Gephardt Attacks Bush 'Unilateralism'

They were asked. What are you supposed to do when they chicken out?

 

I was taught by the military to never criticise a situation without coming up with a solution. I don't see a solution from the Democrats. They can b**** up a storm, but when it comes to offering solutions......they break out with the uhhhhhhhh's. And to Gephardt, what do you expect us to do? Be lackeys to the corrupt UN, letting that gang of thugs and criminals lead us around like a dog on a leash? We were attacked and we don't have to ask mother-may-I to root out and find our enemies, wherever they may be. I guess he would prefer we beg the UN permission first.

 

When were we attacked by Saddam??

 

He DID offer a solution:

"Gephardt said that if he were president, he would ask for United Nations Security Council assistance and NATO troops to help stabilize Iraq and would work with allies to reduce other rogue threats.

Attacking a country with our "coalition of the willing" (the countries we bribed) urged by faulty information was letting a gang of thugs lead us. WE are the thugs in this situtation, not the UN.

Don't get me wrong, I was on the side of the administration on this war when I thought that there were WMDs and WMD programs going on. I was (and continue to be) very concerned for our troops because I thought that we would see them attacked with sarin or VX. Now, I am concerned for them because of all the attacks spurred on by the lack of a cohesive plan to rebuild Iraq.

Need I remind you that this country has NEVER been attacked by Iraq, there is no credible evidence to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and that we had virtually no worldwide support for this action.

I supported the first Gulf War because there was strong UN support (unlike GWII), a clear plan of attack (as did GWII), and a clearly defined exit strategy (unlike GWII). As I mentioned above, I supported GWII because I thought that there were WMDs and a threat that Saddam might try to bring them here.

As the days go by, I continue to have the ultimate respect for the troops, many of whom have recently been told that they are staying indefinitely, but my support for the administration (the leadership, not the troops) is waning.

 

And what if the UN said "no"? And didn't he vote in favor of the war?

 

In my opinion, Dubya has got to go. He is the worst President I've ever seen.

That being said, however...

Dick Gephardt is not the answer!

This has been a paid political announcement from the RocketMan Tex Cold Beer and Titty Bar Political Action Committee. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

 

And what if the UN said "no"?

We'll never know - because Bush's pre-war diplomacy was about as horrible as you can get. Remember the "we have the evidence, but we don't want to show it to you" stuff? How often has the US not been able to get the UN to do what it wants on security issues?

And didn't he vote in favor of the war?

Yes, and that was covered in the article:

<I>Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader, reiterated his support for a congressional resolution that authorized the administration to go to war, saying he continued to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was on his way to building them. But, Gephardt said, Bush's "utter disregard for diplomacy" and lack of a cohesive postwar plan left the United States isolated and vulnerable in an increasingly chaotic, lawless landscape.
</I>

 

The point is that he would not go it alone, trying to rebuild this country. I am not a Gephardt supporter, either but I was just pointing out to bama that he did offer at least one suggestion.

He voted to let the president go to war, yes, but I think that in October, everyone thought the administration would get more worldwide support before kicking the inspectors out in order to "shock and awe."

I guess we shouldn't be shocked that they are saying aww, shucks, we can't find weapons, BUT HE WAS A BRUTAL DICTATOR!

I supported this war mostly on the basis of WMDs. There are plenty of tyrants in this world and it is not up to us to depose them all.

Just the ones with lots of oil, I guess.

 

T

The problem with that statement about Bush's supposed bad diplomacy was that he spent months trying to satisfy all the naysayers. France and Russia were never going to accede to our demands for war, because they had too much to lose economically (from their massive contracts with the Saddam regime) and stood to gain from stopping us on at the UN.

The leaders of both nations have complained bitterly about how there must be a counterbalance to us in the world. So I say they would've never agreed to do anything regardless of the diplomatic mission to bring them on board.

 

Interesting...so the French and Russian governments accurately reflect the clear and vast majority in their country, and don't need to invent arguments to accomplish it ,and you know for a fact that the only reason they did so was some pre-existing contracts. Yet our government uses false arguments to shift popular support in their favor, and give out contracts to companies connected with the administration before the war is even over, and that you don't question.

