Sunset War Authorization

[Dr. Shane]

Clinton calls for end to Iraq war authorization

Quote:

In her most dramatic statement on the Iraq war since officially entering the 2008 presidential race, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) called for ending the 2002 authorization resolution for the war.

Clinton joined with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), a leading war opponent, in offering a proposal to "sunset" the 2002 use-of-force resolution by Oct. 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the Senate vote allowing President Bush to take military action against Saddam Hussein. Under the Byrd-Clinton plan, Bush would then have to return to Congress to seek new authority to conduct the war.

Just more politics for the sake of politics. Any resolution to "sunset" the war authorization would need to be signed by the President. He would veto it and the anti-war Democrats don't have the votes to override his veto.

The Democrats are placing a lot of their eggs in this basket in hopes to gain more power in the next election.

[bevin]

Since Bush has always used special appropriations, rather than budget, to pay for the war the Democrats simply have to hold their ground and not send him a bill with funding in it

Then the govt grinds to a halt and Bush doesn't have the funding he wants

It is a fun game of chicken, isn't it

I wonder if the authors of the Constitution realized what a mess they had actually made before they died

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I wonder if the authors of the Constitution realized what a mess they had actually made before they died

Quite the anti-American statement.

Since the Constitution is the oldest written form of government still in use, I would say the authors of it did quite a good job.

The Democrats can hold their ground if they are willing to take the political consequences for it. Bush has nothing to lose. They have everything to lose.

[Bravus]

I wasn't going to get into this, bt I can't resist: is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Democrats are opposing the war because they believe it's morally wrong and against America's best interests. I'm sure they do have a weather eye on ublic opinion, but to ascribe *all* of their opposition to tmost he war to political opportunism seems unfair. The time they were politically opportunistic was when they supported the war, IMO: and that has come back to bite them.

[olger]

They were for the war because most of the nation was, and they believed that Saddam indeed had nuclear ambitions.

The best example of this opportunism is Bill Which-way-does-the-wind-blow Clinton.

It is laughable to suggest that Nancy Pelosi & Mrs. Clinton place the Lord's morality over their own liberal ambitions. In this country, most of us know better.

This is olger signing off

[Dr. Shane]

I watched two nights of Bill O'Reilly's interview with George Tenant this week. I think it is absolutely shameful the way these Democrats are running away from their votes for this war. Every single one of them had the same intelligence as the President. Each one made their decision independently. I seriously doubt this song and dance that their vote for authorization wasn't an actual vote for the war has much truth in it. I have little doubt in my mind that they are pandering to their anti-war base.

It is understandable that those who were against the war from the beginning (like many here) want to ascribe honorable motives to these flip-flopping Democrats that are now against the war. However I cannot help but notice that when the majority of Americans were in favor of the war, these Democrats were in favor of it and when public opinion turned against the war, these Democrats were quick to follow.

A significant majority of Americans supported the Iraq War at the beginning. What has turn most Americans against the war is the terrible execution of it. I think it may be a mistake for Democrats to think that their surrender attitude is going to gain them more seats in Congress and the White House. It will guarantee them the votes of the minority that were against the war from the beginning. However the majority that supported the war will likely consider supporting a candidate they believe can bring a favorable end to the war. Most every American wants out but not all want to leave with our tail between our legs and the terrorists hot on our trail.

The successful Republican candidate is likely to distance himself from Bush by criticizing the execution of the war. Contrast the difference between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. The CIA has been in charge of Afghanistan while the Pentagon has been in charge of Iraq. Iraq was Rumsfield's war while Afghanistan was Tenant's war. The successful candidate can place a lot of blame on Rumsfield, making him a type of scapegoat.

In all honestly, if Gore had won in 2000 the chances that we would have went into Iraq is very, very high. After watching the interview with Tenant, I believe that more than ever before. The difference isn't whether or not we would have gone to war, but how the war has been run.

[Bravus]

I've said very strongly that the Democrats were wrong in supporting the war. I also believe that they were not convinced by the doctored evidence they saw of WMDs, but that they were politically opportunistic and wanted to be seen as 'tough' and as protecting Americans. This is to their shame, and I have never at any stage excused them for their craven actions at that time.

Nonetheless, the gospel is all about redemption. We have second chances, we can acknowledge that we were wrong and move on. Some senators and members of the house have done so, Hillary hasn't and that's one of the reasons I don't think she's a good presidential candidate.

