doorknob label.

Anyone with brain activity and a pulse will not be stupid enough to vote for Hillary or Obama in the next election; I don’t care what Bush’s failings were/are.

mini · February 24, 2007, 11:05am

Foley, Hastert, DeLay, Giuliani, Newt, Carpenter, Ney, Abramoff - at least THEY have some moral consistency.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 11:32am

Oh, really? It’s interesting to me that the Democrats are now so opposed to the war in Iraq, when many leading members of the party had a very different view under President Clinton in 1998. <a href=“404 Not Found”>404 Not Found;

These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad. 

Senator Daschle: 

“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. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn’t simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. 

Senator Biden: 

“An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. 

Senator Lieberman: 

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called ‘three strikes and you are out,’ three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. 

Senator Levin: 

“Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. 

Senator Kerry: 

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.] 

In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not. 

Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one." 

Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998, not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?

It seems so ridiculous that the “Bush lied” propoganda still has legs. It’s clear from the Congressional record that the concerns about WMD in Iraq were at the front of many people’s minds a decade ago.

Of all of the leading Democrats quoted above, only Senator Lieberman has the courage of his convictions.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 12:30pm

sjmom:

Note the common thread in all of the quotes you posted: “Sadaam Hussein”.

In case you missed it, Sadaam Hussein’s government has been toppled and he has been executed. Mission accomplished, so to speak.

Why are we pouring $100 billion a year into Iraq now, the fifth year of a war the Pentagon estimated would cost $50 to $60 billion total. Do you feel like you are getting $100 billion a year in value from the expenditure? Do you feel like you are getting anything?

I would also note the sleight of hand ruse you attempted with the 1998 Congressional quotes. These were not quotes advocating a ground invasion and occupation of Iraq. These were quotes in support of limited bombing attacks and international inspections. As you know, there were off and on IAEA inspections in Iraq – inspections which uncovered no evidence of ongoing active WMD programs. Remember, the “alumininum tubes”? The IAEA inspectors knew all about the aluminum tubes because they had seen the stock of identical tubes from the shipment in the late 1980s when the tubes were ordered for producing an Iraqi version of an Italian air to ground missle they had been buying. The inspectors had seen the drawings of the tubes and seen the inventory levels in the late 1990s that showed 100,000 of the old stock had been used. Thus, they knew exactly what the new order in 2000 was for. The only people who didn’t were the US government, because the CIA’s guy failed to list the specs for exact match rocket launcher tubes on the chart of poor match specs for possible uranium enrichment centrifuge tubes.

hereshoping:

The short answer is that the Democrats don’t have the votes to pull the plug on Iraq funding. It takes 60 votes in the US Senate to control the bidding. It’s President Bush’s responsibility for two more years, his responsibility if the war escalation is successful, his responsibility if it fails. He has the near unanimous support of Republican Senators and Congressmen, so I assume voters will hold them responsible as well in November 2008.

BTW, the heavy-hitters in the Senate are introducing a revised war authorization package this week. It will be tied to an appropriations bill. It will be interesting to see how McConnell maneuvers to cut off debate on this one.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 12:56pm

Everything you could ever want to know about Iraqi aluminum tubes and the lies that were told about them:

<a href=“http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf[/url]”>http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf</a>

Allmusic · February 24, 2007, 12:59pm

I’ll answer that one with an emphatic NO, Idad. My God, what a waste of blood and treasure. Unbelievable that anyone still breathing supports this heinous waste of money and lives.

Imgaine what we could have done with that money, aside from blow a country to bits and murder thousands and thousands of its citizens:

<a href=“Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour”>Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour;

mini · February 24, 2007, 2:06pm

“It seems so ridiculous that the “Bush lied” propoganda still has legs. It’s clear from the Congressional record that the concerns about WMD in Iraq were at the front of many people’s minds a decade ago.”

Clinton lied about the WMD, too, and had even more rationale for doing so, to cover up his crimes. He didn’t kill a million people based on mistaken intelligence. Rather, he had the intelligence manufactured to provide the necessary cover. He fed those lies to the rest of the Dems, who fell for them hook, line, and sinker (as all those quotes demonstrate all-too-well), and prepared the way for the next set of lies, sponsored by the next Administration, many of them engineered by the Democratic appointment George Tenet, and his henchmen.

As for the business about Saddam Hussein killing his own people, it was done under the auspices of the Rumsfeld Handshake, where Hussein was sanctioned to use chemical weapons against the Iranians, and those who supported them. Note how quick the U.S. was to arrange for the execution of Saddam Hussein so that he could never be tried for the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Ever wonder why?

Meanwhile, to quote 1998 Carl Levin:

“Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council.”

Now where exactly do you think that very astute and intelligent Carl Levin got that information? ;)

The Dems most certainly do NOT deserve a free pass.

But it doesn’t make the lies, deceit, and general malfeasance of the current Administration any more stomachable.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 3:11pm

The context of the Levin quotes was the four-day Christmas bombing in December 1998 of Iraqi industrial sites – the culmination of a two-year cat n’ mouse game Hussein had played with the UN weapons inspectors ranging from '96 to '98 ranging from barring them from sensistive facilities to kicking them out to lack of cooperation.

The inspections program resumed in December 2002, when Hans Blix found the Iraqis to be generally cooperative.

None of the inspection teams from the early 90’s on ever found any evidence of ongoing nuclear programs. The main discrepancies all centered around chemical agents the Iraqis claimed to have destroyed in 91-92, but could not provide proof of the destruction. Finally, in 2002, they gave Blix the names of 80 people involved in the destruction for Blix to interview and proposed ground soil testing at the sites where the chemicals were dumped.

As we now know, the Iraqis were telling the truth. They didn’t have a nuclear program after '92 and they didn’t have chemical or biological weapons. The combination of the '91 war, the inspections, and the sanctions had put them out of business.

It’s hard to decipher Hussein’s motivation for ending inspections in '98. I would guess that it was a bluff – the illusion of having WMD programs made him more powerful in his mind. BTW, I think some of that same “logic” is in play in Iran. There is no specific evidence that Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, and if they were, best case scenario would require put construction of their first crude weapon in the 2009-2010 time frame.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 3:20pm

My point is that many people, including Democrats and intelligence officers from other countries, were concerned about WMD in Iraq over the course of many years. Is it possible that Hussein never had, or intended to have, WMD? Of course. Is it possible that they were hidden in Syria? Maybe. My point is that it is dishonest to say that Bush got us into the Iraq war through lies.

In any case, we are there now. So the question is not “Should we have gone into Iraq?” but “What do we do now?” I think we’d all agree that the status quo is not acceptable. So then you choose, leave as quickly as possible, in defeat – without regard for the consequences? Or try to help the Iraqi people establish a representative form of government, clear out Al Qaeda terrorists and leave on our own terms. My bias is to try to fix the situation before giving up. I will always believe that this country has the resources – in terms of people, leadership and material goods – to win any conflict. What we don’t always have is the will and commitment to do so.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 3:36pm

One more thought – the Democrats are actually in a fairly precarious political situation at the moment. It’s pretty clear that the current situation in Iraq won’t last forever. One of two things will happen – it will either get better or it will get so bad it’s really a defeat for the US.

If the situation improves (and actually gets reported in the MSM), then it’s a positive situation for whoever the Republicans nominate in '08. And I think that expectations for stability in Baghdad are so low, that any improvement will seem wonderful.

If we pull out precipitously, it’s hard for it not to be construed as a humiliating defeat for the US military. The Democrats will probably benefit politically, although it’s a little awkward. I wouldn’t want to be one whose success depended on the US “losing” this war. I don’t think there’s anyway to spin withdrawal as “winning the war.” So you guys are in a tough spot – root for our humiliation and thus benefit politically, or support the military enough to let them do their job. Sometimes it’s nice to be the underdog in a political contest.

Allmusic · February 24, 2007, 3:54pm

SJmom, the US has already been defeated. I know you read the news, and that you are aware of the daily death toll, which can be 100-150 people a day. The generals contend that the troop surge cannot possibly quell this level of unrest and violence.

I don’t know quite what you expect to happen, except to have more Americans come home in body bags.

You are earnest, and I respect our differences here. So, I ask you seriously…if the situation is already “grave and deteriorating”, what “improvement” are you expecting? 20 people dead in a day instead of 100?

I am not meaning to be snarky, seriously, because I really don’t understand what a bright woman, such as yourself, sees as the possibility of victory in this current situation.

hereshoping · February 24, 2007, 4:16pm

Not snarky…just patronizing.

