Something to remember: Senators were lied to prior to the IWR vote

[Tennessee Gal]

Can we say that this had no impact on their votes?

From Senator Nelson of Florida on Jan. 28, 2004:

"I want to take this occasion to inform the Senate of specific
information that I was given, which turns out not to be true. I was one
of 77 Senators who voted for the resolution in October of 2002 to
authorize the expenditure of funds for the President to engage in an
attack on Iraq. I voted for it. I want to tell you some specific
information that I received that had a great deal of bearing on my
conclusion to vote for that resolution. There were other factors, but
this information was very convincing to me that there was an imminent
peril to the interests of the United States.
I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure
room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of
mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was
looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the
means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.
Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could
be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern
seaboard cities of the United States.
Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the
United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred
perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.
It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly
classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of
that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He
said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.
Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to
the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,
expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched
against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The
information was made public, but it was made public after we had
already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to
contradict that.
We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony
today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was
false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--
chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned
aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships
and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.
cities on the eastern seaboard.
I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a
half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently
false. I want some further explanations.
Now, what I have found after the fact--and I presented this to Dr.
Kay this morning in the Senate Armed Services Committee--is there was a
vigorous dispute within the intelligence community as to what the CIA
had concluded was accurate about those UAVs and about their ability to
be used elsewhere outside of Iraq. Not only was it in vigorous dispute,
there was an outright denial that the information was accurate. That
was all within the intelligence community.
But I didn't find that out before my vote. I wasn't told that. I
wasn't told that there was a vigorous debate going on as to whether or
not that was accurate information. I was given that information as if
it were fact, and any reasonable person then would logically conclude
that the interests of the United States and its people were in
immediate jeopardy and peril. That has turned out not to be true."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the Congressional Research Service reported this:

Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am an Edwards supporter and have not chosen between Hillary and Obama. I will vote for the nominee.

I am not attempting to defend Hillary's vote on the IWR. I am, however, curious about why she never brings up the lies of the White House when questioned about her IWR vote.

On the other hand, because Obama was not privy to the information (lies) being given to the Congress by the Bush White House, he cannot be absolutely certain how he would have voted when confronted with such responsibility.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Except that an overwhelming majority of Dems in the House and 23 Dems in the Senate voted no!

I don't buy the excuses.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. I Guess That Means That The "Nos" Were Wrong

They should be ashamed of themselves. Folks like Clinton are the true patriots!

Never mind that 2/3rds of Americans polled at the time believed that Bush had already decided to attack Iraq. How could we expect members of Congress to be as well informed as the average American?

[Ravy]

27. Link, please.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. For Example

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq17.htm:

"Which comes closer to your view about President Bush? Bush has already decided to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to gain international support for that action. OR, Bush has not yet decided whether to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to determine if an invasion of Iraq were necessary."
%

.
Bush has already decided to invade 58

.
Bush has not yet decided whether to invade 38

.
No opinion 4

I recall a 2/3rds one as well, but am having trouble finding it - but the basic point stands: most Americans knew that Bush had already decided to go to war at the time of the IWR vote.

[Ravy]

32. That poll is like 5 months after the fact.

Bush was showing his cards by that time.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. No

Try again.

[Ravy]

38. Thank you, sorry about that, Manny. The bottom info is cool.

There are some interesting statistics there that I think support the IWR at the time (which I don't consider a bad vote).

However, the statistic you cited was a month or so after the vote. I can't say that that changed, I have no evidence one way or another.

But, thanks for the link, really. I have been looking for something exactly like that.

[Cha]

46. Folks like clinton

who've never apologized for dumbly following the oily monkeytard are the true clingons.

[Ravy]

26. Makes a difference when you have to vote on the record. nt

[truedelphi]

48. Don't buy the excuses. Plus I remember how stridently for war

Hillary came across.

She was representing the citizens of New york and they had been friggin attacked and so what else can you do with that kind of energy except strike back somewhere at something.

If Wellstone Boxer and others opposed the IWR, and many Dems in the House opposed the IWR, then Hillary might have been at least a bit more contemplative.

But like George W, she just wanted to look strong.

