???? Inhofe: WMD's in Iraq was "never the issue"

[iplaw]

quote:The talk about training camps, specific personalities, past infractions...none of those at all justified War.  They are only an attempt to save face over the lack of WMD.

None of what I have given would be considered past justifications.  What did I claim that could be considered as a past or improper justification?

[Conan71]

A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory.  For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.

Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault.  They helped sell the war just as much as he did.

Why was it even relevant to WOT?  There wasn't a fear of Saddam's Republican Guard using them, so much as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc. buying them from Iraq.

At least one other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, aside from Inhofe thought so:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.  

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror...."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
  Addressing the US Senate
  September 12, 2002
  http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Already addressed.  See previous post.

Great.  So when Inhofe says, "The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue", when in fact it was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, that's revisionism.  

But when he himself spews scary, peepants rhetoric on national TV, then says it was "never the issue", that's a lie.

Again, he could have said that the real issue was Saddam's flatulence issues.  It doesn't matter.  He's not a spokesman for the administration.  All politicians pull this nonsense, and I don't agree with his statement.  Who cares?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory.  For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.

Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault.  They helped sell the war just as much as he did.

Why was it even relevant to WOT?  There wasn't a fear of Saddam's Republican Guard using them, so much as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc. buying them from Iraq.

At least one other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, aside from Inhofe thought so:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.  

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror...."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
  Addressing the US Senate
  September 12, 2002
  http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

Yes.  And Edwards, being a big boy, apologized.  Inhofe would rather re-write history than apologize for being wrong.  Says something, don't it.

[iplaw]

No.  Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory.  For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.

Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault.  They helped sell the war just as much as he did.

I think it's a fair statement to say "we were working on intelligence given to us by the Administration, which turned out false."    I think it's also fair for Democrats to say "we didn't have access to the same information the Administration did."  Stating that "The Bush Administration mislead Congress and the public in order to invade Iraq" is politics based on circumstancial evidence, but not necessarily wrong.  We may not know for 30 years what exactly happened, we may not know then.  The idea that Bush or the Administration as a whole mislead the public to invade Iraq is almost horrifyingly inconcievable, but it's also possible.

And to a degree, I'd say some Democrats did sell the war in a similar manner as the Bush Administration did.  Not "as much as".  The Administration, and the "Commander in Chief", took us to war.

The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place.  Can't really blame them I suppose.

[iplaw]

quote:The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place.  Can't really blame them I suppose.

They are the worst and most spineless of the whole bunch.  Remember you can't look at this in hindsight if you want to be fair.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of those people reading those intelligence reports at the time.  No one could have seen what we were given (by every intelligence agency in the world) and done nothing with it.  That would have been a gross dereliction of their duty to protect the this country.

[Conan71]

Yeah, just like John Kerry who wasn't against the war until he figured out it was mostly liberals who would vote for him who were tired of the occupation in '04.

If we'd have pulled out in '04 due to pressure from the anti-war types, the complaint from the Democrats would be Bush left the Iraqis to suffer in total chaos by pulling out too soon.

They forgot they emboldened him on this war, they voted for it, using the same intelligence sources he did.  They've thrown Bush under the bus for political expedience.

CL, I wouldn't even make mention of Democrats on the issue if you weren't so intent on running down Bush, Inhofe, et. al. at every chance.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No.  Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.

Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh?  Last I heard, they called it accountability.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No.  Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.

Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh?  Last I heard, they called it accountability.

[}:)]

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

They are the worst and most spineless of the whole bunch.  Remember you can't look at this in hindsight if you want to be fair.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of those people reading those intelligence reports at the time.  No one could have seen what we were given (by every intelligence agency in the world) and done nothing with it.  That would have been a gross dereliction of their duty to protect the this country.

I disagree.  While there was the Administration's case for war, there was info out there that ran counter to the Administration's case.

