Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear Friend, I was wrong.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 11:58 AM
Original message
Dear Friend, I was wrong.
Edited on Sun Dec-31-06 11:58 AM by LSK
Nov 13, 2005

Dear Friend,

I was wrong.

I wrote these words about my vote to authorize the Iraq war in a Washington Post op-ed piece and I want to share my views with you as well.

Almost three years ago, we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong — and to show that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

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 told by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: twisting intelligence to fit their pre-conceived views about Iraq's threat; failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it actually ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill that our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here, but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing American presence; building Iraq's capacity; and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections and a new government has been created, we should begin the redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq.

Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces. That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule outlining that as we certify that Iraqi troops are trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will withdraw.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. It's not just in America's security interest for Iraq to succeed, but the world's — and the President needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made to make this easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and — most importantly — our troops who have died or been injured there and those who are fighting there today deserve nothing less.

America's leaders — all of us — need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war; and over 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

John

http://johnedwards.com/news/newsletter/oped20051113/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sorry John; I knew it was bullshit back in October 2001.
And publicly wrote so.

If I knew, who does not have the power of life & death over our military citizens, then there is NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for those who did and do have the power of life & death over our military citizens to not have known.

It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. My Bad
Now lets change the subject!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. At least he has a plan
though I still don't understand why our elected officials didn't see what we on the picket lines in 2003 saw quite clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. maybe a cherry picked NIE?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. One minor point....
"and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help."

I would be curious to know a bit more about that choice of words. In my view, the US pretty much thumbed their nose at the international community by refusing to go back to the security council for a second vote. I am sure many of those other countries, even those that are our political allies, are somewhat enjoying our fall from "grace" as the world's leader.

What responsibility to help does Edwards feel they have?


Please don't get me wrong. I like John Edwards, and although he is not my first choice of those who *may* run, I currently like him the best of those that seem to be running at this point in time. I just thought that was an odd statement to make.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. I'll say
We (the national "we") got in this mess all by our lonesome, flying in the face of world opinion. There's no way that gives anyone else a "responsibility." If anyone helps us (and the country we broke), it will be strictly out of the goodness of their hearts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sorry John, I won't vote for any warmongers. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. This was written in Nov. 2005 - anything more recent?
I do not think we should be focusing on "training Iraqi troops" - they quite obviously do not want to be "trained" - e.g. controlled - by US occupiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. heres a more recent one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. His statement in this WaPo article is more recent and stronger...
Edited on Sun Dec-31-06 12:23 PM by IndyOp
Edwards said restoration of America's leadership in the world must begin with Iraq. He said he favors withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops from Iraq as the first step toward turning responsibility for the conflict over to the Iraqi government.

"It is a mistake for America to escalate its role in Iraq," he said, adding that proposals to send in more troops now would send "exactly the wrong signal" to the Iraqis.

"There is not a military solution to what's happening in Iraq right now," Edwards said in an interview with CNN. "We need to tell the truth of how we got there . . . we need to be honest about the situation we have now."

<snip>

"We've had one of the most experienced foreign policy teams in American history -- Rumsfeld, Cheney," he said. "They've been an absolute disaster by any measure."

Asked about his own support for the war in the fall of 2002, he replied, "My vote was a mistake. I never should have voted for the war."

In his campaign video, recorded Wednesday, Edwards directly criticized Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is seen as a leading candidate for the Republican nomination and has recommend sending more troops to Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"We need to reject this McCain doctrine of surging troops and escalating the war in Iraq," he said. "We need to make clear we're going to leave and we need to start leaving Iraq." The pre-New Year's announcement highlighted the very early start to the 2008 campaign. Edwards became the third Democrat to announce his candidacy, joining Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio).

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/wp20061228/

There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to what's happening in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE US PERMANENT BASES???
THAT WERE VOTED AGAINST BY THE US CONGRESS...WHO IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT CLOSING THE BASES WE ARE CURRENTLY AND HAVE ALREADY BUILT..

WHO IS GOING TO BRING THAT UP??