And he spent months trying them to take his argument as fact without support...re 9-11, WMD, nukes, etc. They said they needed proof, we were offended. What concessions, exactly, did Bush make to the 'naysayers' during the months he spent trying to convince them?

And when were these months? You are saying that Bush knew for months that we were going to war, and tried to convince our allies to suport it? What's your time frame?

 

The problem with that statement about Bush's supposed bad diplomacy was that he spent months trying to satisfy all the naysayers.

No, his bad diplomacy was well before that. His bad diplomacy began the day he started pushing for war -- months before he ever considered talking to the UN (which only happened after public opinion showed little support for war without it). At that point, it was far too late -- he had already ignored world opinion, and let it build and build in a negative way. He never fought to gain acceptance of the idea from the *people* of the world - without that, he was never going to get the support of their democratic governments.

You could write a textbook about how not to lead from the way he handled the months leading up to the UN fights.

 

MacFly,

You are making some huge leaps in your logic.

One...they were NOT pre-existing contracts, they were under the table and against UN mandates.

Two...You do NOT know that Bush was using false arguments. And, in no way do you KNOW that he was lying.

Your great at long winded posts, but crap at using facts.

DD

 

Lol! I am crap at using facts? Ok...let's look at this post, shall we?

1) Do you know what pre-existing means? What does anything you mentioned have to do with the timeframe?

2) Yes, I do know for a fact that Bush was using false arguments.

False; adj. ( fols)...1. Being contrary to truth or fact.

Some examples, ie the uranium, have already been admitted. Others, like the reconstituted nukes, the Al-Queda connection, the WMD ready to be used 'at any time', and the tubes are as well as proven false, and still others like the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chem weapons are looking prety doubtfull. I seriously don't get how you can make this claim with any self-respect.

3) I could argue that he lied, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's proven, and since you are harping on about facts, try this one on for size: Where in this post did I say I KNOW Bush lied as opposed to using false arguments? Not, mind...( facts!) where you could interpret that, but where did I factually say it?

Practice what you preach. I'll leave the insults to you and yours right now.

 

This is one of the biggest problems the Dems have, people like Gephart always trying to play both sides. He's for war but not it's execution as if he really expected Bush to use diplomacy once he had a blank check from Congress to fight the war. Whatever.


DaDa, today the government released info saying that Bush and his advisers in DOD knew in October that the Uranium reports were bogus and yet still allowed their inclusion in the State address. Bush in typical fashion responded that he has full confidence in his scandalous advisers and now considers the matter closed even though he knowingly misled and lied his ass off.

 

Timing,

Did they admit that the info was wrong, or did they just say questionable?

I don't think Bush lied, but I do think he emphasized certain intel to support his position.

Heck, I would have supported taking Saddam out even without WMD.

DD

 

DaDakota, I know you don't care but here's the story since you asked:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030722_2503.html

Bush Adviser Apologizes Over Iraq Claim
Bush Deputy Nat'l Security Adviser Stephen Hadley Apologizes for Role in Iraq Intelligence Flap

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON July 22 —
Stephen Hadley, President Bush's deputy national security adviser, on Tuesday became the second administration official to apologize for allowing a tainted intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions into Bush's State of the Union address.

Hadley, in a rare on-the-record session with reporters, said that he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet last October raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons.

As a result, Hadley said the offending passage was excised from a speech on Iraq the president gave in Cincinnati last Oct. 7. But Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together.

"The high standards the president set were not met," Hadley said. He said he apologized to the president on Monday.

Tenet previously issued a statement saying that he should have raised objections to the Iraq-Africa-uranium sentence when the CIA reviewed an advance copy of the president's State of the Union message.

Hadley is the top aide to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The controversial passage citing a British intelligence report "should have been taken out of the State of the Union," Hadley said. He said he was taking responsibility on behalf of the White House staff just as Tenet had for the CIA.