Allmusic · February 24, 2007, 4:19pm

Ah, so says the pot.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 4:33pm

I don’t accept that the US has been defeated. I agree that’s it’s not going as well as most people would like, and that something has to change. We did manage to depose a ruthless dictator, help a fledgling democracy have an election and supported them as they developed a constitution. There are success stories in Iraq, but I’m sure you’ll never read about them in the Boston Globe. <a href=“http://www.untoldiraq.org/[/url]”>http://www.untoldiraq.org/</a>
<a href=“http://ftp.info.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/success_stories.html[/url]”>http://ftp.info.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/success_stories.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.untoldiraq.org/page.cfm?id=7[/url]”>http://www.untoldiraq.org/page.cfm?id=7</a>

Sometimes it is asked, “How do you define success?” Well, I’d like to ask, “How do you define defeat?” As long as the US military doesn’t say they’ve lost, I’ll continue to support them. To me, defeat is when a government surrenders, as at the end of WWII. Let me ask you this – what if we sent 500,000 heavily armed troops, with all the equipment they needed to completely control Iraq while the Iraqi democracy was allowed to strengthen? Do you think we’d still be defeated? What about a million? I’m not suggesting that we actually send that many troops – what I’m saying is that we haven’t provided enough resources to definitively win this conflict. You can’t win with a half-hearted effort.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 4:42pm

I’m not going to ask you to substantiate this statement. But I will point out that if the generals really thought there was no way to quell the terrorism in Iraq, they’d support withdrawal. Petraeus seems to think it can work – but what do you expect in a few weeks? In the meantime, people on this side of the Atlantic are just so willing to throw in the towel, while the people actually in Iraq seem convinced that they can win if they are given the tools they need.

Honestly, I’m tired of these conversations, as I’m sure many of you are. Time will tell. Either we will succeed or we will withdraw. I don’t think I’d be cheering for withdrawal though. It doesn’t bode well for our future.

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 4:57pm

If you think I’m bright, how do you account for our different points of view? Is it possible that if you read some of the more conservative blogs or periodicals, you might see another side?

I know that you meant this kindly. But I think people should consider why we all differ on these issues. I don’t think that liberals or Democrats are stupid, but sometimes their logic escapes me. I know I am influenced by my husband, who has better insight and understanding than almost anyone I’ve ever known. I’ve actually tried to get him to post, as he is much better than me in explaining things, but he is far too busy.

As a former Democrat, I look at the world a little differently, I think, than someone who grew up in a Republican home. It never hurts to think about why an opponent has a different perspective.

TheDad · February 24, 2007, 5:05pm

Define “win”.

Which group of Iraqis are left standing at the end:

SCIRI, a Shiite mainstay of the current government and which is the prime recipient of arms and support from Iran, including those Iranian advisors arrested by the US, and whose Badr Corps is one of two main Shiite militia groups? (I see in today’s paper where the US arrested and roughed up Al-Hakim’s son as he crossed back over from Iran. Brilliant move.)

The Dawa Party, the Shiite political arm associated with Muktada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army militia championed by working class Baghdad and comprising the other mainstay of the current government?

The Baathist Sunni remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime?

The Salafist organizations loosely under the Al Qaeda umbrella who use everyone they can to their own purposes as they attack Americans?

The Kurds, however admirable, don’t count for much outside of Kurdistan and don’t care for much beyond Mosul…they just want to be left alone. (Oh yeah, and a lot of them have Iranian connections too, due to the years of anti-Saddam collaboration.)

THIS is the situation that we have created. There is no stable, pro-American, democratic center for the country to rally around.

There are ignorant fools who support this pathetic excuse of a president who treat Iraq as some sort of arcade shoot 'em up game or one of those war games where you push cardboard chits around on a mapboard…their visions in no way correspond to any reality on the ground.

And trusting the manipulative arrogant & ignorant orifices who got us into this mess to get us out of this mess transcends my level of faith in human abilities.

===

FF: just Google “Democrats” and “treason”, “disloyal,” “traitor” etc. Everyone from Dick Cheney down to Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and all the other cogs in the Vast Rightwing Noise Machine have not been shy about imputing disloyalty and treason to Democrats.

Allmusic · February 24, 2007, 5:12pm

I grew up in a Republican home (never mind that my parents are more disgusted with Bush than I am, and have abandoned the party, which has lost its “traditional values”.).

I try to understand the other POV. The same way that you are “baffled” by the perceived lack of logic by Democrats, I feel the same way about Republicans. I just can’t understand, based on the evidence on the ground, how anyone thinks this will all work out.

But yes, time will tell, and I will gladly eat crow if I am wrong, as I have said for four years now.

Is Campaign '08 gonna be great or what?

CONNECT WITH US