As some have said, the Democrats (many of them) thought that this excursion into Iraq was going to be a six week cakewalk like we had in 1991 under Bush the elder. And that the price of oil would go to record lows after our victory. Et Cetera.

Only problem was that George W was a complete idiot, refused the advice of his father's most trusted war advisers, went in with too few troops, and allowed the country to erupt into sectarian violence.

With the IED's from the unwatched ammo dumps unguarded. Our troops were allowed to be present to oversee ammo dumps for no more than 36 hours, than they were given marching orders away from the ammo dumps.

In their rear view mirrors they would see the ammo dumps being raided by Iraqis.

And those exploives have haunted our troops and upped our casualty rate ever since.

But it has all been good for Halliburton and Blackwater.

[awaysidetraveler]

70. Bingo--no need to buy those excuses. Anyone following the reasoning for the war knew it was wrong!

Anyone remember these pictures? Do they look like chemical weapons to you?

?

It was a no-brainer.

[Tennessee Gal]

2. I was not attempting to make an excuse.

I thought I made that clear.

[Yurovsky]

41. But it was an excuse ...

and Hillary had complete and full run of the Clinton White House, something she makes a big point of during debates or on the stump. If she had access to all of that intel for EIGHT YEARS as co-President, and STILL voted to murder millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, then she should be brought up on War Crimes charges and, if found guilty, hung alongside Chimpy, Dick, Rummy, Rice et al.

[Tennessee Gal]

49. That is a ridiculous assertion.

As I posted above from the Congressional Research Service report, the most up-to-date intelligence information first comes into the possession of the President. George W. Bush controlled the UP-TO-DATE intelligence and we well know that he manipulated it.

[cali]

3. I suggest you read what Senator Patrick Leahy had to say about all this

He STRONGLY disagrees with Nelson. In his speech on the eve of the vote, Leahy demolishes this argument, and repeatedly call the IWR a blank check and even more damning, a "Tonkin Gulf Resolution". Who you gonna trust? Bill Nelson or Pat Leahy?

[Tennessee Gal]

4. I would be glad to.

Do you have the link? If not, I can find it.

[cali]

17. sure

here's part of the speech and a link. There are many other speeches on Iraq by Leahy on his site.

<snip>

" know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the administration in the right direction.

Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to the executive branch.

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.

This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks."



<snip>

"We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.

The administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force.

But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that ``The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions.''

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 4, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone “..... is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .....''

Unfortunately, we have learned that ``not likely'' is a wide open phrase that can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.

We have the best trained, best equipped Armed Forces in the world, and I know they can defeat Iraq. I hope, as we all do, that if force is used the Iraqi military surrenders quickly.

But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? It is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting.

If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, do we foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years? How many billions of dollars will we spend?

Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to rebuild Iraq even when the administration is not budgeting the money that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, having promised to do so? Do we spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, as the President's Economic Adviser suggested, while not providing at home for homeland defense, drought aid for farmers, education for our young people, and other domestic priorities?

Who is going to replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines.

These are the questions the American people are asking and these are the issues we should be debating. They are difficult issues of war and peace, but the administration, and the proponents of this resolution, would rather leave them for another day. They say: vote now! and let the President decide. Don't give the U.N. time to do its job. Don't worry that the resolution is a blank check.

I can count the votes. The Senate will pass this resolution. They will give the President the authority he needs to send United States troops to Iraq. But before the President takes that step, I hope he will consider the questions that have been asked. I hope he considers the concerns raised by former generals, senior diplomats, and intelligence officials in testimony before Congress. I hope he listens to concerns raised privately by some of our military officers. Above all, I hope he will listen to the American people who are urging him to proceed cautiously and not to act alone.

Notwithstanding whatever disagreements there may be on our policy toward Iraq, if a decision is made to send troops into battle, there is no question that every Member of Congress will unite behind our President and our Armed Forces.

But that time has not yet come. Based on what I know today, I believe in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists and more enemies, we have to act deliberately and not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq is going to have consequences for our country and for the world for years to come.

Authorizing a U.S. attack to overthrow another government while negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before we exhaust other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of international solutions. I am afraid that it would be what the world expects of a superpower that seems increasing disdainful of international opinion or cooperation and collective diplomacy, a superpower that seems more and more inclined to ``go it alone.''

