Simple stupidity...or willful ignorance?

[Mairead]

Writing in response to a Salon article about the recent debate, one writer says:

John Kerry and others were not irresponsible when they voted for the war resolution last year, and they are not inconsistent when they criticize the president's actions since.

...

Hillary Clinton gave a measured explanation of her concerns and finally her motivations to vote for the resolution. It is unfortunate that her worst fears about President Bush were realized, but it was not unreasonable to expect the president to not lie.

In this time of national emergency it was not completely unreasonable to believe that the president of the United States would behave in an honest, responsible manner. And we must recognize that it was poor judgment to trust President Bush. But a "pro-war" vote followed by current criticism can not be accurately called a flip-flop.


How could any functioning adult honestly believe they could trust Bush? Seriously. How? What has Bush ever done in his whole life that could possibly be construed as making him trustworthy?

I'm sorry, political partisanship should stop well short of this. If people don't grow up and start trying to play it straight, we're fscked!

[Skittles]

1. I DON'T GET IT EITHER MAIREAD

Bush showed himself untrustworthy WHEN HE STOLE THE F***ING ELECTION. And try as I may, I simply CANNOT get past anyone who voted with this piece of shit on ANYTHING and that includes the war, taxes, Patriot Act. EVERYTHING.

[ixion]

2. agreed, Mairead

Bush has never in his entire life shown himself to be trustworthy, nor has he ever exhibited character of any kind. He's a fraud, a liar and a coward. I knew this when he was running for office, and tried to express my feelings to others, and was slapped down for doing so, by many who were chagrinned by Clinton's sexual antics. Frankly, I never really gave a hoot about what Clinton did sexually, and thought the entire impeachment fiasco was nothing more than a repug ploy.

Much to my dismay, I was correct beyond my wildest dreams.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. The Difference Between Clinton and Kerry

Kerry has been studying Iraq for years, and maintained the same position he held since 1997. Somehow I doubt that Hillary could say the same.

[Mairead]

4. I give Kerry a lot of credit for his liberal past, Dr F

but I think his recent turn to the Dark Side is worthy of condemnation by us all. I know that's very difficult for you to hear.

As to Hilary, if anything I feel more strongly than you do. In my view she's nothing but a soft-Republican opportunist. She doesn't begin to have anything to compare with Kerry's record, so I have little but contempt for her.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. I Admit That It Was A No-Win Vote

But if you look at his position, particularly his floor speech, it would be very hard to consider him on "the dark side." You may disagree with his vote, but I don't think you would disagree with who he is and what he believes in.

[dsc]

9. Why would you say that?

Given that one of the chief things Kerry supporters continually say is that Kerry and President Clinton both agree on and worked together on Iraq.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. I Was Talking About Sen. Hillary Clinton

Not Bill.

[renie408]

6. *wince*

I think that's easy for you to say. It is easy for us to sit in front of our computers in our living rooms (or in our offices while we should be doing work) months later and say what should have been done. We are all experts here at the DU, after all.

I dunno. I think that the situation had everyone in the Congress between Iraq and a hard place. What if Bush had been right? It is EASY to say now that he was obviously wrong, but what would Kucinich look like today if ten days after defeating the measure, Hussein had dropped a huge chemical weapon on Israel? Would you be supporting him as zealously as you are now? And whether you agree with it or not, Iraq ignored UN resolution after UN resolution. Hussein didn't have the greatest reputation in the world. There WAS grounds for...something. I am NOT an expert or knowledgeable enough, so I don't know what they were exactly grounds for.

And what everybody seems to forget is that France and Germany said that they would NEVER go for a military solution in Iraq, which pretty much rules out any kind of UN coalition. Senators and Congressman were looking at either sign the resolution and hope like hell that the Bush team was being moderately on the up and up for once, or fall back on the UN to straighten out Iraq. The UN having such a great track record for this sort of thing and all.

It made me sick when I heard that the resolution had been signed. But I am not nearly arrogant enough to think that I am in the position to judge all the people who had a decision to make that day. It is real easy for YOU to say that anybody that voted yes was either being politically convenient, stupid or willfully ignorant. Nobody asked you to vote on the fate of the world. Was it a mistake? I don't know. If they had voted to give the President permission to use force at his discretion and he had employed some discretion, it may have been a brilliant bluff. It may have had the effect that Kerry says he was looking for of making Hussein back up a few steps. But Bush didn't emply discretion and Hussein didn't back up and here we are. Was it a mistake? If the peace is handled well and we can help to forge a stable and proseperous Iraq, maybe not. If we keep Bush in office, I think it will turn out to be a collossal mistake. But we won't know for another ten years whether this was truly the biggest fuck up this country has made since Vietnam or not.

[sandnsea]

7. France & Germany

Germany is very much an anti-war country, I think passivism is either in their constitution or simply an engrained cultural phenomena since WWII or both. But I don't think they have a vote on the security council anyway.

France did not say they would never go for a military solution, they said repeatedly they would as a true last resort. It would certainly have been very difficult to get that vote, but Bush didn't even try. In any event, had Bush presented truthful intelligence and worked honestly with the inspectors, France's position would have at least looked less and less reasonable over time. And he continues to be an obstinant ass and won't let UN inspectors in or cooperate with any country. I've even heard a few Republican operatives continue to disparage France, Germany & Russia while supposedly trying to get UN cooperation. It is really a disaster. And there really was no simple solution to Iraq and this war vote. If they hadn't done something, people would be griping about the sanctions and the no-fly zone and the suffering of the Iraqis. In fact, some people actually do both. AND say Iraq couldn't get weapons because of the sanctions that they gripe about hurting the Iraqis, all at the sme time. Kind of bizarre in my mind.

