Are Democrats losing the debate on War in Iraq?

[kentuck]

It seems to me that every time the issue is brought up, the media and the Repubs simply say that "everybody" thought Saddam had WMDs and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton thought so also. The responses I hear from Democrats on this debate are lacking in clarity. Incredibly, the Repubs are winning this debate. Democrats need to get on the same songsheet. What should be their response?

[babylonsister]

1. They should and did shut down the Senate. If they don't

get the required info on the whys of going to war, they should do it again. We ALL need to get to the truth.

[tsuki]

44. I am tired of hearing they "shut down the Senate." M$M can't

say that often enough. They called for a closed session to discuss security matters, ie intelligence. The CIA was there to be brought in.

If everyone insists on saying that they shut down the Senate, just remember, the Republicans "shut down" the Senate four times to discuss the size of Clinton's penis.

[ananda]

2. But ...

... wasn't "everybody" misled and misinformed because of the ironfisted pressure from Cheney's office and tactics like the Plame outing?

Grrrrr

Sue

[dennis4868]

3. It's been this way.....

since day one. The Dems are like deers caught in the headlights when the media and repubs make the argument you stated. But there are so many ways to answer it but they just don't have all the facts in their head unfortunately. So, yes, they are losing the debate and have been since day one.

[ClintonTyree]

4. Not when all of the intelligence was cooked......

or cherry picked. I believe the American public is aware now that the bush administration manipulated the data in their march to war.
The Democrats can take the high ground on that issue. They, like all of us, were mislead into believing that Iraq possessed far more weapons etc. than they actually did. The bush administration is totally to blame for that.

[msongs]

5. has any national dem said the words "bush lied" in public? nt

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Has any of the media

said Bush lied ? Remember they were a part of this in misleading the American public. Just remember 70% were in favor of Inspections not the war. The media played a bigger role than anyone will admit. They toted the propaganda and they should be held accountable.

[MH1]

12. Kerry comes close - "not given the truth"; "duplicity"

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

The Truth About How We Got Here:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. Turn off the TV

Leahy Joins Kerry’s Call for 20,000 Troops Home from Iraq by the Holidays
November 5th, 2005

Senators Step Up Pressure on Bush for a Plan with Specific Benchmarks To Start Bringing Troops Home by 2006

BARRE, VT. — Senator Patrick Leahy joined Senator John Kerry’s call to bring 20,000 troops home from Iraq by the holidays, after successful December elections, at a meeting with the media today in Barre, Vermont. The two Senators who both gave speeches recently about the need to change course in Iraq called on Bush to put forward a specific plan to transfer power to the Iraqis and start bringing the troops home by 2006.

“The American people are eager for a plan on Iraq that makes sense, and our brave troops are eager for leadership that equals the sacrifice they are making for our country. The reality is: George W. Bush doesn’t have a plan for Iraq, and misleading rhetoric about ’staying as long as it takes’ will never add up to a plan,” said Kerry. “To undermine the insurgency, we have to simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. Senator Leahy has long been a voice of conscience on the war, and I am delighted he is joining with me today to turn up the heat on the administration to do what’s right for our country and our troops. After the successful December elections, we can and should bring 20,000 troops home. It’s a critical first step.”

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1075

[MH1]

8. Good response here -

"Blame The Democrats For Iraq"
http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/11/blaming_the_dem.html

Please join us in welcoming the newest addition to the pantheon of Bush Iraq excuses: Blame the Democrats.

Everywhere you turn, Republicans, reporters, and other rightwing Bush-suckers are pushing the meme that Bush/Cheney did nothing wrong in taking America to war because Democrats also thought Saddam was a threat. Wolf Blitzer just confronted Senator Jay Rockefeller with it on CNN's Late Edition, reading directly from a Wall Street Journal editorial (talk about reporters echoing GOP talking points).

This farce is debunked by several bloggers, including Publius:

....

This new wool-pulling tactic is pitiful. First, many Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution, so according to the logic of the 'Blame the Democrats' crowd, these Democrats have every right in the world to question Bush/Cheney's honesty on Iraq. Second, among the Democrats who voted in favor of the IWR, John Kerry is often the main target for those pushing this bogus 'Blame the Democrats' excuse. But here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor when he voted in favor of the IWR:

(extract of speech Kerry gave just before the vote)

...