"There were a number of people who could have raised a hand" to have the passage removed from the draft of Bush's Jan. 28 address, Hadley said. "And no one raised a hand."

"The process failed," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett.

Still, Bartlett said that Bush, while perturbed by the developments, "has full confidence in his national security adviser, his deputy national security adviser and the director of central intelligence."

Hadley's statement came as the administration went into full damage-control mode, reaching out to its Republican allies in Congress in an effort to counter criticism of Bush's Iraq policy and his use of discredited intelligence to advance the case for toppling Saddam Hussein.

With Bush's job approval ratings slipping and U.S. casualties in Iraq climbing, the White House sought to move the debate away from the flap over Bush's 16-word assertion that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The White House presented Hadley's apology on a day when public attention on Iraq was focused on the killing of Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai.

Hadley expressed his regret to Bush in a private session on Monday, offering what amounted to his resignation. Bush did not accept it, said aides speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, Democrats used the development to step up their criticism of the president. "First they blamed the Brits. Then CIA Director George Tenet walked the plank. Now the White House is dragging (Hadley) forward to take the fall for the president's bogus claim," said Tony Welch, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential hopeful, asserted in a statement that "I call on all who misled the president to resign immediately. ... The story line continues to change from day to day on this matter."

According to Hadley's account, an unsigned CIA memo was sent to him and to presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson in an Oct. 5 memorandum advising that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from the west African country of Niger.

"These reservations were confirmed by the CIA" in a second memo on Oct. 6, a day before Bush's Cincinnati speech, Hadley said.

He said that Tenet delivered similar reservations in a phone call around the same time and asked him to delete the phrase from the speech which was done.

Hadley said the memos were lengthy and included other recommendations, and he noted that he has frequent phone conversations with Tenet. "As I sit here, I do not remember" details of the CIA reservations, Hadley said.

Still, he said, "I should have recalled (the issue) at the time of the State of the Union address. ... If I had done so, it would have avoided the entire current controversy."

The first CIA memo was discovered over the weekend by Gerson, the White House speechwriter.

Gerson did not attend the session with reporters. But, Bartlett said, "he had no recollection" of the controversy.

Separately the administration is pressing its GOP allies in Congress to do more to emphasize some of the upside to deposing Saddam.

Other aggressive efforts are expected by the administration in the days ahead to try to regain control of the message, including a possible speech on the issue by Vice President Dick Cheney, administration and congressional GOP aides said.

Bush himself has said the uranium phrase had been cleared by intelligence agencies. The president has sidestepped questions on whether he felt personally responsible for the tainted information.

The White House last week began an offensive to try to stem the criticism, including putting out newly declassified portions of an October 2002 intelligence report that reflected widespread concern that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 

The only problem with the Niger report that we didn't know the British source for the intel. Are you supposed to not trust hot intel from our greatest ally? Imagine what that would do for diplomacy.

Speaking of diplomacy, Bush made an excellent case for war. It was just that the French and the Russians plus the Germans saw an opportunity to resist our "evil" hegemony and form a counterbalance to our power. They saw a way to screw us and they did. Bush did what he did to satisfy the naysayers here by going to the UN and later proving its irrelevancy and outdated structure in one swoop. What good is an organisation without means to enforce its decrees?

He knew there was no way in hell that Saddam would comply with any of the UN mandates, being that he remained in breach for years of the terms ending the Gulf War I. War was the only answer to forever end Saddam's continuing WMD program and his designs on his neighbors.

 

Splitting hairs?
Wherein lies the difference
Lying vs Lying by ommission?

You know . . .alot of people might have supported it without
the WMD . . . however I don't like someone lying to me to
get that support.

Rocket River

 

So,

It seems that the info was questionable, but at the time, not known whether it was right or wrong.

Only seems like a big deal to people who already don't like Bush, to the rest of us it just seems like a bueracratic slip up.

Again...big deal, as I am sure the questionable quote was not the straw that broke the camels back when most of the dems in congress voted to take out Saddam.

Bush did NOT do this by himself, he had congressional approval, and nothing anyone says on here can change that.

DD