| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"plonk" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2005 10:44:02 PM |
| Object: |
WMD Dupes - What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It |
December 5, 2005
What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh12052005.html
The Lies of John Edwards
By JOHN WALSH
The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice
presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been
widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other
Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their
ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this,
for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation
of Bush's war by a Democrat.
Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November
13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on
intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the
American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was
being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story.
Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."
Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor
John Edwards was deceived. But was he? How was it that 21 other
Democratic Senators and 2 Republicans were not deceived and voted
against the war?
Part of the answer arrived in another op-ed the Washington Post one
week later, November 20, 2005, by another former Senator, Bob Graham,
entitled: "What I knew Before the Invasion." Like Edwards, Graham was
a member, in fact the chair, of the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee in the period leading up to the war and on October 11, 2002
when the vote on the war on Iraq was taken. In a nutshell, Graham
tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying
about weapons of mass destruction. Graham begins like a good, loyal
Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least
"most" of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee knew better. Here are some of Graham's words:
"At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002,
CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq.
An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its
most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no
NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.
Invoking our rarely used Senatorial authority, I directed completion
of an NIE."
"Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other
assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use
chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and
three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE".
"There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted
toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous
dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the
departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised
about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was
reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use
whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do
so unless he was first attacked."
"Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had
not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the
United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the
alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of
which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force
if necessary." (Note by jw: Who do you suppose those "third countries"
were that were fanning the flames of war?)
"The American people needed to know these reservations, and I
requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared.
On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled 'Iraq's Weapons
of Mass Destruction Programs.' It represented an unqualified case that
Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the
will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the
classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired
sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a
nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim
that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq."
"From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with
Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious
completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question
whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an
interest in knowing the truth."
"On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president
authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat
emptor. Most of my colleagues could not."
John Edwards was a member of that Senate Select Intelligence
Committee, and he voted for the war. Who were the other Democratic
senators? They were Senators Bayh, Edwards, DURBIN, Feinstein, LEVIN,
MIKULSKI, Rockefeller and WYDEN as well as Tom Daschle, then majority
leader, an ex officio member. I have capitalized those who voted
against the war resolution and who should be hailed as senators of
integrity. But Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller, all
of whom with the exception of Feinstein, have presidential ambitions,
voted for the war despite the fact that they had good reason to know
the administration was Bushies were lying. (And let's not forget the
Republicans on the committee: Dewine, Hatch, Inhoffe, Kyle, Lugar,
Roberts, Richard Shelby, Fred Thompson and ex officio, Trent Lott.)
There were 19 members of that committee, all of whom had to know that
Bush was lying. Only the four in caps above voted against the war. But
if 19, out of what is often called a small and intimate club of 100
Senators, knew that the war was based on a lie, can one believe that
the rest did not know? And given the bloodletting that was about to be
unleashed, why did none of these 19, including Graham, release the
"confidential" NIE report? What sort of men and women are these?
Let us carry this one step further. There were 23 Senate votes against
the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle,
Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken
only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was
available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John
Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom
Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now
minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to
36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter. They cannot
claim we would have gone to war anyway. If they had been willing to
filibuster against the war or filibuster to allow the inspectors to
complete their work, there would have been no war. These are Dems on
whom progressives rely. They betrayed us, and they have blood on their
hands since it was in their power to stop the war. But their ambitions
came first. (Chuck Hagel who now professes to be anti-war and John
McCain who wears his "integrity" on his sleeve would have made two
excellent additions among the Republicans.)
Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority
in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002.
So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.
And that brings us full circle. Why did Graham write his column which,
if read carefully, so implicates Edwards and so many others? Actually
Graham set out to do the opposite, to excuse his colleagues. He was
trying to explain how he could vote against the war while 99 other
Dems voted for it. He was trying to excuse them with his insiders
knowledge. As he says in the opening to his op-ed:
"In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for
being hypocrites on the Iraq war. 'M]ore than 100 Democrats in the
House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power,' he said."
