Some Demos Disingenuous On Iraq
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Well, I must say, most of her Democrat colleagues are in the same boat.
The Iraq war has become quite a sticky little issue for Democrats.
Democrats pretty much came to power over Iraq because it became so unpopular with voters.[[In-content Ad]]And it should be unpopular. By any measure, the war hasn't gone well. There is no question about that.
W's war policy and execution has been fraught with mistakes and misjudgments.
There is no argument that something needs to change.
But the problem for Democrats is that they pretty much were all in favor of the war to begin with. I don't think voters have such poor memories that they can't recall all the rhetoric during the run-up to the war.
At that time, the war was popular. So Democrats and Republicans were on board.
Now that the war is unpopular, politicians on both sides of the aisle are ready to jump ship. But mainly it's the Democrats who got themselves elected on this issue.
Well, I have two pretty simple questions for them.
Question No. 1: "Why did you vote to authorize a war against Iraq in the first place?"
Question No. 2: "Why, now that things aren't going well, is this all W's problem and not yours?"
You know - you know - that if things were going well in Iraq, they'd all be patting themselves on the back. But now that things aren't going well, they refuse to take responsibility for their positions in the run-up to the war.
It's all W's fault. That's disingenuous.
WMD was cited as the reason for invading Iraq, but there were many other - valid - reasons, too.
That's why so many Democrats voted in favor of the war resolution.
Senators at the time of the war resolution had a laundry list of reasons to boot Saddam out of Iraq.
There was Iraq's penchant for housing and funding terrorists, Saddam's myriad violations of United Nations agreements, his nose-thumbing at conditions following the 1991 Gulf War and subsidies for terrorists, his genocide against Kurds, his use of WMD against his own people, and his attempts to assassinate a U.S. president.
Does the fact that the war has gone badly invalidate all that reasoning and rhetoric?
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Oct. 10, 2002.
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
Sen. John Edwards, D- N.C., U.S. Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," Oct. 10, 2002.
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev. Oct. 9, 2002.
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., March 17, 2003 (the eve of military strikes against Iraq).
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer - and Iraq is better - because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Speech at Drake University in Iowa, Dec. 16, 2003.
I have advice for the Democrats.
Instead of all the self-serving attacks on W, why not just be honest?
Why not say something like this:
"You know, there were some really good reasons to get rid of Saddam, and it's good that he's gone. I stand behind my vote to remove him, but now things are not really going so well in Iraq.
"I must confess that while those reasons remain valid, the unintended costs and consequences of our attempt to stabilize Iraq have become unsustainable.
"I believe the pitfalls of staying outweigh the pitfalls of leaving and I believe we should begin immediate drawdowns of troops."
Now - agree or disagree - at least that's a position on the Iraq war that I could respect coming from a Democrat.
Well, I must say, most of her Democrat colleagues are in the same boat.
The Iraq war has become quite a sticky little issue for Democrats.
Democrats pretty much came to power over Iraq because it became so unpopular with voters.[[In-content Ad]]And it should be unpopular. By any measure, the war hasn't gone well. There is no question about that.
W's war policy and execution has been fraught with mistakes and misjudgments.
There is no argument that something needs to change.
But the problem for Democrats is that they pretty much were all in favor of the war to begin with. I don't think voters have such poor memories that they can't recall all the rhetoric during the run-up to the war.
At that time, the war was popular. So Democrats and Republicans were on board.
Now that the war is unpopular, politicians on both sides of the aisle are ready to jump ship. But mainly it's the Democrats who got themselves elected on this issue.
Well, I have two pretty simple questions for them.
Question No. 1: "Why did you vote to authorize a war against Iraq in the first place?"
Question No. 2: "Why, now that things aren't going well, is this all W's problem and not yours?"
You know - you know - that if things were going well in Iraq, they'd all be patting themselves on the back. But now that things aren't going well, they refuse to take responsibility for their positions in the run-up to the war.
It's all W's fault. That's disingenuous.
WMD was cited as the reason for invading Iraq, but there were many other - valid - reasons, too.
That's why so many Democrats voted in favor of the war resolution.
Senators at the time of the war resolution had a laundry list of reasons to boot Saddam out of Iraq.
There was Iraq's penchant for housing and funding terrorists, Saddam's myriad violations of United Nations agreements, his nose-thumbing at conditions following the 1991 Gulf War and subsidies for terrorists, his genocide against Kurds, his use of WMD against his own people, and his attempts to assassinate a U.S. president.
Does the fact that the war has gone badly invalidate all that reasoning and rhetoric?
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Oct. 10, 2002.
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
Sen. John Edwards, D- N.C., U.S. Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," Oct. 10, 2002.
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev. Oct. 9, 2002.
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., March 17, 2003 (the eve of military strikes against Iraq).
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer - and Iraq is better - because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Speech at Drake University in Iowa, Dec. 16, 2003.
I have advice for the Democrats.
Instead of all the self-serving attacks on W, why not just be honest?
Why not say something like this:
"You know, there were some really good reasons to get rid of Saddam, and it's good that he's gone. I stand behind my vote to remove him, but now things are not really going so well in Iraq.
"I must confess that while those reasons remain valid, the unintended costs and consequences of our attempt to stabilize Iraq have become unsustainable.
"I believe the pitfalls of staying outweigh the pitfalls of leaving and I believe we should begin immediate drawdowns of troops."
Now - agree or disagree - at least that's a position on the Iraq war that I could respect coming from a Democrat.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092