Reply With Quotei notice that the WH doesn't call them wrong, either..."Those Democratic congressional leaders who try to suggest that we don't have a plan are deeply irresponsible,"
White House calls Democrats irresponsible on Iraq
White House calls Democrats irresponsible on Iraq
*******
Thu Dec 1, 2005 4:46 PM ET
WASHINGTON (*******) - The White House called irresponsible on Thursday those Democrats who said that President George W. Bush lacked a strategy on Iraq, as Sen. John Kerry said a policy shift was needed to reflect realities on the ground.
Some partisan squabbling was heard the day after Bush laid out his "plan for victory," although Democrats were not as uniformly dismissive of Bush as they had been.
The president, seeking to bolster Americans' support for war in the face of rising casualties and to restore confidence in his leadership, said in his speech on Wednesday that time and patience were needed for training Iraqi forces.
He held out the possibility of a reduction in U.S. troop levels eventually, once Iraqis are able to fight the insurgency on their own and if progress is made on the political front looking ahead to Iraq's December 15 elections.
"Those Democratic congressional leaders who try to suggest that we don't have a plan are deeply irresponsible," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who reiterated it was possible to bring some troops home next year.
A snap poll by CNN/Gallup/USA Today after Bush's speech said 55 percent of respondents believed Bush did not have a plan to "achieve victory for the United States in Iraq."
Polls in recent months have shown waning public support for the 2 1/2-year war. Concern over the war has also been a factor pushing Bush's popularity ratings to the lowest of his presidency.
Kerry, who lost the presidential race to Bush a year ago, said Democrats, "are all in agreement that there has to be a profound shift of admitting the reality on the ground and beginning to establish a schedule that we can understand on behalf of the American people about transfer of authority."
The Massachusetts senator described a scaled-down role for U.S. troops, to help guard oil pipelines and guard people working on construction projects.
"You don't need 160,000 people to be doing what we're doing in Iraq today, this is not World War Two, this is not Korea, this is not Vietnam. The principal enemy are IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and suicide bombers," Kerry said.
Kerry was at the White House for a ceremony honoring the late civil rights activist Rosa Parks, but quickly dove into the Iraq topic in talking to reporters on the White House driveway.
MISTAKES ADMITTED
A sharp Bush critic, Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, told CNN he did not hear a solid plan from Bush but that he appreciated that the president "leveled with the American people" by admitting mistakes had been made in Iraq and that much remained to be done.
"He laid out the goals, said it's going to be hard, said give him time, but he didn't tell us how he was going to change the game plan to accomplish that," Biden said.
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a speech military leaders had not adequately explained progress in that country to Americans worried about the rising cost in casualties and money.
"Guys like me have not articulated well enough what is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan," Pace said. "Every place I look in the (Iraqi) political and economic realm I see progress. And clearly inside the security realm I see enormous progress."
The State Department's Iraq coordinator, James Jeffreys, declined to be drawn out on when U.S. forces would be able to hand over to Iraqi troops and return home.
Asked whether Iraq was in the throes of a civil war, he said Bosnia had been a civil war and Iraq was not at this stage, adding that an early U.S. withdrawal raised this possibility.
http://today.*******.com/news/newsar...USA.xml&rpc=22
i notice that the WH doesn't call them wrong, either..."Those Democratic congressional leaders who try to suggest that we don't have a plan are deeply irresponsible,"
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." President Bill Clinton -December 16, 1998
Didn't Cheney say on a sunday morning talk show that he knew for certain that saddam had a WMD?
Whats your point about clintons qoute.
If I may, I think the point is that what is going on is an attempt to rewrite history in order to obtain political cover.
Everybody from Bill Clinton (way back in his 1st term), to Hillary Clinton to Ted Kennedy to Kerry to Albright - educated, intelligent, politically savvy, responsible, dedicated, professional competent legislators every one - all said that Saddam had WMD and that something should be done. Don't make me re-post the long list of quotes again!
The problem is, that even Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war. And they have access to raw intel just like the White House did.
So - how can they simultaneously make the decision to go to war, and blame somebody else for it? They have to claim that the decision they made was the right one (because they are smart and deserve to stay in power) - but at the same time claim that going to war was wrong. In order to do that, they have to show that the criteria they used to make their correct decision was deliberately falsified by their political enemy.
In this way, they can vote for the war, yet still be against it. Basically, the sort of thing John Kerry does every other day - claim to support both sides depending upon when it makes you the most political gain.
