Iraq vote,
by rocky, Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
People appear to have developed a collective amnesia about the AUMF vote. Not only have they forgotten about the situation in the country at the time but have also forgotten that they supported a candidate four years ago who not only voted for the AUMF but was also insisting that "had he known then what he knew now" (2002 and 2004) he still would have voted the same way. Remember Kerry sent out James Rubin to peddle this line.(Contrast that with Hillary's response to Pumpkin head Russert at the time" Tim had we known then what we know now there would have been no vote) The irony is that not only did we enthusiastically support Kerry we now want to put weight on his judgment re Obama.
Let us just revisit 2002-at that time the conventional wisdom in Washington was that Saddam had WMDs. This could have been debunked by our friend Rockefeller and company of the intelligence committee by holding public hearings on the issue and inviting experts(Remember Daschle was the majority leader at the time.)There was no need for Graham to make a big speech all he had to do was what is expected in a democracy- hold hearings where everyone would have learnt what the UN knew - that based upon the interviews of the Hussein son in laws , Iraqis had destroyed their weapons stockpile . The UNMOVIC was unable to certify this because the level of proof was not high enough.
In 2002 a large majority of the US citizenry was demanding metaphysical certitude that Iraq had no WMDS which required intrusive inspections. Under the circumstances it was politically untenable for a senator from New York to go against the President without public proof of absence of WMDS. A reading of the NIE in private would not have provided her constituents that comfort( incidentally it did not help Rockefeller who wants us to trust his judgment now). At the time the White House arranged special meetings between Condoleeza Rice ( Again this was before she became known as Kind of lies a lot Rice) and Clinton. As Biden has said the President also undertook to come back to the senate for a second vote.
For a former first lady it was inconceivable that a US president would act the way Bush did. If you guys read her speech given at the time of the vote, it is clear that she thought that she was creating a situation for the inspectors to get in . Dont take my word for it . Read Hans Blix.
Dont take any one's word about the Levin amendment- read the motion. It clearly cedes US authority to the UN.
Clinton is to be faulted for trusting that the a President would act in such a reckless manner.Nothing more
Let us just revisit 2002-at that time the conventional wisdom in Washington was that Saddam had WMDs. This could have been debunked by our friend Rockefeller and company of the intelligence committee by holding public hearings on the issue and inviting experts(Remember Daschle was the majority leader at the time.)There was no need for Graham to make a big speech all he had to do was what is expected in a democracy- hold hearings where everyone would have learnt what the UN knew - that based upon the interviews of the Hussein son in laws , Iraqis had destroyed their weapons stockpile . The UNMOVIC was unable to certify this because the level of proof was not high enough.
In 2002 a large majority of the US citizenry was demanding metaphysical certitude that Iraq had no WMDS which required intrusive inspections. Under the circumstances it was politically untenable for a senator from New York to go against the President without public proof of absence of WMDS. A reading of the NIE in private would not have provided her constituents that comfort( incidentally it did not help Rockefeller who wants us to trust his judgment now). At the time the White House arranged special meetings between Condoleeza Rice ( Again this was before she became known as Kind of lies a lot Rice) and Clinton. As Biden has said the President also undertook to come back to the senate for a second vote.
For a former first lady it was inconceivable that a US president would act the way Bush did. If you guys read her speech given at the time of the vote, it is clear that she thought that she was creating a situation for the inspectors to get in . Dont take my word for it . Read Hans Blix.
Dont take any one's word about the Levin amendment- read the motion. It clearly cedes US authority to the UN.
Clinton is to be faulted for trusting that the a President would act in such a reckless manner.Nothing more
Tags: amnesia, AUMF, Move On (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
22 Comments