But this is interesting too:
Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war -- including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -- who may be weighing a 2008 presidential run, had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections.
"They felt, frankly, let down that the U.N. inspectors were not permitted to finish, and they were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw this foiled British plot continues to be," Clinton said.
If this is true, then why the hell don't the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - including Hillary Clinton - come out and say exactly what Bill Clinton said?
And why don't they go one step further and say
George Bush lied to them - and to the world - about Iraq?
Is that such a hard thing to say 15 months after the publication of the
Downing Street Memos?
http://www.democrats.com/bill-clinton-smacks-liebermanIf this is true? Indeed!
Here is
Senator Kerry's DSM letter urging the Senate intelligence committee to hold hearings on Iraq intelligence.
Senator Kerry stated the intent of the resolution in clear terms before the vote and has articulated the point far better and more often than anyone!
The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region.
It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.
Snip...
As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.'' Snip...
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. Snip...
The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Snip...
That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate. Page: S10174Q: Did you vote for presidential authority to go to war because you thought the president should be given the benefit of the doubt?
I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Issues of war and peace go outside of partisan politics. When the president of the United States says this is the way I'm going to do something, you ought to have the right to believe that president. And if there's anything that makes me more motivated about this, it is the fact that he went back on his word with respect to an issue that involves the lives of our young Americans. Americans know that this president did not go to war as a last resort.
Q: Did he intend from the beginning to go to war, no matter what the U.N. or allies said?
But he changed that, you see. This is where the word of the president is so important. Jim Baker wrote publicly how important it was to go to the U.N. Brent Scowcroft wrote publicly. The word around Washington was, the president's father is very concerned, and they don't want to go in this direction. So the president then comes forward and says, you're right. We're going to do these other things.
Q: Was Bush merely paying lip service to trying the diplomatic route?
It appears more and more evident that that may have been the truth, which is why the president broke his word. That's why I say he misled Americans.
Q: What may have been the truth?
That they intended to go no matter what, regardless of what happened. If that is true, he even more misled the nation. If that is true.
Q: Are you less optimistic about bringing democracy to Iraq and the entire the Middle East than President Bush says he is?
Well, (the goal is) moving toward stability. If you don't have stability, you can't have democracy....When you get into those kinds of categories (such as realist), you wind up not doing justice to what's at stake here. We want an Iraq that is not a failed state, one that is moving toward democracy and toward diversity, and has the ability to stand on its own two feet. And how you get there is a more complicated thing than this administration allowed for.
I believe you need to change the current equation significantly. You cannot have a situation where the United States of America has as big a footprint on this process as it does, and hope to have legitimacy and contain the forces that have been unleashed. We need more people involved in this effort, in a broader international effort. And the president has made it very difficult to achieve that.
Now, I believe it will take a new president, a change of administration in Washington to restore credibility to America, and to open the doors to new possibilities for how we get our troops out of Iraq. That's what I believe. And there are many, many other international observers and others who know what's going on who agree with that. All you have to do is go talk to some of my Senate colleagues who have traveled to Iraq and to Europe and elsewhere, and they will confirm to you the need for this new international initiative.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-22-kerry-qna_x.htmSen. John Kerry of Massachusetts ignited us at the Take Back America conference by admitting that his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq was wrong. “It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake,” Kerry said, adding, “I was wrong to vote for that war resolution.” He received sustained applause and some cheers.
“A war on Iraq founded on a lie can never be true to the American character,” Kerry said early in his speech, which was almost totally devoted to the war, in contrast to Clinton’s, which was mainly focused on domestic policy. Kerry drew parallels between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War that he was a soldier in, noting that in both wars, thousands of soldiers were killed or injured long after policymakers realized they had headed in the wrong direction but stubbornly refused to reverse themselves. “It was morally wrong then and it is morally wrong now,” he said.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/13/kerrys_message_to_clintonistas.phpThe focus should have been and still should be on those responsible and who must be held accountable for this illegal war.
Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002October 16th, 2002
Snip...
The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary.
While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386