Kerry may have genuinely believed that Saddam had WMDs, but the above text affords him more than enough latitude to retroactively criticize Bush on Iraq.

[cal04]

9. The only people that knew the intelligence was fake were

the people who gave it to them. How could everybody have known what the truth was if it was fabricated
I believe the rest will wait until they see what comes out of the investigation before they might say it was wrong

[kenny blankenship]

10. They're part of a debate?

News to me.

[HereSince1628]

42. That was my first thought, and then my second and then my third.

[depakid]

11. The Republicans are all set to steal this issue

from the lowly stand for nothing Dems. Pretty pathetic.

[kentuck]

13. "We were used and lied to..."

Doesn't that make the Democrats look weak when they use that argument?

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Well indeed that is how

idiots like Hillary and the rest of the neo-liberal hawks keep convincing themselves to be among the strongest supporters of The Cabal's Iraqi Blunder. This is typical of Democratic suicidal strategizing - gaming themselves into doing exactly what the ruling party wants them to do instead of standing for what they know is right, instead of standing with the majority of Americans, instead of moving with the people.

The longer the neo-liberal hawks hold onto their pro-war stance the more foolish and out of step they look and the harder it is for them, purely from a loss of face angle, to step up and admit that they got it wrong and that the war is a colossal misadventure.

It will not make them look weak if they couple their change in position with a clear and unequivocal statement that The Cabal engaged in lies and deception to take us to war and must be held accountible for high crimes and misdemeanors. Absent that outrage, absent the obvious need for an accounting, yes indeed they would look weak.

[kentuck]

21. And their positions are making it very difficult for the Democratic Party

..to criticize this obvious failure of Bush and the Repubs. Because if we criticize them, we are also criticizing Lieberman, Schumer, Kerry, Clinton, and the others. Unfortunately, we can only say they were all wrong. It's time they admit their mistake.

[kenny blankenship]

22. It's better than

"look at me--I'm helping!"

The danger is tacitly admitting weakness--so they must reframe that as violated trust and a patriotic deference to the Commander In Chief who abused their Americanism by falsely claiming that there was an imminent threat.

They can say that, based on the history and institutions of American government, we felt we had every reason to TRUST that the President was telling us the truth. We couldn't imagine someone rising to that position of public trust and responsibility and then simply LYING their way to war, and having no thought about the consequences. We couldn't imagine a President having no care about either the consequences of occupation--not having any plan for it-- or about the consequences of being FOUND OUT to have been LYING about the whole premise behind the war. We could not imagine the DEPTH and BREADTH and the extent to which so called intelligence was being "FIXED AROUND THE POLICY" for an illegal & aggressive invasion of a sovereign country. What has happened you must understand is UNPRECEDENTED. The audacity is unprecedented. The damage to the international order so many Americans soldiers gave their lives to create from Normandy's Omaha Beach to Inchon to Kuwait is unprecedented and the tarnishing of America's reputation is likewise unprecedented. It's all off the scale ! (Dare them to bring up Vietnam because it's the only way to argue the contrary case--they won't do that.) Our country's Commander in Chief went before the world and claimed Iraq was a threat to the United States that had to be destroyed; he lied; he lied to us in Congress, to the public at large, and the world. He had his subordinates repeat these lies to the United Nations, and endlessly in the media. But only he and his subordinates had the information to prove that they were not telling the truth. As Americans and legislators with the lawful duty to assist the Executive in providing for the legitimate defense needs of this country we felt a patriotic obligation, even a Constitutional obligation, to be guided by information and requests from the Chief Executive. History and governmental precedent all argued on the side of trusting and deferring to the President whatever we felt about him personally. Against that there was only a vague fear of "what if the President's men are not telling us the truth?" --and no way to check or confirm that fear. You had to presume that they were telling the truth: it would be crazy and criminal for the Bush Administration to be fixing intelligence around a predetermined policy for war, because eventually they'd face the situation where all the evidence they claimed to be acting on would be found to be fraudulent, which tragically, is the situation that we now face. And what to do about this breach of trust is now the great conflict facing our country and both of its political parties.