All of us have mixed motives, and tend to see the things that reinforce what we think is in our interest. Any suggestions that the Republicans have acted solely on principal in the origin and conduct of this war, without any political considerations, would be equally nonsensical.

I simply said that stating, as Shane did, that political expedience is the *only* motivation for the Democrats' opposition to the war is over-stating the case. It is *one of* their motivations, but there are others.

Just so we're clear, this *was* and *is* an immoral war of international aggression. I have said that from the first, and will keep saying it, unswayed by public opinion!

[Dr. Shane]

Just for those that have not seen Tenant's interview. He said he was convinced with every thread of his existence that Saddam had WMDs. He was very reserved with assigning blame for problems in the war to any specific person. He also acknowledged that the discussions we are now having are because hindsight is 20/20. The fact is we didn't know then what we know now. It is easy to criticize various people for mistakes that are now obvious. It was a very enlightening interview. I think when all is done, Bush is no longer in office and there are no political points to be made from such discussions, we will see that the motives were right and good but many major mistakes were made in the process.

[Bravus]

Or: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/05/03/george_tenet/

[Dr. Shane]

All I get out of the Salon.com article is that Tenent's honesty doesn't make him look good. Isn't that all the more reason to trust that he is being straight with us? Tenent obviously bares a lot of blame for the bad intelligence. But his job isn't an easy one, hindsight is 20/20 and the CIA wasn't the only intelligence service in the world that believed Saddam had WMDs. The Russians believed he was preparing to use them on us.

[bevin]

Quote:

The fact is we didn't know then what we know now.

The fact, documented in news papers all over the world, is that the UN Weapons Inspectors told the USA in no uncertain terms that they had found no evidence of WMD or an active program to get them

Bush was told they weren't there by the people in the best position to know

/Bevin

[Planey]

... Democrats ... Every single one of them had the same intelligence as the President.

If true, this must be a very discouraging thought for the future of your country.

Don't you have any politicians smarter than a chimpanzee?

[bevin]

Bush, Chaney, et al, were busy choosing the evidence and influencing the intelligence providers to make sure that the truth was NOT what was in the briefings.

Bush surrounded himself with dishonest tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear men, ignored contrary evidence, and getting rid of people who tried to give him unpleasant facts.

Just look at the number of his top staff who have had major problems with ethics and competence. I can't recall anything like it since my wfe and I came to the USA in 1982.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The fact, documented in news papers all over the world, is that the UN Weapons Inspectors told the USA in no uncertain terms that they had found no evidence of WMD or an active program to get them

That rhetoric is outdated. Please, if we are going to repeat talking points, let's at least not use the out dated ones.

Last week on Meet The Press, Joe Biden (who is a flip-flopping Democrat on the war) said weapons inspectors DID find WMDs and had made a list of them but they were not weaponized. He further stated that if Saddam had been left alone, he WOULD have aquired a nuclear weapon within ten years by purchasing one, no developing one.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Bush, Cheney, et al, were busy choosing the evidence and influencing the intelligence providers

Again, let's try to keep up with the latest information out there.

According to George Tenent, Cheney was pushing for evidence to support a link between Saddam and al Queda. However that is no different than police trying to find evidence to convict a suspect they believe to be guilty. Cheney did not publicly say there was a link between Saddam and al Queda. When asked on Meet The Press, he said he didn't know.

Let us not forget that the CIA wasn't alone in believing that Saddam had WMDs. The British, Isrealis, Egyptians, Spanish, Italians, Russians, among others were also convinced.

George Tenent claims he was convinced with every thread of his existence that Saddam had WMDs. It appears that George Tenent ignored some evidence to the contrary. However the issue is so politically charged that we, the public, are not likely to get a balanced view of what actually happened until a number of years after the war has come to an end.

[bevin]

Shane, no matter how often you keep repeating the Bush camp's propaganda, it doesn't get any truer.

You continually ignore the blatant clear fact that the UN Weapons Inspector's publically told Bush et al that they were not finding ANY evidence of an active WMD program or stocks of WMD's

and 500 decaying artillery shells left over from a war where millions of them were used does not count - heck, our Dept of Homeland Security can't even keep track of their own hard drives, and our military has sold top secret military hardware to scrap dealers.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Last week on Meet The Press, Joe Biden (who is a flip-flopping Democrat on the war) said weapons inspectors DID find WMDs and had made a list of them but they were not weaponized. He further stated that if Saddam had been left alone, he WOULD have aquired a nuclear weapon within ten years by purchasing one, no developing one.