"The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats
voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them,
though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate
belief that the president and his administration were truthful in
their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if
Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom
cloud."
Bush is telling a lie, of course, when he says the Dems had "the same
intelligence" as he had. But it contains a kernel of truth, which must
be scaring the hell out of the Dems as they feel pressure to abandon
the war. (Bush and Cheney finally say something with an element of
truth!!!) The kernel is that enough Democrats had enough knowledge to
know that we were being lied into war in October, 2002. And except for
a courageous 21 Senators, along with 2 Republicans, they went along
for the ride - with their careers in mind. So in attempting to excuse
his colleagues, Graham's op-ed leaves his fellow members of the Select
Intelligence Committee hanging out to dry. (It couldn't happen to a
nicer bunch of folks. And just perhaps, that very thought occurred to
Graham as he penned his piece. ) And he raises suspicions about the
rest of the Senate, with the exception of the 23. (And of course how
is he to explain the votes of the 23; are they to be labeled traitors
to save the reputations of Hillary, Kerry et al? That is a tough
sell.)
Where does that leave us? The crisis that is the war in Iraq has
become a crisis of Democracy. Right now it is crystal clear that there
is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very
minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the
Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine
antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the
neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be
further imperiled.
It is worthwhile looking back at the Senate membership of the 107th
Congress and comparing the list to those Senators voting against the
war on Iraq (http://www.democrats.com/node/6890). Pick your own
favorite Judas
http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh12052005.html
This article linked from: http://www.antiwar.com/
----
http://www.lpwa.org/news/
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: WMD Dupes - What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they KnowIt |
07 Dec 2005 08:03:16 AM |
|
|
plonk wrote:
December 5, 2005
What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
...
Where does that leave us? The crisis that is the war in Iraq has
become a crisis of Democracy. Right now it is crystal clear that there
is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very
minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the
Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine
antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the
neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be
further imperiled.
The war will go on until the US adopts Arab demands that we stop
supporting Israel. Neither Republicans or Democrates are likely to
change that policy.
LTE:
First published: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Reality doesn't count. Perception is everything. Our best lawyers depend
on this phenomenon.
They make facts disappear when they want as easily as they can make the
slightest doubts appear reasonable to a jury. Indeed, they even
"cherry-pick" juries and probably judges whenever the opportunities
arise. Lawyers are salesmen with a law degree.
Salesmen can make swampland seem like a good deal to the less
sophisticated. More than most folks, lawyers understand how much depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. A lot of politicians are lawyers.
The reality is that Congress voted to attack Iraq. Right now many of
them want to create new perceptions. They want us to believe they did
not know what they were doing. They are not responsible for their
actions. They want us to believe they were, well ... fooled; they were
"out-lawyered" by Bush -- the very person they once told us was too dumb
to be president. Which is perception and what is real?
Some of our esteemed legislators get Rep. John Murtha (who holds a safe
seat) to call for a troop withdrawal because it offers political gain
with little risk. But when push comes to shove, they vote no withdrawal.
Is that a perception of courage and leadership or the reality of
politics as usual?
Raise your hand if you trust in a politician. In reality, those rascals
make the rules we all have to follow. The perception is they care and
know what they are doing. How real is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "plonk" |
|
| Title: Re: WMD Dupes - What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It |
07 Dec 2005 07:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:03:16 GMT, Werner Hetzner <whetzner@mac.com>
wrote:
plonk wrote:
December 5, 2005
What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
...
Where does that leave us? The crisis that is the war in Iraq has
become a crisis of Democracy. Right now it is crystal clear that there
is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very
minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the
Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine
antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the
neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be
further imperiled.
The war will go on until the US adopts Arab demands that we stop
supporting Israel. Neither Republicans or Democrates are likely to
change that policy.
LTE:
First published: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Reality doesn't count. Perception is everything. Our best lawyers depend
on this phenomenon.
They make facts disappear when they want as easily as they can make the
slightest doubts appear reasonable to a jury. Indeed, they even
"cherry-pick" juries and probably judges whenever the opportunities
arise. Lawyers are salesmen with a law degree.