[kentuck]

24. Well said...

That breach of trust is now the great conflict facing our nation.

[Clark2008]

25. Especially when they were told by a general that

there was no need to go to war, particularly in light of the fact that we hadn't "won" anything with regards to Al Qaeda and that we hadn't completed any of the necessary inspections to MAKE SURE that Saddam had WMDs (which, obviously, he didn't). The pro-war Democrats conveniently leave that out when they're making that weak argument.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

SNIP

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

[wtmusic]

14. Repubs are winning the debate?

Almost all of the press I've seen on Harry Reid's Senate shutdown give the Dems a win.

Kerry, Clinton and others "thought" Saddam had WMDs because the White House said so.

Not to bring up whether Saddam having WMDs would justify us invading the country under the circumstances we did.

[depakid]

20. What exactly did the "shutdown" win?

Nothing. It's just another of Harry Reid's publicity stunts- just like his big talk about shutting down the Senate over the filibuster. Some win that turned out to be.

Just like every other win that Reid and the Dems have pulled off... err wait... there aren't any wins. Come to think about it, there haven't even been any fights!

[wtmusic]

23. Kickstarted the investigation, for one

Re-ignited public awareness of the phony pretenses for going to war

"Frist... agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/12536

Wouldna happened without Harry.

[mike_c]

15. NOT ONE democrat has had the courage to come forward...

...and acknowledged that the contention "we all thought Saddam had WMDs" was baldfaced propoganda. Even the dems who knew better, and voted against the IWR, have been silent. They're all putting their own political fortunes adhead of the good of the nation and the world, IMO. I am ashamed of the lot of them.

[MH1]

30. Not true...see post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5281231&mesg_id=5281367

The quote is from a speech given at Georgetown on 10/26, that was covered by CSPAN:
http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=Kerry+Iraq&StartDateMonth=10&StartDateYear=2005&EndDateMonth=&EndDateYear=&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch

[mike_c]

31. yes, it's true-- in that speech Kerry attempts to dodge the blame...

...by passing it all to the admin. This is just Kerry seeking political cover-- SOP CYA. Yes the admin lied. But Kerry was in a position to know they were lying-- he knew that Iraq was no threat in 2002, so he was either a fool for believing them, or he's complicit in their scheme to go to war. I don't think he's a fool-- I think he weighed the political calculus and decided that supporting the war would be in his personal best interest. Nevermind that it accelerated his nation's headlong rush to facism, or that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have to die so that John Kerry could avoid political risk.

And what of the dems who could not sell out America for a delightful little war that was likely going to take less than six month and only kill poor people halfway around the world-- the ones who voted AGAINST the IWR? What does Kerry's refusal to accept his personal responsibility say about them? If the admin was to be believed, were those dems cowards? Were they idiots? They listened to the same lies, but they knew Bush was lying, and were not so willing to sell their souls for political cover. Kerry knew it was all propoganda and lies too, IMO.

[MH1]

33. Actually, he accepts the blame.

From the same speech:

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

So. Let's pretend this is 1968 and RFK hasn't yet been assassinated, and has just made this statement. You would be bashing him for his prior stance of Vietnam, right?

And anyway, I was responding to your claim that no one had come forward and said the WMD claims were "propaganda", which I took you to mean untruthful. Kerry has pointed directly to the Bush administration's duplicity. I thought that was what you were asking for.

You will not get Dems to admit that the Dems were complicit in "propagandizing" the WMD claims. Because with the possible exception of a couple, they weren't. And btw it is the current Right Wing Talking Point to undermine the Dems, to say that they were at just as much fault as the Bush administration. Are you agreeing with the right wing on this one? (just asking. not accusing.)

As for Kerry specifically, anyone who doesn't already know this by heart and is interested in honestly understanding the vote for IWR, please read his pre-IWR-vote speech, available at:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

A shorter summation of this whole question of "Blaimg the Dems" is available at this Presstitutes post:
http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/11/blaming_the_dem.html

[mike_c]

34. no, I meant that not one dem has come forward and said...