Why don't you actually read what Biden said, rather than making incorrect statements

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2/

Quote:

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

Biden is talking about the catalogs made years earlier, before the WMD programs were terminated and the weapons destroyed

Before Bush ordered the invasion, the UN Weapons Inspectors clearly told him there were no WMD - and HE accused THEM of incompetence!

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, no matter how often you keep repeating the Bush camp's propaganda, it doesn't get any truer.

I guess Joe Biden and George Tenant are also repeating the "Bush camp's propaganda".

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Biden is talking about the catalogs made years earlier, before the WMD programs were terminated and the weapons destroyed

Let's leave off the SPIN. Biden was talking about 1998.

"when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had... But he did have these stockpiles everywhere."

We had PROOF from the weapons inspectors that he had chemical weapons in 1998 BUT not that he had weaponized them. We did not know what he had been doing between 1998 and 2002. Nor do we know whatever happened to these chemical weapons that the UN inspectors had cataloged.

Quote:

Before Bush ordered the invasion, the UN Weapons Inspectors clearly told him there were no WMD - and HE accused THEM of incompetence!

That is simply not true.

[Dr. Shane]

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

Quote:

It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

That is definitely not saying "there were no WMDs" Let's try to be a little more accurate.

Quote:

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

Yes, Saddam still had WMD programs.

Hans Blix was never going to disarm Saddam.

Quote:

Blix told the Security Council on January 27, 2003 that: "As we know, the twin operation 'declare and verify', which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of 'hide and seek'." Iraq was supposed to demonstrate a willingness to disarm, but Blix felt that: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance-not even today-of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Those words, and the hint of military action, demonstrated that Saddam had to realize that this was his final last chance.

That is definitely not saying "there were no WMDs"

Quote:

Before the UN inspectors returned to Iraq in late 2002, Saddam's regime was suspected of possessing 8,500 litres of anthrax, a deadly agent that the Iraqis claimed to have destroyed. The U.N. view, published on March 6, 2003, was not only that Iraq still had anthrax, the inspectors increased their estimate for the volume of unaccounted anthrax from 8,500 litres to 10,000 litres. As Iraq could produce little evidence of either production or destruction, Blix's team concluded that: "Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

That is definitely not saying "there were no WMDs"

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

and 500 decaying artillery shells left over from a war where millions of them were used does not count

One million is a very big number. Not even right-wing radicals claim Saddam used or had millions of WMDs.

Governments that have WMDs, do not lose track of them. Let's think about this for a minute. If Saddam had lost track of some of his WMDs that would mean that his enemies might have been able to use them against him. Does anyone think that Saddam actually lost track of some of his WMDs? Of course not. He knew exactly where they were. If he didn't, these lost WMDs could have fallen into the wrong hands. WMDs are not like nuts and washers that get misplaced and lost. Strict inventories are made and maintained. No government with WMDs is going to lose them haphazardly.

[Neil D]

Quote:

That is definitely not saying "there were no WMDs" Let's try to be a little more accurate.

Ok, let's be a bit more accurate...We went into that country with the assumption that Saddam had WMDs. We went into to prove that he had them. He said that he didn't. I admit to being frustrated at the 'incompetance' of the Weapons Inspectors and at their being held up at key checkpoints to allow those mysterious weapons to disappear. But at every instilation that the inspectors looked, they reported that there was no WMDs. We could never find them. The newspapers reports were pretty sure that Saddam had those WMDs, and thier reporting reflected that bias.

After the war started, and we were not finding any weapons, NPR did a sound bite, where they took all the sound clippings from Bush, Cheney and Rice for the prior 6 months to the war...each leader was adimant that they KNEW where those WMDs were, although they never mentioned exactly where they were.

And it wasn't untill we broke the country, that we found the reason that we couldn't find those WMD....It was because they were not there.

If these guys knew where they were, why didn't they tell the Weapons Inspector, when the Weapons Inspectors asked for specific intel?

If the democrates had the same intel, why didn't they tell the UN Weapons Inspectors where those WMDs were? I suspect that the Dems didn't have the same intel as the President....Therefore, again, the President and his aides cherry picked the information released to the Dems and the American public. And politicians, being politicians, and aware of thier constituents, voted according to what the constituents were fed.

[Bravus]

And Cheney *did* repeatedly and publicly, make a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection...

[bevin]

Sorry

When you categorize an artillery shell as a WMD, it is simply not true that they don't get lost track of in an active war

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Strikes me that 'WMD' is nearly as useful and malleable a term as 'terrorist'... it can be applied as convenient