Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, I simply read what they actually said...not the out of context snippets virally circling the web in people's inboxes.

Everybody thought Iraq was a problem but there certainly wasn't a Dem position favoring the near unilateral action that resulted. Clinton especially made this point very clear.

Bush had to show the threat as well as immediacy. When you have the Vice President on TV claiming al Qaeda connections, Rice talking about mushroom clouds and stories about nuke development being planted in the New York Times you're going to scare a lot of people.

Remember back then a vast majority of American's though Saddam was in on 9/11.

We now have access to pretty much everything Congress had and it's the same BS intel that a bias towards war produced. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy. I'm not aware of specific people and specific lies, but when you're looking to justify something it's a lot easier to lean a little one way vs the other.

Congress as well voted before the UN resolution which Bush abandoned after it was looking like the inspections wouldn't turn up sufficient evidence.

If anything, the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council.

Lie? Not so much...

-spence

"the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council."

When the public supported Bush, I didn't hear those senators speaking out against the war. When public opinion turned against the war - BINGO - all of a sudden, those folks never really supoprted the war, rather they were duped by Bush's lies. What a coincidence!

Maybe those folks didn't like the near-unilateral approach. Neither did Bush. That's why Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN.

Bush admits he was wrong. Most of the Democrats who voted for the war will never admit that...rather, they were misled by Bush's lies.

Again, I feel you're being 100% fair to Bush. I just think you're bending over backwards to paint the Democrats who supported the war, in a favorable light.

I can't say it any simpler than this...those Democrats I mentioned supported the war when it was popular. When public opinion turned against the war, all of a sudden those Senators changed their tune. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are being less than honest about not originally supporting the war.

Spence, you keep harping on the fact that they didn't like the near-unilateral way we did it. Maybe they didn't like it, but they voted for it. And two of them (Biden and Hilary) got significant promotions after that, while Bush is demonized. Seems a wee bit inconsistent. Bush was president, and the responsibility lies with him, so he deserves much criticism. But if the war was fundamentally immoral (as many liberals claim), I don't see why the senators who authorized it, get a pass.

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971587

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.[/QUOTE]

there's harmony in the foxhole !!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When the public supported Bush, I didn't hear those senators speaking out against the war. When public opinion turned against the war - BINGO - all of a sudden, those folks never really supoprted the war, rather they were duped by Bush's lies. What a coincidence!

Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.

Maybe those folks didn't like the near-unilateral approach. Neither did Bush. That's why Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN.

I don't believe many in Bush's inner circle wanted to involve the UN as it would have been an impediment to removing Saddam. They had to know the case against him wasn't as good as they were making it out to be...even President Bush was reported as remarking (in Woodward's book) "that's all we've got?".

Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization.

Bush admits he was wrong. Most of the Democrats who voted for the war will never admit that...rather, they were misled by Bush's lies.

From what I've read many have said given what they know now they wouldn't have voted for the authorization. This is a pretty rational position.

Again, I feel you're being 100% fair to Bush. I just think you're bending over backwards to paint the Democrats who supported the war, in a favorable light.

I think many have deep regret that they didn't push harder. Hindsight is a bitch...

I can't say it any simpler than this...those Democrats I mentioned supported the war when it was popular. When public opinion turned against the war, all of a sudden those Senators changed their tune. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are being less than honest about not originally supporting the war.

Then you could say the same thing about the entire country. America was overwhelmingly behind the war when we believed the Administration's case and support eroded when it became clear that we were pushed into it.

Spence, you keep harping on the fact that they didn't like the near-unilateral way we did it. Maybe they didn't like it, but they voted for it. And two of them (Biden and Hilary) got significant promotions after that, while Bush is demonized. Seems a wee bit inconsistent. Bush was president, and the responsibility lies with him, so he deserves much criticism. But if the war was fundamentally immoral (as many liberals claim), I don't see why the senators who authorized it, get a pass.

If anything was immoral it was the hawks in the Administration vigorously trying to find a way to justify war rather than vigorously trying to work to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

There's a big difference between Moveon.org and Senators Clinton and Kerry. You can't lump them all together.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.


I don't believe many in Bush's inner circle wanted to involve the UN as it would have been an impediment to removing Saddam. They had to know the case against him wasn't as good as they were making it out to be...even President Bush was reported as remarking (in Woodward's book) "that's all we've got?".

Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization.


From what I've read many have said given what they know now they wouldn't have voted for the authorization. This is a pretty rational position.


I think many have deep regret that they didn't push harder. Hindsight is a bitch...


Then you could say the same thing about the entire country. America was overwhelmingly behind the war when we believed the Administration's case and support eroded when it became clear that we were pushed into it.



If anything was immoral it was the hawks in the Administration vigorously trying to find a way to justify war rather than vigorously trying to work to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

There's a big difference between Moveon.org and Senators Clinton and Kerry. You can't lump them all together.

-spence

"Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis. "

You can say that if you wish. But it's not what they said at the time. What they said at the time was, Saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped. In this same thread, I supplied quotes from those very same Democrats. Read them. But I must warn you, you won't like it.

Spence, if you have to ignore the actual facts and invent your own, doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is something flawed about what you believe?

"Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization."

Spence, are you feeling all right today? If Powell was seeking COngressional approval, why didn't he simply address Congress? Why go all the way to New York, instead of walking across the street to the Capital Building? Who did Powell address at the UN - Congress?

Iraq was not a unilateral situation, by the way. I worked with soldiers from many different countries.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You can say that if you wish. But it's not what they said at the time. What they said at the time was, Saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped. In this same thread, I supplied quotes from those very same Democrats. Read them. But I must warn you, you won't like it.

I've read all of them and provided valuable context years ago, use the search button.

So many quotes attributed to Dems are from 1998 when we were talking about airstrikes. The post 9/11 quotes are based off of the same misinformation campaign presented to the public to justify the actions. Many of them when you read the full transcript are also taken out of context.

Use the search button.

Spence, if you have to ignore the actual facts and invent your own, doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is something flawed about what you believe?

Actually, I think my read on the situation is pretty nuts on.

Spence, are you feeling all right today? If Powell was seeking COngressional approval, why didn't he simply address Congress? Why go all the way to New York, instead of walking across the street to the Capital Building? Who did Powell address at the UN - Congress?

No, it's called getting votes, this is how Congress works. You placate members of Congress who may be on the fence by telling them we're going to the UN and get a resolution, we're going to do this right etc...

Iraq was not a unilateral situation, by the way. I worked with soldiers from many different countries.

I said nearly unilateral. The first Gulf war had a real coalition. The second was primarily a collaboration between the US and the UK who knew we didn't have a solid story. There were some other troops involved if I recally not substantial endorsements as they didn't have the public support.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or you could say they (Democrats) were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.


-spence

Spence, this, right here, is a pivotal moment for you.

In the above statement, you are saying that prominent Democrats didn't genuinely believe that Saddam had WMDs. but rather, they were just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (as if they did that all the time, but we'll save that for another day).

Here is what those prominent Democrats actually said. you tell me if what they are saying is that they are just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, of if they really believe what they are saying...

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program" - Bill Clinton, 1998

"respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's WMD program" - Senator John Kerry, 1998 (before Bush was president)

"Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMDs..." - Nancy Pelosi, 1998 (before Bush was Presisdent)

"there is no doubt that Saddam has reinvigorated his weapons programs" - Sen Bob Graham, D-FL, 2001

"Saddam...is building WMDs and the means of delivering them..." - Sen Carl Levin, D-MI, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons..." - Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam is seeking and developing WMDs" - Ted Kennedy, 2002

"we are confident that Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and bioogical weapons..." - Sen Robert Byrd, 2002

"there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons..." Sen Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, 2002

"it is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam will continue to increase his capacity of biological and chemical weapons" - Hilary Clinton, 2002

and finally...

"we are in posession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam has a developing capacity for the production of WMDs...the threat of Saddam Hussein with WMDs is real" - John Kerry, 2003

OK Spence, you tell me. Does it sound to you like these prominent Democrats were merely giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (unusual, since some of those quotes are from before Bush was elected). Or, does it sound to you, like it sounds to everyone else here, that these folks are personally convinced that there was a threat?

Your response will be a defining moment for you. I'm rooting for you to put down the Kool Aid, and simply admit that these Democrats believed at the time, that Saddam had (or was pursuing) WMDs.