Salesmen can make swampland seem like a good deal to the less
sophisticated. More than most folks, lawyers understand how much depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. A lot of politicians are lawyers.
The reality is that Congress voted to attack Iraq. Right now many of
them want to create new perceptions. They want us to believe they did
not know what they were doing. They are not responsible for their
actions. They want us to believe they were, well ... fooled; they were
"out-lawyered" by Bush -- the very person they once told us was too dumb
to be president. Which is perception and what is real?
Some of our esteemed legislators get Rep. John Murtha (who holds a safe
seat) to call for a troop withdrawal because it offers political gain
with little risk. But when push comes to shove, they vote no withdrawal.
Is that a perception of courage and leadership or the reality of
politics as usual?
Raise your hand if you trust in a politician. In reality, those rascals
make the rules we all have to follow. The perception is they care and
know what they are doing. How real is that?
I don't really have a problem with most of what you've said except
that: The war against al-Qaida doesn't necessarily require dumping
Israel before we are reasonably secure from attack.
That is probably the main factor though both we and al-Qaida are
reluctant to admit it for different reasons but I'm certainly not as
ready to dump them since 9-11 as I was when Sharon postured
himself as a hard line intransigent before he was elected prime
Minister.
I would, however, like to lessen the clout of their lobby and
support among the religious right. I would like for their supporters
to be more forthcoming about the costs of support for Israel as
regards the risks to our country and begin to be more open to
debate regarding how much support should be accorded them
when their pols do things that are not in our national interests.
Sharon has begun to aquire a more realistic attitude towards
compromises that would affect a possible future peace deal
but still does things that make it harder for Abbas to make
compromises of his own.....Like expansion of settlements in
disputed areas with cover from the Bush Administration.
I see that simply as an imposition on the good will and
generosity of Americans that aren't inclined to assume
a position of unqualified support for Israel but are simply
forced to go along with whatever pols give to Israel
without any debate whatsoever, with the obvious
repercussions.
As far as military adventures in the Mideast are concerned:
I've yet to see a valid reason for occupying Iraq that concerns
our national interests or any reason whatsoever that the
invasion of Iraq has a purpose other than making the Mideast
safer for Israelis......We sure as hell aren't impressing either
China or Iran with any of this as it's going now. A lot of antiwar
activists aren't ready to bite into this topic yet but I can't see any
good coming of trying to ignore or obfuscate the obvious
if this war in Iraq goes goes on for years or if the situation with
Iran breaks out into a war.
Knowlegable people realize that Israel's security is, at least a
factor in our militarily aggressive Mideast policy. We can support
Israel without absolutely guaranteeing their safe existence in
that inhospitable environment.
----
http://www.lpwa.org/news/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: President George Bush Did Not Lie About Iraq's WMD.
'What The Hell Did You Think Was Gonna Happen?'
RP: WHY FRANCE DID NOT BACK COALITION? - OIL INTERESTS
Kay sez WMD "really did not exist"
Re: Did I Miss the Story About Kerry Trying to Pull the US Out Of NAFTA?
Re: Democrats Dance In Dead Americans Blood & Clinton Did Nothing About Bin Laden( Re: Saturday, April 24: Four U.S. Soldiers Die, Seven Wounded in Rocket Attack
Re: Bush Won't Testify Alone, But Neither Did Clinton
Re: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
| Why did "Harry" make a comeback?
Did Iran Dupe the US into the Iraq War? <== VERY INTERESTING ....
Notice how the AP did NOT sue for release of Kerry's records?
REPLAYS SHOW POWELL DID NOT SCORE
9-11 flights timing shows that Bush government did it
YOUR CHILD DID THIS
The Acts 20:7, did not tell us about we have to observe the worship day on Sunday, the verse just tell us about the Paul's final visit to Troas, and not about the worship day, but the devil, the Rome Catholic Church, The Protestant Church and the Con
|
|
|