What a dramatic shift from a year ago, when the world was united in its expressions of sympathy toward the United States. A year ago, the world would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide agenda of common problems.

I remember the emotion I felt when I saw ``The Star Spangled Banner'' sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace in London. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared, ``We are all Americans.'' China's Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call Washington and express sympathy after September 11.

Why squander the goodwill we had in the world? Why squander this unity? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it alone.

I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the U.N. will succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified, and it may be required.

But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available to us and with the goodwill of most of the world. Let us proceed deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check that is premature, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our constitutional authority and our responsibility.

Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone back and read some of the speeches the Senators have made. For example, and I quote:

“The resolution now pending is an expression of American unity in this time of crisis.”

“It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check for policies that might in the future be carried on by the executive branch of the Government . . . without full consultation by the Congress.”

Do these speeches sound familiar? They were not about Iraq. They were spoken 38 years ago when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the end of that debate, after statements were made that this resolution is not a blank check, and that Congress will always watch what the Executive Branch is doing, the Senate voted on that resolution. Do you know what the vote was? 88 to 2. It passed overwhelmingly.

In case everyone does not know what resolution I am talking about, I am talking about the Tonkin Gulf resolution. As we know all too well, the Tonkin Gulf resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations as carte blanche to wage war on Vietnam, ultimately involving more than half a million American troops, resulting in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans. Yet, even the Tonkin Gulf resolution, unlike the one that we are debating today, had a sunset provision.

When I came to the Senate, there were a lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Every single Senator who ever discussed it with me said what a mistake it was to write that kind of blank check on the assurance that we would continue to watch what went on.

I am not suggesting the administration is trying to mislead the Congress about the situation in Iraq, as Congress was misled on the Tonkin Gulf resolution. I am not comparing a possible war in Iraq to the Vietnam war. They are very different countries, with different histories, and with different military capabilities. But the key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret.

Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before."


http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/100902a.html

[Girlieman]

21. Senator Clinton apparently forgot to read Profiles in Courage

or she might have followed the lead of Lincoln Chaffee:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/LInc_Chafee_01-27-08_PD8NPTK_v102.182ab97.html

[Political Heretic]

5. Plenty of Representatives and Senators knew enough to vote no, as did I.

[Perky]

6. She never read the NIE....which hads lots of caveats in it!

She only listened to the BUSHCO SPin and mad that her basis for the decision. WHe said in the Debate that she researched the issues carefully....That was intellectually dishonest.

and utter Bull.


She said she was against th Levin Amemdment because it would have set a bd precedent regardin sunjugatgion to the Security Council.

The Levin Amendment explixity said it would not do that.

More dissembling.


Obama's speech was absolutely prescient... He had the judgement to understand where going to war in Iraq would lead. He was right. She was lazy.

[TexasObserver]

7. Sorry, but all who voted for it CAVED!

It was five and half years ago, and I remember it well. I can remember knowing that Bush and Rove were setting up the Democratic Party, forcing Democrats to either fall in line behind them or face the prospect of being labeled soft on war/terror etc.

Look at who voted against it: a Who's Who of quality party Senators.

Look at who voted for it: Anyone who had presidential aspirations, including Kerry, Edwards and Clinton. If I knew, how could they NOT know?

They knew better. They caved in because they were afraid to have the courage of their convictions. I think the world of Edwards and Kerry, but they did it, too. Shame on every Democrat who voted for the IWR. They had a chance to stand up and they stood down.

[goddess40]

15. I knew as well, and they should have too,

It disgusts me that they play the I was too stupid to know any different card.

[TexasObserver]

25. Exactly. Everyone knew what was going down.

You may recall that in 2002, about 15 US Democratic senators were toying with running for president. They didn't want to hang around their necks the label "peacenik."

As George Michael said in his 1990 tune "When I knew which side my bread was buttered, I took the knife as well."

They knew. They all knew.

[goddess40]

28. we were already protesting the coming war

while they were signing the lives away of our military personnel and Iraqi civilians

[BanzaiBonnie]

8. Looking at this logically...

Why, in heaven's name, are the Senators who were lied to not charging those who told the lies to Congress for the crime?