[dsc]

10. Germany was on the Security Council

at the time of the Iraq vote (as one of the 10 rotating members).

[sandnsea]

16. Ooh Ooh Ooh

We're not going to have an argument!!!!

I couldn't remember how Germany was involved, but now I remember. Cameroon, and those other vital countries. Helpful to have their yes votes, but France, Russia, China had the veto power.

[Mairead]

8. But how much doubt was there, really?

The weapons inspectors had been beavering away, the country had been closely and continuously surveilled for a decade...what was the real likelihood that Hussein had anything left, or a delivery system?

It was approximately zero, and everyone in the world knew that.

The reason I say 'everyone ... knew that' is because of their reactions. What government was taking civil-defence steps? None. Not even the governments closest to Iraq. Not even Israel. If they really, truly believed that Iraq had the capability and intent to cause cataclysmic destruction and death, would they not have reacted, if only to save themselves from being strung up by the survivors among their own people after?

[DrFunkenstein]

12. UNSCOM Inspections Did Not End Successfully

Saddam Hussein had repeatedly jerked UNSCOM around, playing games with off-limit "presidential" and "sensitive" zones, with Iraqi observers, and with stripped down production sites. In September 1997, Iraqis were caught running away from a supposed food-testing lab with biological test equipment and incriminating documents. Later that month, Iraqi guards held inspectors at gunpoint in a tense episode that ended with the inspectors withdrawal.

In June of 1998, UNSCOM excavated weaponized VX nerve gas in destroyed warheads. A single drop of VX can kill within an hour. Iraq had vehemently denied their existence until that point. In the following months, the inspections process collapsed altogether, ending with evacuation before Operation Desert Fox.

UNSCOM did not end with any guarantees of Iraq's disarmament, and instead documented their desire to continue producing WMDs. No inspectors were allowed in for four years, and that was one month AFTER the IWR vote.

Saddam Hussein had a twenty-five year history as a violently loose cannon with a history of using chemical weapons on a grand scale and a desire to acquire the ability for a nuclear program. After 9/11, we could not afford to let such people play the dangerous games that Saddam had enjoyed in the 90's.

The containment policy you suggest was, in my opinion, unacceptable. While Kucinich has consistently maintained this position, even Howard Dean eventually understood that an active inspection process, backed by the real threat of force, was a necessity.

[Mairead]

14. I'm not arguing partisan politics, Dr F.

If Dennis had signed off, I'd skelp anyone trying to give him a pass, too. Kerry has a long liberal record, but Iraq isn't part of it.

The real issue here is: if Hussein was such a danger to the world, why weren't the countries closest to him taking protective measures and lining up to join in the bashing? I submit that it's because they knew that, whatever Hussein had been before Bush One entrapped him in 1991, by 2002 he was no danger except on a retail level to the people of Iraq themselves.

[GreenArrow]

18. readily forgotten/unmentioned

Saddam's neighbors all have intellignece agencies of their own, and they were unanimous in saying "no threat."

That "war" vote was BS, through and through.

[DrFunkenstein]

20. Actually Iran Said Saddam Was A Threat, But Opposed US Invasion

Secondly, the issue wasn't about an imminent threat - which Kerry felt didn't exist. It was about compliance with disarmament, accountability, and curbing a long-term threat.

There is no difference between Dean and Kerry's positions, except that Dean would have voted differently if he were a Congressman. Here is Dean in February, rejecting his own arguments for a policy of containment:

"I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is.

He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver.

He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War.

He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb.

Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country.

So I want to be clear.

Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."


Compare with John Kerry in 1997:

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

[Mairead]

21. "There is no difference between Dean and Kerry's positions"

I believe that was broadly true during the period when it counted. If Dean had had to actually vote in October, based on what he was saying as late as mid-February, he too would have voted for the invasion. Judging by this timeline, his opposition to the invasion-cum-massacre began 21st February, over 4 months after the vote.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

(this quote is from the National Review, but the dates are supported piecemeal by better sources as well)

[polpilot]

13. Any 2nd grader with a 'B' average in geography in consult with a 4th

grader with a 'C' average in science could have discovered that the sheperds of Iraq had no realistic chance of effecting harm on the U.S.

Scaring the old and geographically challenged with pics of the twin towers was a very sad chapter in American history. For a senator with access to data to contribute to the bombing of this country is criminal.

Dean '04...

[DrFunkenstein]

15. The Sheperds (sic) of Iraq

Could you possibly make a looser argument? Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I realize the first part is supposed to mean that small children could understand Saddam Hussein's role in the history in the Middle East geopolitics, but really what is going on here:

"Scaring the old and geographically challenged with pics of the twin towers was a very sad chapter in American history. For a senator with access to data to contribute to the bombing of this country is criminal."

What is your actual argument? Are you saying that Sen. Kerry suggested that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Whatever that answer might be, I'd like to remind you that Dean gave a strict timetable - 30 to 60 days, I believe - for Saddam to comply before military action (unilateral if necessary) would be taken.

[Mairead]

17. 60 days, I believe. I remember thinking it odd, because the usual

termin is either 30 or 90 days, so 60 stood out for me.

What's quite interesting is that, although I can remember that stance of his clearly, it seems to have vanished from the permanent record. I wonder why.

[GreenArrow]

19. that timetable was bogus too

Say the allies had agreed to a 30 or 60 day timetable. They would of course, have found nothing, which would prove in the minds of those prosecuting and supporting this "war" that Sadaam was hiding them. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is the way Rummy put it. The war would have gone ahead as scheduled, and would have still been wrong.

edited for spelling