A BILLION $$ EMBASSY BIGGER THAN VATICAN CITY..WHOEVER SAYS THEY WILL CLOSE THESE IMMEDIATELY WILL GET MY VOTE..OTHERWISE ..THEY ARE JUST BLOWING SMOKE!

FLY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Blowing smoke or working on it step-by-step...
Each time the U.S. has invaded a nation it has kept a military post and troops in that nation permanently -- now 700+ bases around the world.

I want a President who will not allow troops to stay in Iraq and who will close the rest of the U.S. bases too.

Now - given that, even if every citizen agreed with me that all 700+ bases should be closed, it will take time and the interests of the military-industrial-congressional complex will be challenged to an extreme.

The question for those who think many moves ahead is how to convert all of the US jobs currently tied in to the military-industrial-congressional complex to other industries...

I've not heard Edwards comment on this and I want to hear it from ALL of the candidates. Of the candidates I like (except Kucinich) - Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Clark - none of them have addressed the issue of closing US bases in Iraq and removing ALL U.S. troops.

Kucinich is Kucinich - he's stated many, many times that he wants the US bases closed and all troops out ASAP. I am grateful to Dennis for entering the Presidential race because he will move the discussion closer to our concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Kerry has since 2004
He's been saying it's critical that we state 'no permanent bases' clearly, and has always said that. I'm thinking it was part of a resolution he proposed last year as well. Edwards hasn't led on Iraq, I don't really know why anybody would push this as his issue because it really isn't.

Closing the Embassy? We have embassies all over the world, I don't think closing embassies anywhere is in anybody's best interest. We had an embassy in the Soviet Union for pete's sake. It's ridiculous they built such a monstrosity and I don't see any good intention in it, but we shouldn't advocate no embassy in Iraq either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I think Flyarm's mention of the $$$ on the US embassy in Iraq was
just to underline how clear it is that the * administration has long been planning a permanent military/occupation presence in Iraq.

I think that for the short-run the US should get out of the Iraq completely - out - the wound from the last 15 years of intervention is too deep.

An embassy in Iraq in the distant future is fine - but the Iraqi's could make better use of the monstrous embassy building than we can for the foreseeable future. It's size alone is an insult to the Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I agree
I'd hate to see an issue made of the specific embassy building though. It's just the kind of diversion the right likes to hype, those crazy liberals don't even know we have embassies everywhere. You know what I mean. That's all I'm saying there. But the destruction of the military bases absolutely need to be in any exit strategy and is why I stick with Kerry, he gets how important those little details are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. BASES

AND YET 10 ARE ALREADY BUILT WITH 4 MORE BEGINNING!!..SO WHERE DID *HY GET THE MONEY???????????????


Congress Says No To Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
WASHINGTON, May 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Responding to a huge wave of popular opposition to U.S. war plans in Iraq, the full Senate today declared the United States should not establish permanent military bases in Iraq and added a clear statement that the U.S. does not wish to control Iraq's oil resources. The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) congratulated Sen. Joseph Biden (DE) on winning approval for the measure, which specifically prohibits the use of any new funds to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The House passed a similar ban in March.

"This is an important milestone in the development of U.S. policy toward Iraq. For the first time since the U.S. launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, both chambers of Congress have now said the U.S. must change course in Iraq," said Joe Volk, Executive Secretary of FCNL, the 63-year-old Quaker lobby that has the largest team of peace lobbyists working on Capitol Hill.

The president recently said U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at least until 2009, while senior U.S. military commanders have argued in public testimony that the U.S. may decide to permanently station military troops in Iraq. "The Senate vote today sends a clear signal to the people of Iraq, to the international community, and to the people of this country that the United States does not intend to permanently occupy Iraq," said Joe Volk. "This Congressional action also is a strong signal that the Bush administration has to change policy in Iraq now."

FCNL, the oldest registered religious lobby in Washington, has been working for more than a year to persuade Congress to declare "It is the policy of the United States to withdraw all U.S. military troops and bases from Iraq." The full Senate today approved by voice vote an amendment to the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill offered by Sen. Joseph Biden that states "None of the funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=65133

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC