« Home | Welcome To The Jungle » 

Thursday, February 1 

Revising History

There are a lot of Democrats lately who would like to pretend that they never thought this war was a good idea. They use phrases like "the President misled us" or "Bush lied, soldiers died". The truth is that when we went to war, the vast majority of Americans supported the war, and the vast majority of Democrats supported it as well.

They will now claim that they only supported it because Bush lied to them about Iraq's WMDs, but I think it's about time for a little history lesson.

Did you catch the new fearless leader of the House in there? On November 17, 2002 on Meet The Press, Nancy Pelosi said,
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no doubt about that.

Also be sure to catch Harry Reid, also from 2002, as he says,
"..I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
And finally, Hillary Clinton from her Floor Speech of October 10, 2002,
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Since Hillary is the current Democratic front-runner, let's take a look at her specifically and what her views were about the U.S. going to war and doing it with or without the support of the rest of the world.


There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't, based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation. (emphasis mine)
Notice that last line. Her decision to vote to authorize the President to go to war had nothing at all to do with Bush misleading her, it had to do with her own knowledge and research.

In response to what the Democrats knew was true (as shown above), that Saddam posed a threat to the United States, they passed AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 on October 17, 2002.

Included in this law are these lines.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Notice the relevant term here, he may use the Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. That means he can order a surge in troops and congress can take their non-binding resolution of condemnation and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

We've seen what happens when congress tries to micro-manage a war; you get footage of the U.S. Embassy being evacuated off the roof as the flag is lowered. I don't think America is ready for another defeat, and the best way to avoid that is to let Bush's plan work.

Look, I haven't drank the Bush Kool-Aid. But for as much that has gone wrong in Iraq, there is just as much that has gone right.*
At least 263 Shiite fighters were killed and 502 arrested during fierce fighting with Iraqi forces near Najaf, according to an Iraqi defence ministry spokesman.

"The final toll in the military operations north of holy Najaf totalled 263 killed, and 502 arrested including 210 injured," spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said Tuesday.
If you read the article, you will see that the raid was carried out by Iraqi forces backed up by American and British forces. This is exactly the kind of operation everyone has been whining about. Everyone bitches and moans that the Iraqi's aren't doing enough for themselves, and we need to set deadlines to motivate them. I think this is a fair indication that they are pretty damned motivated.

Let me wrap this all up for you. Saddam was a bad man who thumbed his nose at the international community for far too long. He actively pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, while at the same time doing all he could to thwart U.N. inspectors. Given a last chance to cooperate and prove that he had either disarmed or did not possess WMDs, he chose again to ignore the Security Council and all pertinent resolutions. As a result, the United States Congress voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is what happened. Now we are there, we have destabalized a country and we cannot just go "oops, sorry about that" and jerk our troops out just because some of them have died. Believe me, there is no one in this country who hates the thoughts of troops dying any more than I do. I have known hundreds of soldiers over the years, and still have friends serving. I don't want to see any of them die, but more than that I want to see this action succeed.

You want to say you support the troops? Then write your Senator and tell him/her to vote down this damn non-binding resolution and get behind the President on increasing the troops. We have fresh leadership in Iraq and a new National Security Advisor, lets allow them to do their job.

Thus endeth the lesson.

*via John D. Schultz

First, a woman always reserves the right to change her mind... Hillary Clinton is, well... IS arguably, a woman.

Secondly, at the time most of these statements were made, they were based on the information that was disseminated by bush and his administration... Since when do politicians actually read and verify information they receive?

All things being equal, politicians are scumbags... all of them... republican, democrat, independent... they are the lowest pieces of shit this country passes out of our collective intestinal tract so to have them waffle is not surprising.

Thirdly, there are two different competing ideas going on here... first, that we should go to war against terrorists... second, that we should go to war against Iraq/Saddam. The first is unquestionable, the second (theoretically based on the first) is questionable.

I think a lot of people would be less inclined to oppose the war (and contrary to popular belief, I am not against the war in Iraq), if so much money wasn't being made by certain republican contributors... It just smells funny, whether or not it IS funny.

One simple reason to take out the long standing rule against assassination as a form of diplomacy for the US... one marine sniper, one bullet, and saddam would have been dead, buried and no american lives would have been lost... but of course, no money would have been made either and throughout history, ungodly sums of money have been made in the name of war. Sad but true.

Ed, I agree with most of your comments about politicians = scumbag. However, what I don't agree with is the bit about changing your mind.

Yes, they can change their minds. And if Hillary had something along the lines that her decision then was based on available intel, and now that she sees how it has played out she has changed her stand on the war, I would be more inclined to believe her. What is disingenuous about her remarks is that when we went to war, we went based on the generally accepted intel that all western countries believed, and had believed since long before Bush took office. Saddam had used chemical and biological weapons 10 times since 1983, so there was no reason for anyone to doubt that he either possessed these weapons or that he was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Personally, I'm still not convinced that whatever weapons he had didn't make their way to Syria while we drug our feet dicking around with the U.N., but that's the subject for an entirely different post.

I totally agree with the whole assassination assessment, as well, with a caveat. If we had sent in a couple of sniper teams and taken out Saddam, then the pig-latin boys Uday and Qusay would have been free to take power, and by all accounts, they would have been worse than dear old dad. This would have led us to the same spot we're in today.

However, at the peak of the unrest in Iran a few well placed shots and we may have been able to start a revolution. Instead, the Ayatollah squashed that unrest and we're back at the U.N. trying to get everyone to place nice with their neighbors.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Copyright (c) 2007, Frankly Speaking.