..."I knew the official pronouncements about Iraq were lies and propaganda, but I voted for the IWR anyway." THAT would be speaking the truth, and accepting responsibility, because in most cases I believe that is indeed true. Saying "I only voted for it because they lied to me" is disengenuous at best-- again, what of those dems who DIDN'T vote for the IWR? Weren't they being lied to as well? If Kerry's contention that the admin's lies were ultimately responsible for his IWR vote holds any water, what does that say about the ones who didn't vote for it?

[MH1]

36. Well, I don't think anyone will say that for whom it isn't true.

And I don't think it is true for Kerry. If you look at his prior statements (going back years) he did believe that Saddam had WMD programs previously, and was a risk for rebuilding and especially distributing weapons to terrorists. The question for Kerry (as I understand from his statements) is whether the threat was so imminent as to justify an invasion. IWR was to allow the inspectors back in - and it worked, until Bush yanked them out just prior to invading. Had the truth been allowed to come out, had the inspectors been allowed to finish their job, it would have been shown that whatever threat existed was not so imminent as to justify invasion, and that other diplomatic measures should be taken. We NEVER would have invaded Iraq had a Gore or Kerry been president, even if there was an IWR (which there wouldn't have been, anyway).

I confess I don't see your point about the Dems who didn't vote for IWR. Saying "I was lied to, and based on those lies I voted for IWR, and now I know that was a wrong vote", does not in any way that I can see impugn those who didn't vote for IWR in the first place.

I just don't see why you want to beat up Democrats on this? Can we just move forward and start pulling the troops out?

[kentuck]

37. "start pulling the troops out"?

Is that the best we can salvage from this Republican mess? Can we even salvage that?

[MH1]

38. Well it's a start. Is there any other concrete effort underway

(among Senators / Congresscritters) to start pulling troops out at all?

If you clicked on the link you will see it goes to a petition. Kerry sent out an update that in the first 4 days they had surpassed their goal of 20,000 sigs a day, and were over 80,000. Pat Leahy gave a statement of support for this too, so it's not like Kerry's out there on his own. (Where are the rest, though?)

But, let's be realistic. Even if he ultimately gets a million sigs or more, the best that will happen is that it gets read into the record and the rethugs keep doing what they damn well please. But the point is to make a stand. Also, the rethugs will start a pullout next year anyway, because of mid-terms. This way the Dems get on record calling for a pullout first.

And, if there is another effort that is "ALL troops out NOW" I see no reason why a person wouldn't support both. 20,000 out is better than zero out isn't it? At least for the families of the 20,000?

And if you're worried about exposing the remaining troops to a more difficult situation, keep in mind that the plan is to pull out area by area, turning areas over to the Iraqis. So we shouldn't have to lose strength in the areas our forces remain.

[Mass]

43. Not sure what you are arguing as I saw different arguments these last few

days:

- if it is that we should pull the troops out now, I tend to agree, but I dont think anybody in the Senate will agree. It seems that the best we get is end of 06, now apparently by 3 Senators (Feingold, Kerry, and Leahy).

- if it is that we cannot start to withdraw because it would put the troops in danger, I have to disagree. It seems clear by all testimonies we have heard that the mere presence of the troops is what puts them in danger. The less troops we have, the less agressive their presence will seem, until there is none.

[mike_c]

40. Iraq had already agreed to full cooperation with the UN inspectors...

...before the IWR. They agreed to ZERO RESTRICTIONS-- which, BTW, the U.S. immediately set about subverting. But nonetheless, it is another bit of propaganda the Kerry or anyone else voted for the IWR to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Iraq had already agreed to full cooperation BEFORE the IWR. Google if you don't believe it-- it was in September 2002.

[Mass]

41. It did, and IWR was supposed to be the frame by which Bush would

sign the UN resolution 1441.

We all know that it was an error because Bush did not follow thru and pulled the inspectors too early.

I am not sure why we argue about the fact that the IWR was or was not an error with Bush at the helm. I thought everybody agreed with that now.

[mike_c]

47. the difficulty is that the dems who voted for it still want to retain...

...some credibility and political cover. They shot up poison that day-- it's just a matter of time until it reaches their hearts, but it's inevitable. Meanwhile, they're busily proclaiming that everything's cool, it was all someone else's fault....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The VichyDems have been hung on the pitard of their IWR vote.

And, rather than just come out and admit that they were wrong are playing the "Duh, I was misled" role. And, most, if not all, of them are still trying to have it both ways.

They want to continue the illegal occupation of a country conquered in a bloody war that they authorized, hoping for some sort of vindication.

Cowards and sleazy polticians all.

[kentuck]

17. Bush lied to people, to the Congress, to our allies, and to the world...

When the President of United States, who has access to "intelligence" that not even the US Senate has access to, says that we have an enemy who is an imminent threat to our nation, it is difficult not to trust the information. However, that is what happened.

The President, the VP, and the White House lied to all of us. Not just the people that were against the war. He lied to Democrats and Republicans - all of America - to take us to war. His own justification for lying was the attack upon the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11. Now we have over 2000 troops dead and are stuck in a quagmire with no foreseeable exit.

[mzmolly]

19. Judging from current public opinion - I'D SAY NO.

But we do need to clarify the WMD thing for sure. Democrats did not claim Saddam was making Nukes and harboring Al Qaida terrorists.

[Skidmore]

26. This will continue until something so horrendous

happens as a result of this "Bush doctrine" that the masses will not countenance it because the event cannot be ignored. This is not simply a debate, but it is a policy that kills. It is a policy that chooses destruction as a matter of course. The problem is that not enough of the American people have truly suffered consequences for supporting this action. They are only beginning to feel it in their wallets. And certainly, too few of them risk shedding blood in support of this doctrine.

[mazzarro]

27. Blame The DLC For The Equivocation Of Democrats

Until the DLC'ers are compelled to acknowledge that they have been wrong in thinking/support for the Iraq war, we will make no progress towards saddling the rethugs with consequences of the war. And untill the DLC'ers are forced to desist from confusing democratic legislators with their gibberish position about being sttrong on national defense, democratic voices will continuing to be a cacophony of noice with no single message or position to avoid being blamed by the rethugs. It also makes it easy for MSM to further confuse issues and aide the rethugs - their paymasters.

[kentuck]

28. This is really why McGovern lost so big to Nixon...

The war in Vietnam divided the nation and divided our Party. Are we watching the same thing as a re-run? Something we need to give serious thought.

[Tony_Illinois]

29. If Dems Believed There Were WMD--And Many Did,

don't you think it was because that was the information being provided by the Administration? After all, the CIA was saying it was so, as was Colin Powell, who was known to be opposed to the policy of invading Iraq.

What we couldn't know, however, was the reason the CIA was providing that information. We did not know that Mr. Cheney and his minions were roaming the halls of CIA arm-twisting and bullying everybody in sight to get the "ingelligence" they wanted.

What a bunch of lying slime they have all turned out to be. And to disrespect the American solidiers as they have, but placing them in this no-win situation to do the dirty work in their maniacal plots. These people who have never worn a uniform now whipping up wars that they or their kids will not have to fight. They make me sick.

[Armstead]

32. Their response should be simple -- They were misled

If they were "told things" that made them believe Sadaam was such a dire threat that war was necessary, then they were given bad information.

It's kind of a lame excuse, considering how patently phony the basic logic for the war was, but at least it's something.

It's why the Democratic Party establishment should have listened to all those pesky progressives in the first place.

[sandnsea]

35. Oh, the one some of us have given for 3 years now

That Democrats voted to get inspectors into Iraq to find out what was there, that Bush lied and manipulated the intelligence, lied in the required declaration to Congress, and started an unnecessary war.

See? Bush. HE did it. Because he was secretly determined to go to war all along and the DSM proves it.

[MH1]

39. But wait...aren't we supposed to be

bashing Democrats in this post?

:sarcasm:

[bpilgrim]

45. they were mislead by this corrupt criminal regime fraudulently in power

we got tons of links DU to prove it, too :evilgrin:

i can dream, can't i?

peace

[Mass]

46. Why cant they simply answer they were lied to.

Even Kennedy and Byrd believed there was WMDs. They just did not think it was proper to give Bush the authority to go to war before coming back to the Congress, or that it was a big enough danger.