Bill Clinton speaks out against the war; Kerry said it best, then and now!

[ProSense]

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-lieberman

If 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: S10174

Q: 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.htm

Sen. 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.php

The 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 2002
October 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

[Democrafty]

1. K & R

[blm]

2. Why didn't Clinton speak up and say that in 2003 and 4? Kerry did, and

got nothing but SPUN AGAINST while most Dems were either supporting Bush on war or falsely BLAMING the IWR as if it gave Bush war powers like the media wanted us to believe.

[NotfooooldbyW]

3. Kerry's Vote - Bush's Promise - Amir Al Saadi is missing

I have been trying for two years for someone, anyone to pay attention to what Kerry said during the runup and vote for the authorization to us military force IF necessary. I am happy to see someone notice it, but there is one more step that needs to be taken to show the American public just how Bush faked going the diplomatic route. Look up Amir al Saadi and you will find that he proposed allowing thousands of US military, CIA and FBI into Iraq in December of 2002 to search for the WMD alonside the UN inspectors. This offer got as far as the Pentagon and Richard Perle and a White House spokesman commented on it. It went nowhere. Saadi was in US custody and public knowledge of his condition was known throught the Red Cross, and the news media. Sometime after January 2005 Saadi dissappeared and there is a blackout on the internet and the entire world news media. He's gone. Why? Because the Bush Administration continues to claim they exhausted diplomatic and peaceful means to avoid the need to invade Iraq. Saadi, speaking out, would destroy that lie. That is one Bush lie they cannot spin. Saadi is the key.

Let's find out what happened to Saadi and bring up what Kerry and Bill Clinton said about wanting to keep the inspections going. The American public in polls in early March 2003 favored UN inspections to war by a 60/40 margin. Bushies knew that if they started a real war that margin would flip and it did for a while.

They counted on a quick win in Iraq and the fact that they kicked the UN out would forever be forgotten.

Anyone interested in finding Al Saadi please E-mail me immediately. We need to find him prior to October election season. E-mail to [e-mail]

Senator Kerry on the floor of the Senate, October 7, 2002: And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."

[blm]

5. The media wouldn't DISCUSS the actual points in the IWR that Bush ignored

in his rush to war, even when the Dem nominee repeatedly mentioned it. Instead, they followed the old storyline that Rove wanted - IWR was a vote for war - and they would not budge from that meme.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi NotfooooldbyW!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[desi]

4. Let's add this letter to the collection if I may.

Something I posted on another forum some time ago. (1/10/04 2:36 pm) to be exact. The link is obviously obsolete.

Let's keep the Bush lies in perspective.... Does lying to BOTH Houses of Congress constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors..??? You betcha !!!!!

Dec 15, 10:17 PM (this would have been 12/15/03)

Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.

Nelson said claim made during classified briefing

By John McCarthy
FLORIDA TODAY

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

Nelson delivered the news during a half-hour conference call with reporters Monday afternoon. The senator, who is on a seven-nation trade mission to South America, was calling from an airport in Santiago, Chile.

"That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this."

Since the late 1990s, there have been several reports that Iraq was converting a fleet of Czechoslovakian jet fighters into UAVs, as well as testing smaller drones. And in a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush mentioned the vehicles. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president said.

Nelson, though, said the administration told senators Iraq had gone beyond exploring and developed the means of hitting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

Nelson wouldn't say what the original source of the intelligence was, but said it contradicted other intelligence reports senators had received. He said he wants to find out why there was so much disagreement about the weapons. "If that is an intelligence failure . . . we better find that out so we don't have an intelligence failure in the future."

Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched.

"The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Sen. Bob Graham, who voted against using military force in Iraq, didn't return phone calls concerning the briefing. Spokespersons for Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney said neither congressman could say if they had received similar briefings since they don't comment on classified information.

www.floridatoday.com/!NEW...NELSON.htm

[ProSense]

6. Posting this here too (from another thread):

Not only was Senator Kerry one of the ones forcefully speaking out, he did not mis-characterize the vote. Saying the vote was a vote in support of Bush's illegal war was wrong! It was confusing and made it harder to hold Bush accountable above the RW spin!

He spoke, I heard him (especially the calls to go to his website) and decided to support him as a result. Although the media/GOP spin was loud, there were ads and interviews. Taking the media at its word is the only way Kerry's criticisms could have been misconstrued as wavering! More:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

KERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml

And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.

KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003

“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696&

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/kerry_6_28_05_New_York_times.pdf

Senator Kerry has been one of the most forceful critics of the invasion. He is one of less than a handful of elected officials who have never let up, and he has been at it longer than most! Senator Kerry's deadline is the primary reason withdrawal is being discussed with seriousness today!

[Disturbed]

7. Busholini intended to invade Iraq even before he was

selected by the SC.

'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.' GW Bush 2000

[blm]

14. Amazing how the media editted down Bush to make him sound more

thoughtful and less malignant than he really was.

[MH1]

8. Great, informative post, ProSense.

As always.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:yourock:

[whometense]

9. kick! n/t

[politicasista]

10. K&R

:kick: :yourock:

[Island Blue]

11. K & R!

:dem:

[nolies32fouettes]

12. Thanks for this compilation of facts.

[karynnj]

13. k and r - great compilation

and great additions in the thread.

[ProSense]

16. An entire thread of statements by Kerry

and people are still disingenuosly claiming he supported the war!

[karynnj]

17. Stunningly stupid!

It does show what a good job the RW with abundant help by some LW did in distorting things. I hope they are proud.