You start with the smaller fish and then go up the chain.

[Tennessee Gal]

10. I have been wondering that too.

All of them have failed us.

[H2O Man]

11. Good point. n/t

[fooj]

60. Exactly.

We've been had, IMO. All of us. Collectively.

Excellent point!

[MadHound]

9. Even worse then, if this is going to be Hillary's answer,

It means that she's too stupid to see through a Bushco lie(like the majority of Congress did, like the majority of Americans did), and thus doesn't have the mental capacity needed for the top job.

No matter how you try to parse it, rationalize it, excuse it, the IWR, along with her subsequent votes for funding and Kyle/Lieberman, are absolutely inexcusable, and for many, many people disqualify her entirely.

[Tennessee Gal]

12. Did the majority see through the lies?

I don't think so. Not at the time. Hindsight is easy. Have you forgotten that about 70% of the American people were supportive of the Bush war at the time?

[MadHound]

19. A majority of Dems in Congress did indeed see through the lies

A majority of people, 68%, wanted us to wait until the inspectors finished their job before we took anymore steps, including the IWR. On the day of the IWR vote, messages via phone, email and snail mail were running 268:1 against the IWR. Millions of people were out in the street, around the country and around the world, all against the IWR.

No, this isn't a matter of hindsight, this is what was going on, so that leaves two excuses for Hillary to hang her hat on. Either she was dumb enough to fall for Bushboy's bullshit(and should disqualified from the race due to stupidity), or she coldly and calculatingly decided to play politics with peoples' lives, and therefore should be disqualified from the race due to the fact that she has no soul.

You can try and rationalize away this all you want, but these are the two essential points that her actions boil down to. Either option however means that she shouldn't be elected to the White House, we don't need anymore stupid, immoral people in the WH, don't you think that eight years of that is enough?

[pampango]

13. Voting for the IWR was political CYA and Hillary was not the only one doing it.

All of our Dem senators who have run for president since, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd, all voted for it. None of those who voted against it, including Kennedy, Feingold, Wellston, and Boxer have since run for president.

Public polling reflected support (whipped up no doubt) for the IWR and Republicans were always accusing Democrats of being "soft on defense", so any Democrat with presidential ambitions had a very difficult choice. If you vote for it and the Iraq War goes well, your vote will be popular and the anti-war folks can be marginalized. If you vote for it and the was goes badly, you can always distance yourself from the vote in any number of ways.

If you vote against the IWR and the war goes well, you are labeled as a left-wing liberal who is soft on defense. If you vote against the war and it goes badly (reality), you may get credit for wisdom, but you may still be attacked as being a weak-kneed liberal who just got lucky on this vote.

Given all of these choices, a Democratic senator, who could go back in a time machine, might still vote for the IWR. It proves you are tough, while you can effectively distance yourself from the terrible consequences. Just look at who among our senators at the time has run for the presidential nomination since the IWR.

They all voted for it. Many may believe it was not a morally defensible vote, but it sure appears to be the politically wise thing to have done.

[Perky]

16. No but Obama did.

[pampango]

18. Did what?

Vote on the IWR or go back in a time machine? ;)

[JTFrog]

14. Yea, you're attempting to defend Hillary's vote on IWR. Why say otherwise?

While giving her IWR speech and claiming to be pushing more diplomacy, she slightly tainted that push by questioning the integrity of the UN and the security council members:

"The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons."

Naive isn't gonna cut it. And it isn't what this country needs in a leader.

Here is an article by Scott Ritter. He was a UN inspector and knows first hand what information your girl had:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election.

Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

...more at link

And in the end, all the spin and all the coulda shoulda woulda's won't change the fact that Obama DID NOT VOTE for it. Clinton DID VOTE for it.

[Auntie Bush]

33. Hey, stop spreading lies.

"And in the end, all the spin and all the could shoulda woulda's won't change the fact that Obama DID NOT VOTE for it. Clinton DID VOTE for it."

That's a down right visions lie and you're writing your own selective MISLEADING history.

"OBAMA DID NOT VOTE for it. Clinton DID VOTE for it." That statement is misleading because it sounds like Obama was there and gets the credit for voting against it. And Hillary was guilty.
OBAMA DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST IT----OBAMA WASN'T EVEN IN THE SENATE YET. Of course he didn't vote for it! He wasn't there and had no opportunity to vote for the IWR. WHY ARE YOU LYING AND DISTORTING THE FACTS??

[JTFrog]

35. How is it a lie? He DID NOT vote for it. She DID VOTE FOR IT.

He was not there so HE - DID - NOT - VOTE - FOR - IT.

There is no lie at all in anything I said there. You can not make it anything other than it is.

[Auntie Bush]

40. Yes I can. That's what is called a deliberate misleading comment and it

projects a damn lie or false conclusion.

If you and I belonged in an organization and the organization had a meeting and voted to demolish a public building rendering hundreds of people homeless... Let's say I attended the meeting that night and you stayed home. If I voted to demolish the building... Could you criticize me and say I was cruel and that you are nice, kind and compassionate because you didn't vote for it? No, you weren't there so you get no credit at all if you want to be fair.


I didn't explain that very well because I have to leave now for an appointment. But you get the idea!

[JTFrog]

51. Please link to where he voted for it if you are calling me a liar. Thanks. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

57. It's useless to try and show somebody their error when the are blind.

You're hopeless and thick headed.

[JTFrog]

63. The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol.

The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

[Auntie Bush]

72. Sorry... I don't usually name call but,

you were deliberately ignoring my point after a long explanation and making a ridiculous comment. It's frustrating... and I get used to all the name calling around here by mostly Obamites. It's contagious!

[krkaufman]

20. Except they weren't lied to by their fellow Senator, Bob Graham...

... when he told them...

"read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

The information was available to those Senators who made the effort to read the 92-page Iraq NIE. Sen. Nelson's claim that he didn't have access to the information that there was a debate within the intelligence community is a lie, because that very information was in the classified version of the NIE, that Sen. Graham implored the Senate to read.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." (Sen. Graham) warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands."

Blood is *especially* on the hands of those Senators who voted in support of the Iraq resolution but couldn't find the time to read the classified NIE.


more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

[never_get_over_it]

22. Drones jesus Bill Nelson is an IDIOT

but I'm glad you posted this because I haven't seen the part that the drones were going to be launched from ships off the Atlantic - makes me feel a little better about Bill Nelson who is my Senator and a man I actually despise because he might as well be a repunk...I had only heard that drones were going to attack us from Iraq. And of course that is idiotic because Iraq is 6,000 miles away from the east coast of the US. After doing some research very little but some - the furthest I could find that any drone could go is 600 miles

So believing drones from Iraq could attack us is IDIOTIC - ALMOST as idiotic is drones from ships off the Atlantic which would have to be no more than 600 miles away and probably WAY less - WHAT SHIPS - does/did Iraq have a navy - how would they get within 600 miles of our shores without being detected - and WHY WOULDN'T we blow their sorry asses out of the water

Is there no critical thinking - even in the Senate...

They may have been lied to but the LIES were ridiculous - and I for one believe this is a sorry excuse and the vast majority of these YES votes were for POLITICAL reasons - "they" didn't want to take the political heat and so they risked trusting a man who stole a freaking election and COULD not be trusted and now over 1 million Iraqi's are dead - 4 million displaced - our economy is in shambles because of the money pissed away there - over 4K of our soldiers killed, tens of thousands wounded and on and on and on

So Bill Nelson should be ashamed of himself along with the rest of them.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Who was it that lied straight to Nelson's face?

[bread_and_roses]

29. I can't believe this mealy-mouthed excuse is being posted again

We'll never learn, I guess. We'll never hold any of them to account for anything. Hillary plays Rambo and Obama prances around with homophobes and the Senate gives the illegitimate little puppet with his 28% rating everything he wants and there is always an excuse. Where is it written in stone that a candidate's supporter can't challenge them on anything? Where is it written in stone that a candidate's supporters must give them cover for each and every one of their expediencies and sell-outs? Maybe if their supporters challenged them on their gutless wonder acts we'd get some-where?

[Tennessee Gal]

30. Excuse me. I started this thread and I am not a Hillary supporter.

[Orangepeel]

36. Bob Graham didn't fall for it.

And he was normally a hawk.

