Waaaaaaa
The democrats are doing something that is long overdue, representing their constituency. To hear Frist and Roberts cry about Reid's impromptu performance yesterday gives an insight into just how out of touch these guys are. Why shouldn't the American people expect the senate to investigate whether or not the Iraq war was predicated on a bunch of crap? Does anyone think given the reverse that the republicans wouldn't pull the same stunt? Hats off to Harry Reid.
posted by mochi at 12:45 PM
9 Comments:
Haven't they been?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: --Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert
Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
-Jack
Oh, and didn't Reid vote for the war in Iraq? Whose intelligence was he going on, Clinton's, Kerry's?
Pardon my skepticism...
-Jack
Jack, you seem to be the biggest fan of Clinton in the blogosphere! In reply your second comment: regardless of whether Reid voted to give the president war powers or to take action against Iraq, the point of all the current hubub is that the intelligence you refer to was wrong. And, just because the wrong information was cited previously doesn't mean we should not try to obtain the truth now.
Found in Iraq (partial list)
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
152mm binary Sarin artillery projectiles—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency.
The largest stockpile of anthrax held by any nation.
Shea, how can the intelligence be wrong. Just recently the New York times reported massive looting and relocation of weapons--the NEW YORK TIMES. Is the left the only people that believe that the WMD's didn't exist at all? Shea, does the left read anything other than each other's blogs and the mainstream media which wouldn't report it? Hasn't the anti-war crowd caught on to the Democrats and their pandering? This sincerely puzzles me!
Oh, and another thing--if I were a congressman, before I would have voted for a war--committed ANYONE to danger--I would have had to have complete evidence that was verifiable. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Irresponsible (in the least)is Harry Reid, and every other Democrat that voted for the war who now questions it. And you want to give adulation and credit to them? If I had the opinion that you do of the war, I would be calling Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of their ilk murderous sons-of-satan. The greatest face of evil is self-righteousness, Shea, and this foolish posturing is beyond reprehensible.
-Jack
P.S. Intelligence for two decades from just about every industrialized world's intelligence agency verifed WMD's and USE of such by Saddam and his regime. What is there to figure out?
exactly why i think the entire united states senate are a bunch of douchebags. I would like to see Republican's quotes from the later 1990s as well to see how they went along with what was being said. Did they agree, did they disagree? But for all the aforementioned quotes, our entire federal government is to blame. There is no excuse, though, for how horribly this war was mismanaged and poorly organized. THAT by all means falls on the current administration. Insufficient armor and equipment and miscalculations left and right that have impeded our progress and destroyed our image. And if I hear Clinton being blame for our insufficient equipment, management, etc. I simply argue, you dont go to war until youre ready. Never have I seen anyone so eager to wage war like George Bush was. Bush and Clinton of course have no perspective, because they avoided the conflict of their time.
CH,
I realize I'm kind of the aged one here, but the conflict in Iraq is one of the most successful in history. I have seen a few:) It was an unprecendented victory. The military did an amazing job in Iraq. There continues to be unrest and conflict in Iraq--that may be what you are referring to?
Jack, succesful for who? How can you say that it has been succesful when it's not even close to completion? Yes, our military has done well in spite of its commanders here in Washington. But I would not call anything succesful before it is complete, although there is the acceptable argument that history will prove whether this was succesful or not. But can you say the Patriots have had a succesful season when key players are injured, there have been mixed results, everyone is out to get them because they are a dynasty and they have only played seven games?
I am pessimistic because we are not the first geniuses who have stepped into that region to try and spread our influence and profit from the natural resources there. Our conflict that has been going on for a little more than two and a half years (but realistically goes back about 15 years) is but the blink of an eye compared to all that has gone on in the Middle East/Central Asia for centuries (before Christ even died, and this is the first and most important point to maintain). And I am going to link the two regions together because 1) they have both been enveloped in conflict for centuries 2) they are neighboring regions and 3)we are engaged in conflict in BOTH regions right now. Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.