The only anti-war people in Congress I can respect are the ones who voted "no". I disagree with them, but they voted their conscience and have not flip-flopped with the political wind.
But do the opposition party enjoy the services of a large army of paid intelligence analysts like the party in power? The reasons I ask this is because in the UK the opposition don't they have to trust that what the party in government tells them is on the level.Originally Posted by 2Sheds_Jackson
Yes. The head of Bush's CIA, George Tenet, was even appointed by the Bill Clinton. (Which I believe was a mistake keeping anyone assoicated with Bill Clinton on staff.)
Dozens of Democrat Senators and Representatives even traveled to Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait themselves prior to the war.
Did they all say that Iraq must be invaded?all said that Saddam had WMD and that something should be done. Don't make me re-post the long list of quotes again
If they voted against, wouldnt they be considered as ´pro terrorists´ or ´pussies´, by a public opinion who had already gone through 9/11 and was further intimidated by the Bush administration? (in the sense of exaggerating the real terrorist threat)The problem is, that even Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war. And they have access to raw intel just like the White House did.
it seems to me that the democrats didnt have too many options. But i would hypothesize that, in retrospect, they wish they had voted otherwise.
And that was a 'slam dunk' for war on bad intel? Gimme a break. Thanks to previous administrations and a robust inspections regime the above quote is accurate - Saddam WASN'T able to threaten his neighbours or the world. Clinton was not making a case for preemptive war and regime change when he said this.
Last edited by budgie; 12-02-2005 at 09:30 AM.
Yes, the Democrat party is as informed of intelligence details, flawed or not, when they choose to listen; just like the Republican. The Senate intelligence committee and much of the Hills Intell bureaucracy are made up of both parties.
All the democrats had plenty of options. They, ahem, represent there constituents and have the choice to follow or lead in this supposedly, somewhat democratically elected republic. Then again, doing something against the will of the constituents might just wake them up to question other decisions made and then suddenly you find a lot of average Joe’s mucking up your next party primary. Nope, we can’t have that can we so, you heed the mob and march to war.
What I find disgusting and fascinating is how when you combine the above with a little wiggle room of faulty intell data, a mega dose of propaganda chaff and the short memory of the average Joe we then get to observe the Hill’s shell game, shuffle, song and dance and a lot of Dem’s declaring “It’s not my fault, Bush did it”
Really I think they are wishing Saddam had have calmed down and not agitated the Bush administration into blowing up the good thing they had going on the Hill. Now they risk alerting the public to there scam and have to run the tightrope of damage control and spin which really sucks a lot of time and effort that they wish could have been devoted to more fleecing and pocket lining.
I don't think Bill was talking about invading Iraq on our own or with limited support. There was other ways to handle this.If I may, I think the point is that what is going on is an attempt to rewrite history in order to obtain political cover.
Everybody from Bill Clinton (way back in his 1st term), to Hillary Clinton to Ted Kennedy to Kerry to Albright - educated, intelligent, politically savvy, responsible, dedicated, professional competent legislators every one - all said that Saddam had WMD and that something should be done. Don't make me re-post the long list of quotes again
The problem is, that even Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war. And they have access to raw intel just like the White House did.
So - how can they simultaneously make the decision to go to war, and blame somebody else for it? They have to claim that the decision they made was the right one (because they are smart and deserve to stay in power) - but at the same time claim that going to war was wrong. In order to do that, they have to show that the criteria they used to make their correct decision was deliberately falsified by their political enemy.
In this way, they can vote for the war, yet still be against it. Basically, the sort of thing John Kerry does every other day - claim to support both sides depending upon when it makes you the most political gain.
The only anti-war people in Congress I can respect are the ones who voted "no". I disagree with them, but they voted their conscience and have not flip-flopped with the political wind.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Clinton made that quote as he was launching an attack on Iraq for failing to abide by the weapons inspections.
Do some reading on the history of the situation.Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
- Bill Clinton 12/16/1998So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
that's already been proven false. the adminstration left out quite a few bits of info, like the fact that the intel people didn't trust some of the sources used. you might recall that there's an investigation going on in which the lack of clarity on the administration's part is a key factor. or that quite a few of the iraqi exiles were being provided by one ahmed chalabi.And {democrats} have access to raw intel just like the White House did.
so, if congress was provided an incomplete view of the situation (the lie of ommission, if you will...) how does that make the democrats irresponsible?
Don't you people think it's odd that GOP are accusing the Democrats irresponsible on Iraq when they in fact created the whole mess by supporting Saddam in the 80's?
Posting Permissions