[Individualist]

37. The fact they were lied to should have had no impact on their votes

We were lied to as well, and that didn't stop us from finding the facts of the matter.

[Tennessee Gal]

52. A lot of the facts came out AFTER the vote, not before.

[flyarm]

56. #1 THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CONGRESS TO TURN OVER THEIR OBLIGATION TO DECLARE WAR!

the constitution lays the responsibility for declaring war on congress..not the executive branch..

why did congress and anyone in it abdicate their responsibility by giving that power over to little lord pissy pants?

that is what we should be discussing..why did anyone in congress give over their responsibility and their duty to this white house?

if they would shirk their responsibility then why not other times under duress..

it is bullshit that anyone that signed that document is still in our congress..they abdicated their responsibility..they should be fired by we the people.

not promoted to president.
fly

[Tennessee Gal]

58. You are an Edwards supporter like I am.

Does he deserve to be promoted to President?

I understand your anger and I tend to agree with you.

What makes me even angrier is that no one has been held accountable for their lies getting us into this mess.

[Individualist]

71. MOST of the facts were available before the vote

That's why so many democrats voted against it; that's why there were numerous anti-war marches prior to the vote.

[otohara]

39. It Was So Obvious They Were Lying

you could see it in their faces, body language. Those who voted for IWR didn't take the time to listen to those who opposed and had the facts to counter their lies.

[killbotfactory]

42. That's bullcrap. The case for war was demolished when the inspectors got in

Yet all of the people who voted for the IWR supported the invasion, despite the inspectors not finding anything, and despite Bush cutting them short and bypassing the UN.

If they were lied to they had plenty of time to call Bush out on it before the war started, but they didn't.

[smoogatz]

43. Suckered, you mean.

Or using the false intel as political cover, so they could look tough. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

[Alexander]

44. Hillary was the best-informed Senator. Her husband was president and she sat on a committee...

The Senate Armed Services Committee, to be precise.

She knew what she was doing, probably better than any US Senator.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Tennessee Gal]

50. Yes,

But you are totally ignoring the information provided in my post from the Congressional Research Service.

[Alexander]

74. You are ignoring the facts I just pointed out.

She knew what was going on better than everybody in Congress. And many of her less-informed colleagues still knew enough to vote against it.

That tells me she wasn't "duped". That tells me she voted for IWR out of political gain.

[robinlynne]

45. I knew it was a lie, and I don't have a phd in political science. It was pretty obvious.

[Radical Activist]

47. ditto. One speech from Scott Ritter made things pretty clear.

Its not like senators have only one source of information.

[Tennessee Gal]

54. You KNEW for sure or you THOUGHT that * was lying?

I thought he was lying, but I did not know for sure until after the vote.

[robinlynne]

61. Well I knew as well as I know that telecom immunity from prosecution is a terrible

idea for our country. So I will say I knew.
It was so easy to see it coming. We thought they were going to put the weapons in Iraq to be found.

[flyarm]

53. LOOK ON AUG3OTH 2002 EVEN THE HEAD OF THE Methodist church wrote a letter to all the top church

people that he met with * and there was no stopping him..he and Cheney were taking us to war..he released his letter to the media..i sent it out everywhere..i was running a newly formed internet group we were blasting congress and the senate..we were sending the letter all over the internet..we called daily every Dem office in washington demanding they respond to that letter..

nothing..zero...we got no response..we did blitzes to the media..nothing..no coverage on that letter..

and how do i know the date..it was my son's birthday..i will never forget it..


and if i could find that letter..why didn't Hillary..it was a scathing letter about little lord pissy pants going to start a war of lies..and how many innocent people would die because of it.


there are no excuses..none.

but Obama is no better, sorry to say..i don't like either of the crooks..

fly


HERE IS AN ARCHIVED COPY OF THAT LETTER:

http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2002.asp?ptid=2&story=%7B16AD674C-0B36-4E8F-B288-5A77E5041237%7D&mid=2399

Church executive urges Bush not to attack Iraq


Church executive urges Bush not to attack Iraq

9/3/2002


NOTE: A head-and-shoulders photograph of Jim Winkler is available at http://umns.umc.org/photos/headshots.html online.