It wasn't necessarily WMD's, that was mostly credible.  It was everything else.  It's that problem of having Cheney, Rice, Powell, and everyone else giving multiple explanations for going to war, instead of one single clear explanation.  If you have to have all these reasons for War, (some which appear weak, some which simply don't justify war) is you're best reason all that good?

I haven't lambasted anyone for voting for the war.  Haven't praised anyone for voting against it.  Either was a reasonable conclusion, at the time.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory.  For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.

Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault.  They helped sell the war just as much as he did.

I think it's a fair statement to say "we were working on intelligence given to us by the Administration, which turned out false."    I think it's also fair for Democrats to say "we didn't have access to the same information the Administration did."  Stating that "The Bush Administration mislead Congress and the public in order to invade Iraq" is politics based on circumstancial evidence, but not necessarily wrong.  We may not know for 30 years what exactly happened, we may not know then.  The idea that Bush or the Administration as a whole mislead the public to invade Iraq is almost horrifyingly inconcievable, but it's also possible.

And to a degree, I'd say some Democrats did sell the war in a similar manner as the Bush Administration did.  Not "as much as".  The Administration, and the "Commander in Chief", took us to war.

The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place.  Can't really blame them I suppose.

That's a pretty reasonable assessment.  It may take 30 years to figure out what was expedience, what was CYA, and what was fact.  

There's a whole lot of stuff which doesn't smell right on it.  I'm just curious how the CIA could have gotten all this so effed up.  Tenet sure doesn't seem willing to shed credible light on this.  

I just lose patience when someone brings up in conversation that it's all Bush's fault, or a GOP war for the oil interests, etc.  There are a whole lot of "unindicted co-conspirators" from the Democrat party who sold the Iraqi threat to the American public for years before we finally went back in and took Hussein out for good.

Keep in mind, Bush II came into office facing a bunch of intel gathered between 1991 and 2002.  Bush had a lot of pressure and precedent to consider Saddam a legit threat to U.S. security at home and against our foreign interests and allies.

One thing I'd long forgotten about was this Senate resolution in 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:  

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."  

  Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
  105th Congress, 2nd Session
  September 29, 1998
  http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

Interesting stuff.  Just seems like a lot of people think the whole history of American conflict with Iraq resided soley within the Bush administrations.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No.  Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.

Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh?  Last I heard, they called it accountability.

If he had said it in any context other than his aspirations to gain the most powerful position in the free world, that apology might really mean something.  He's got a horse in this race.

[iplaw]

quote:
I disagree.  While there was the Administration's case for war, there was info out there that ran counter to the Administration's case.

From whom?  Please cite these sources.  Seems like those who are so outspoken now, are using obtuse reasons to make it seem like they were ahead of the game before we went in.

Anyone who saw the intelligence we were given was compelled to make the same decision we made.  Only the staunchly anti-war nuts like Kucinich opposed the removal of Saddam.

quote:
It wasn't necessarily WMD's, that was mostly credible.  It was everything else.  It's that problem of having Cheney, Rice, Powell, and everyone else giving multiple explanations for going to war, instead of one single clear explanation.  If you have to have all these reasons for War, (some which appear weak, some which simply don't justify war) is you're best reason all that good?

Yes.  If you bust a drug dealer who is also a murderer for stealing a car, or do you let him go because stealing a car isn't the worst thing he's done?

I think you're confusing the term justification.

quote:
I haven't lambasted anyone for voting for the war.  Haven't praised anyone for voting against it.  Either was a reasonable conclusion, at the time.

On this we can agree.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No.  Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.

Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh?  Last I heard, they called it accountability.

If he had said it in any context other than his aspirations to gain the most powerful position in the free world, that apology might really mean something.  He's got a horse in this race.

Since when, in politics, is admitting a mistake a sign of strength?  Opponents will use that apology to question his judgement.  That's why Clinton has never apologized.  She's no dummy.

But Edwards is no rookie either.  He knew this would cost him, and he apologized anyway.  Having a conscience is a b*tch.