Edwards comes around on Iraq vote
Former senator John Edwards published an op-ed in Sunday's WaPo:
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
As a backer of Edwards in the 2004 Democratic primary, it's refreshing to hear him do something the president and many politicians haven't yet done in admitting what a mistake this war was. There will be speculation that Edwards is just trying to keep his name alive for 2008. That doesn't invalidate his position, and it doesn't excuse war supporters from dealing with the reality in Iraq, and the manipulated intelligence that led us there.
For his part, the prez is trying to squelch further criticism of the leadup to war with his divisive speech on Veterans Day where he pointed the finger at war critics in Congress claiming they had the same intelligence as he did. As Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus reported over the weekend, don't believe some of the deceptive statements coming from our fearless leader:
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
The RNC has now issued talking points in response to the Post article, but I don't see how they'll help. If you're president, and still debating the merits of a war three years after the resolution passed, you're in some trouble.
posted by Scott @ 12:41 PM
15 Comments:
In March 2003, the weapons inspectors were still on the ground. It was our invasion that booted them out this time around. If we had let the inspections continue, we would have determined what we know now. That there were no WMDs in Iraq. Tens of thousands of lives could have been spared, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars.
You're right that Iraq has now become a magnet for foreign terrorism now as a result of the war. As far as winning this war, victory hasn't even been defined much less put in sight.
Nobody's defending Hussein.
But shifting the motivation for war after the fact is revisionist. We were told we suffered a clear and immediate threat to ourselves. Now it is to the Iraqi people.
If the president wanted to go to war for existing reasons, he should have done so instead of manufacturing false reasons that seemed more threatening.
Plus, no incumbent president has ever lost a wartime reelection bid. Therefore it would behoove a president to make war.
Count on more threatening rhetoric going into the midterm. Scare tactics on your own people are disgusting.
And leaking classified information for personal gain is by definition Treason.
And lying while under oath is by definition perjury.
If I had a dime for every retort that started with something like "b..b..but Clinton!"
Let's see, knob-job-gate or fraudulantly taking our country to war? Hmmm....
You're not reading the postings.
I refer you to posting No. 6.
"No one is defending Hussein. But shifting the motivation for war after the fact is revisionist. We were told we suffered a clear and immediate threat to ourselves. Now it is to the Iraqi people."
Now we must stay and clean up the neo-con mess. But they must still be held accountable for lying to the American people and the world. If you can censure Clinton for lying about getting head, we can censure Bush for lying to start a war.
I would recommend taking it to your next party meeting that if the president spent 2 minutes on primetime television stating he had bad intel, we're facing a different war than was originally intended, but he needs Americans to rally, he'd see a ten point bump over night (He'd still be under 50% given his recent numbers. Most Americans think the head of your party is a liar.)
And furthermore, I have a brother who enlisted in the Marine Corp infantry during Desert Storm. He spent 9 years carrying an M-60.
He was commendated 13 times not including two meritorious promotions to both Corporal and Sergeant.
He's now a finance officer in the Army, on his second tour in the Balkans (it ain't Fallujah but it is a combat zone).
He's a pro-military, fiscal conservative former stock broker. He used to call himself a Republican. Now he calls himself a Democrat.
And if he were here he'd call you an idiot.
Oversimplifying the issue does nothing to help your case (i.e. Better if Saddam in or out of power).
Even if one agreed with this war in the first place, they've botched the job every stage of the way. Not having enough troops, dismantling the Iraqi military leading to an immediate insurgency, allowing looting, not guarding the weapons, handing over so many jobs to US contractors rather than capable Iraqi citizens leading to massive unemployment...
The reason Americans don't trust this president anymore is he's completely out of touch with the reality in Iraq and is unable to take any responsibility for it. He could learn a lot from JFK's reaction to the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Go home and cry about it.
You have no right to comment on my brother, you coward. Enlist if it means that much to you.
How have I not "directly answered your question?"
"Then we should pull out our troops and re-enstate Saddam as ruler of Iraq?" -Mr_Prophylactic
"Now we must stay and clean up the neo-con mess."
Yes, I want the president impeached. And yes, we have to stay and finish the war, a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Thank you for causing the deaths of tens or hundreds or thousands of people over weapons of mass destruction that never existed and were known not to exist.
I didn't vote for W. the first time. I didn't vote for him the second time.
I'm pissed as hell at the liar and I intend on taking that to the midterm.
And with a 37% approval rating, I won't be alone.
See you at the polls.
-Semper Fidelis
We could start by to what degree, through action or inaction, he was responsible for the disclosure of classified American secrets, ie the identity of an American CIA operative.
Oversimplifying the issue does nothing to help your case (i.e. Better if Saddam in or out of power).
Hey, Scott, the issue that I thought we were debating is simple. Did we have the right to remove Saddam from power? If not, then we must return him to power. He was the ruler of Iraq. Just like if we convicted a man falsely, ala Steven Avery, we must release him.
And Ben, don't think I forgot about you.
he was responsible for the disclosure of classified American secrets
I was thinking you were going to charge him with a crime related to the invasion of Iraq. This alleged crime would have happened afterward. So he committed no crime in deciding to invade Iraq?
But you want impeachment? Bring it on! Because if you succeed, you get Cheney as President. HA HA!
And I thought we were debating pre-war planning and intelligence. Planning and carrying out a war is hardly a simple matter, and this debate involves questions much larger than just Hussein's fate. If you don't get that, I can't help you.
And I thought we were debating pre-war planning and intelligence.
Your post started with a statement from John Edwards. Edwards initially voted to give the president the right to remove Saddam. Now he says he was wrong.
Quote: The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
So he's saying that the president had no right to remove Saddam. The intelligence was faulty. The anti-war supporters were correct. So put Saddam back in power.
Oh, I didn't think you forgot about me, sweetheart.
You're in denial. The justification for the war was that Hussein had WMD and posed an immediate threat to us. Now you're saying it is because of atrocities on his own people. Again, that's revisionist.
If W. committed the act of Treason by intentionally leaking Plame's ID, it was to discredit Wilson for speaking out against the Africa connection of yellow-cake.
Therefore the administration knew its intel was wrong and presented it as right, creating a fraudulent justification for going to war.
That makes the leak of classified data (still a felony against the American people) directly relevant to the war.
You ARE over simplifying the issue by attaching the fraudulent and later revised justification for the war to reinstating Hussein.
Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
We will clean up your mess to an inevitably even greater loss of life. But if you lie to the American people about why we went to war, you will be held accountable by law.
"The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium."
This is a non-point. What is this so-called evidence the Intelligence Committee came up with? Wilson's report concluded that there was no uranium sale between Iraq and Niger. He has consistently defended his report which says such a sale was unlikely to occur. How is that misleading? It isn't.
So Saddam in his head may have wanted to buy uranium so that maybe he could acquire WMDs, but no such action had been taken. That's the case for war?
We were told that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons by Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld told us we knew that Hussein had WMDs and they knew where they were.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -Rumsfeld 3/30/2003.
Correct intel my ass.
If you really want to win this war then I would think you'd be more upset with how this administration has screwed up virtually everything along the way in trying to accomplish that goal.
Not having enough troops, dismantling the Iraqi military leading to the immediate insurgency, allowing looting, not guarding the weapons stocks, handing over the jobs to US contractors instead of Iraqi citizens leading to massive unemployment.
They are the definition of incompetence which is why even hawks like John Murtha, and the majority of Americans have turned on this president.
Post a Comment
<< Home