WASHINGTON (UMNS) - The chief staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency is calling on the White House not to attack Iraq but to seek a peaceful solution through the United Nations.

"The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts and millions of U.S. citizens," said Jim Winkler, staff head of the denomination's Board of Church and Society, in an Aug. 30 statement.

"With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the president has all but given the order to fire," he said.

He urged United Methodists "to oppose this reckless measure" and to encourage President Bush to find peaceful means for resolving the threat posed by Iraq. U.S. officials are concerned about reports that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

"Our church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones," Winkler said. "We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations." He cited the denomination's resolution "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention," originally passed by the church's highest legislative body in 1988, then amended and readopted in 2000. That body, the General Conference, determines United Methodist policy.

"United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack," Winkler said. "President Bush and Vice President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war.

"I beseech the president and vice president to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship," he said. "We must as a people and nation recast our personal and national priorities so that God's creation and the needs of the least, the last, and the lost are first in our hearts."

Winkler's statement followed an Aug. 29 plea from 37 Christian leaders from the United States, Britain and Canada attending a meeting of the World Council of Churches Central Committee in Geneva (see UMNS story #382). The signers included several United Methodists, among them the top staff executive of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.

The conflict between the United States and Iraq "can and should be dealt with by the United Nations," Winkler said. "No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law."

Questions of noncompliance with weapons inspections should be handled by the United Nations, Winkler said.

"A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in U.S. foreign policy," he said. "It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle, lest disaster and chaos result."

This would not be "a just war," Winkler stated. Proof of a real threat to the United States has not been offered, he said, noting that no evidence has shown that Iraq has a nuclear warhead aimed at the United States or even deliverable weapons of mass destruction. "No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States."

Winkler raised questions about the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial costs of a war and its aftermath, and the consequences for the future of Iraq.

"Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq," he wrote. "The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement and final outcome are by no means assured."

He warned that Baghdad, a huge city with innocent civilians, would be a major target. "Accidentally or not, we have seen the death of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die?"

"The United Nations estimates its own sanctions , the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people," Winkler observed. And, he noted, the regime of Saddam Hussein has committed many atrocities against its own people, causing great suffering for many years. Winkler offered prayers for the Iraqi people and expressed a yearning "for a just and peaceful government in Iraq."

He urged United Methodists to take seriously Jesus' instructions to be peacemakers and seek justice. "We must speak out now - to the president, members of Congress and our local media - that the path upon which the president seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy.

"That the end justifies the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better and the world expects better of us."
# # #
The full statement follows:

Press Statement

Aug. 30, 2002

For immediate release

Bush Urged to Turn Back From War

The following is a statement of General Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society:

The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given the order to fire.

I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. The United Methodist Church has called for "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention" for all nations (2000 Book of Resolutions #277). Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations.

United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. I beseech the President and Vice-President to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship.

This matter can and should be dealt with by the United Nations. Our Church "support(s) regional and international negotiations arranged in cooperation with the United Nations and held without resort to political posturing." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p. 684) No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the UN Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law. The administration's proposed attack is essentially a unilateral U.S. effort that uses as its rationale Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requiring full compliance with UN weapons inspectors. Arab and European governments strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq. Their views cannot and should not be disregarded. The question of weapons inspection non-compliance should be a matter for the United Nations.

There are those who argue that some military actions are just, however this would not be a just war. No proof has been provided that Iraq has nuclear weapons mounted on launchers aimed at the United States or troops massed on its borders or has developed deliverable weapons of mass destruction. No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States.

A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in US foreign policy. It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle lest disaster and chaos result.

There are questions yet to be asked and answered about many matters including the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial cost of a war and its aftermath, and consequences for the future of Iraq. Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq. The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement, and final outcome are by no means assured. Presumably, Baghdad, a huge city filled with innocent civilians, must be a major objective of attack. Accidentally or not, we have seen the deaths of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die? What is the reasonable chance of success in this war? How long would it take to rebuild destroyed areas? Can the United States effectively carry out regime change?

The regime of Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities against its own people and has been a highly negative influence in international and regional affairs. We all yearn for a just and peaceful government in Iraq. The Iraqi people have suffered greatly for many years and our prayers are with them. The United Nations estimates its own sanctions, the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people.