Here are a couple of things that really piss me off: the Bush lied and deliberately mislead us theory. No. George Bush has not made one single goddamned decision in his 5 years. Maybe he decides whether he will wear a striped or solid tie, or whether he wants to floss his teeth on a given morning, but thats as far as that goes. George Bush himself is a puppet and people are issuing too much blame towards him. I honestly cannot say I dislike him because I do not know. He is just a messenger boy for his Dad's friends. That is not conspiracy theory, that is obvious. This conflict transcends Bush's presidency and Saddam Hussein's rule and is a microcosm of all that has gone on there for, oh, eternity. Secondly, comparing Republicans to the Nazis; it took both Democrats and Republicans alike to fuck this one up (Jack's quote list was great for displaying that), and so if you are going to compare anything to Nazis, its our foreign policy towards the Middle East as a whole. But that still is not acceptable; first, Nazis didnt mix messages and just came with it. If you want to compare us to anyone, you should compare us to the communists of the early 20th century: I am sure that the Bolsheviks thought they were "succesful" in Central Asia. However, their transparent promises to the people of those regions fueled an underground Islam movement; while much of it was peaceful Islam being clandestinely practiced, many Muslims were also inspired to redefine the religion and the wrong definition of jihad ultimately emerged, and thus the fanaticism we see today. The reason I allude to the Communists is because they spread their empire to Central Asia, and not for the reasons they said they were. While things benefited Russia for some time, it did nothing for those who were forced to live under their imperial rule; their identity and culture was taken from them, and it ultimately further ruined the region and I would argue the imperical exploitations of Central Asia were one of the major factors that led to their demise. They inspired so much hatred toward themselves and so many outsiders came to fight against them. While the Communists achieved some alliances, they eventually destroyed them due to their arrogance and power drive. Krushchev and Gorbachev tried to liberalize policies toward that region during their tenures but the damage was already done.
While history is no definite future indicator, it is the best source that we have. And while Bolsheviks and Communists and whoever did what they could to mess up the region, it has been messed with time and time and time again going back so far that, why would you want to mess with it? I would rather have sex with a toothless hag with herpes. There are so many things the Communists did during their exploitation of the Central Asian region that compare to what we have done there and are doing today in the Middle East, it really terrifies me. And lest you forget, we are involved in an imbroglio that involves the two most unstable regions in the history of the solar system (besides the planet Marklar conflict of South Park Season 3). One we have stated we are there for reasons that we are not there at all. Secondly, both regions have been perpetually fucked with, they just want to be left alone. When an army/empire go there, those actions have never benefited the peoples of the region for any extended period of time, and anyone who ever goes in there eventually ends up fucking themselves over and causing more of a mess on top of what was already going on when they showed up. I am more worried about the future of this country given what happens when nations go into Central Asia/Middle East.
CH, great analysis! I was speaking of the coflict itself--the war was carried out and expedited in an amazing fashion-with Saddam defeated quickly. That's what I was referring to. I, like you, believe that bring democracy to those people is like trying to teach a dog to use a litter box. I don't see how our presence there will help in the long run either.
And of course I agree too with your assessment--Like I indicated in one of my earlier posts, this is more a leftist policy than anything.
Again we will have to look to history to come to a full assessment, but I think a lot of what you say is right on.
-Jack
I am reading this book called Jihad, and it is excellent. I have only read the first 50 pages, still have like 200 to go and I have already learned a ton about that whole region itself. It focuses more on Central Asia but its starting to get into the Middle East a little bit. The book has made me feel even worse in regards to the whole discourse of surrounding our presence there, because most people, both for or against it, really miss out on what is going and what has gone on. It is a region that has the deepest roots in history and religion and so much can be learned from that history.
On a greater scale, it is sad that the history of this region is not taught so much; given the current state of the world, it is the most pertinent and important subject right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home