If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice and peace with one another (Matthew 5:1-12), we must speak out now - to the president, members of Congress, and our local media - that the path upon which the President seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church, and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. That the ends justify the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better, and the world expects better of us.

General Conference is the highest decision-making body of the United Methodist Church. The General Board of Church and Society is mandated by General Conference to seek the implementation of the Social Principles and other policy statements on Christian social concerns through forthright witness and action.



Back : News Archives 2002 Main

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Here's the flaw with that for me.

I knew Bush wasn't to be believed or trusted. Why didn't those who voted yes? Why would any thinking person have given Bush and Co. any benefit of the doubt? Why believe anything they were told?

And then why oh why give him so much room to cause trouble? Why such an open-ended resolution?

[SOS]

59. The yes-voters were not voting on Bush's absurd claims

They voted on the text of the AuMF.

Sorry to say there are no lies in the AuMF.
It's actually quite short and very straightforward.

It authorized Bush to use the US military in Iraq, hence the title.

[hayu_lol]

62. All our intelligence agencies--FBI, CIA, and the rest prepared texts...

that were delivered to BushCo. These estimates of what could happen were not what Bush wanted. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Pearl, and Feith formed the IRAQ STUDY GROUP to cook the intelligence that was force-fed to the Congress, particularly the Senate.

The 'cooked' intelligence showed that Iraq was a real threat to the US and that action, within and without the umbrella of the UN was going to be necessary.

This was highly classified matter and did not get out into the mainstream, but had an enormous effect on the Senate vote on the IWR. Much of the Iraq Study Group's material was incorporated in Colin Powell's subsequent speech to the UN.

: The drones which were believed to be such a threat finally made their debut on the net(after the IWR vote). They were wood and wire biplane contraptions powered by what looked like lawnmower engines. The reference to the senate with the cooked intelligence was to the sort of drones that we had then and are using now--when actually, they were just oversized toys made of orange crate wood and some baling wire.

After all this time, I don't know what will come up on google if you type in Iraq Study Group...but that was what justified, in Bush's mind, the invasion that the PNAC'ers needed to begin their campaign to take over the world.

Of course, in further moves, Bush sent Wilson to seek out the 'yellow cake' farce which backfired on the administration when Wilson got fed up and the BushCo directly attacked Valerie Plame...and Joe Wilson himself.

Iraq Study Group...that tells the entire sordid story.

[LWolf]

64. Another thing to remember:

Many voters, and some people in Congress, knew better than to believe those lies at the time.

I did.

My candidate did.

That excuse doesn't hold water with me.

[Tom Joad]

65. the whole world was lied to. and the whole world marched against war in Iraq

the shitheads (i'm being nice) in congress who voted for it deserve to be voted out of office, and may they be cleaning toilets for the rest of their lives to make a living.

[hayu_lol]

69. For all the very consistant nay-sayers here...

the only comment that applies is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your OWN facts.

Yes, we were, many of us at least, in the streets and hanging banners on freeway/highway bridges. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were in the streets across the country. Millions around the world were in their streets protesting what was about to happen. Congress does not, or is not supposed to operate on emotion as we the citizenry can. They are supposed to do some digging on their own and vote on the facts. They were force fed the facts they received and facts(Bush fairy tales)deliberately skewed by BushCo.

[Tom Joad]

73. there were other sources than bush. Many of us mature people knew that

it was not merely an emotional response, though yes, when someone asks me to participate in criminal behavior, emotions may come into play in my refusal. and total disgust of those who promote the death of others.

[Tom Joad]

66. Note to Hillary. Please contact me.

i can help with the campaign. If you help me transfer my funds from Bolivia, i can give a big boost to your campaign, no questions asked. Just need your bank info. thanks.

(hey, what the heck... she believed George W. Bush, she might believe me)

[ErnestoG]

67. Which means they APOLOGIZE to the public and work to make it right....

Oops, except if you are Hillary Clinton. Then you exhibit a Bushlike grasp of your erroneous positions and refuse to let them go.

[flpoljunkie]

68. Any informed person knew the chemical weapons were degraded and Saddam had no means to deliver bio-

weapons--even if had them. The inspectors had found none, by the way. Bill Nelson is full of you know what!