One of the more common claims now in the Arab world is that the neocons' plan all along was to divide Iraq into three weaker states, thereby further dividing and weakening the Arabs/Muslims. They are arguing that a similar policy will be pursued in the Sudan, Lebanon, and possibly Iran. In fact, some government officials in the Arab world are now pointing fingers at the administration for 'emphasizing and promoting' ethnic division in Iraq. People will believe what they want...
Baker was on Glenn Beck's TV show on Friday. He said specifically, "There is still a chance for a Representative Democracy to succeed in Iraq." He then went on to predict what a difference victory in Iraq would mean for the Middle East as a whole. Now, was he lying about what he believes? Or did the Sun make up the basis for this entire article? We'll see in a month, but I'd bet the house on the latter.
Yeah, because the three groups would be getting along so well sans the US. You're right that they'll believe what they want to - the Iranians were claiming Al Qaeda was the CIA.
I watched his interview on Charlie Rose a few days ago, and he was anything but positive about the prospects of success or 'victory' in Iraq. It was a long interview, but it was enough to give me the impression that he wasn't entirely pleased about the current course we're on. Moreover, he did state that the administration won't be "too pleased" with some of the things said in the report.
There is so much misinformation out there, it has become nearly impossible to determine who is telling the 'truth' -- if there is one -- and who's lying...my guess is that everyone is lying.
No, it was a resolution authorizing the use of force to enforece U.N. security resolutions. No where was there a U.N. security resolution calling for regime change in Iraq. Congress didn't not give the power for declaration of war - only of that to use force to enforce Iraqi compliance. That's not the same for regime change. Secondly - most democratic leaders who did vote for the war made it clear that their vote was to authorize the president to use force more as a bargaining chip with the U.N. and to pressure on Saddam - as a path to a peaceful resolution. The resolution called for further deplomacy until every avenue has been exhausted. Bush just thumbed his nose at the U.N. and went at it alone. So really, the whole resolution that BUSH REQUESTED from Congress was a bunch of contrived baloney. I'm tired of the story. This was Bush's war from start to finish. Everyone knows it, and it's a neocon nut-job cop out trying to show a CYA piece of paper to say, hey - we weren't the only ones. NO, they were the only ones. Bush wanted this war from the start. Cheney wanted to go into Iraq Sept 12th - whether it had anything to do with 9/11 or not. Data was manipulated and presented to build a case for war. Anything was used to say Iraq had WMD's - because Bush wanted a war. The U.N. was ignored and made irrelevant - the U.S. went to war despite the objections and pleas of our closet allies in Europe. Outside the U.K. - our biggest partner was Poland. Do not try to sugar coat or anything else. Before this, I was a moderate Republican. I am utterly disgusted and turned off by what has transpired in the last few years. The level of incompetence, corruption, and manipulation of truth to serve a nearly fanatical agenda has been a harrowing experience. I suggest if you truly value your party and conservative, you do the right thing and vote against your party this nov. It's the only way to reform what terribly has gone wrong with the Republican party. We need to get these clowns out of here and never forget the extent of damage the Bush Admin has done to this country. Don't defend them. Put your country ahead of your politics.
Well, you have nut-jobs in this country thinking 9/11 was a conspiracy by our government! Hasn't anyone realized anything from living here for more then a few years is that our government is utterly too incompetant to pull of anything like 9/11.
It's one of the dumbest 'conspiracy theories' to ever surface. I would be more willing to give some credence to the claim that some foreign intelligence operation was behind it (not actually carrying out the attacks, but making it easier for the hijackers to carry it out; 'facilitating' it, that is), or even some private -- but very small -- group of interested individuals with 'connections' and something to gain, just not the government...especially this one.
Thank you. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat and NEVER will be either one. Bush plainly made the case that the vote was not for war; it was a vote to give him maximum leverage in negotiation because it GAVE HIM THE OPTION to use force. HayesStreet, you can believe what you want, but the fact is there is no inconsistency in voting to give authority for war while not favoring the invasion. It's people like you (not you personally) who prevent nuanced views from being expressed and condense debates down to slogans and demagogery. One thing we agree on is in the future, no president will ever be given the doubt because of Bush. Any future vote to authorize the use of force (for the sake of negoitating leverage) definitely will a vote on whether to use force or not. A Bush-type con job will never work again. This is a straight-jacket administrations will now have to deal with. The notion of "Trust me, I'll use good judgement if given the tools" is dead forever.
Hayes the President's claim was that voting to give him that authority was so that he could keep the peace. Voting to give him that authority is not a vote to invade. You say that congress knew what there were authorizing. Are you suggesting that the President was lying and Congress should have known that voting to give him the authority was a vote to invade? If the President was telling the truth, then Congress wasn't voting to invade, but to give the president another tool to use in diplomacy.
Let us examine of this excerpt of the floor speech of Hillary Clinton right before she voted for authorization....
It's just too risky. No matter how cynical one might be....you really have to have a dark view of human nature to some degree to believe that a weapon's company CEO or such would somehow find out about the plot and then find a way to encourage it. Those are two big if's. And I don't think groups uncover bits of information and then sit around talking about strategy on how to use it for political advantage. Things are done by protocal. Some person uncovers intel and it moves through pre-set chains and is likely to be shared with counterparts abroad. Again the risk is too high that someone in the org would be accused of a cover-up by upper people or lower people. Who is going to take that chance? One of the great things to dispense with conspiracy theories are two things. People actually get a bit freaked out and those that go along may decide to write a book. The point is....would you ever trust another person do be on something heinous - so heinous that if it ever got out you'd be in super big trouble? Like your life being ruined? Would you trust your boss, your underlings, and people who you don't even know - people you might not have even met? Because that's what it would take.
Sorry but I think your position is silly. Either Congress authorized intervention or they didn't. It is a fact that the authorization was necessary to intervene in Iraq, otherwise there was no reason to even have a vote for authorization. Congress chose to give that authorization. That is also a fact. Hell, Democrats were continuing to say they would have taken the same action in the last election. You're attempting to overwhelm common sense with a salvo of anti-Bush rhetoric. Don't like Bush? That's ok. But to absolve Congress of their enumerated responsibility is just partisan ridiculousness. Either they were unfathomably naive and abdicated their responsibility by giving the President authorization without verification or they also believed there was enough reason to intervene in Iraq. It has to be one of the two. Either they abandoned their responsibility (the whole point of having to get authorization from Congress) or they were totally incompetant. Spain? Italy? I don't think France, Russia, China, and Germany are our 'closest allies.' Your own bias is affecting your conclusions. I am not a Republican. I was not a Republican in 2000 or 2004. I am not a Bush supporter. Take a step back and it should be easier for you to see that holding Congress responsible for their actions does not absolve the President of his culpability. In your view the evil neocon cabal and Bush fooled Congress? Are they a bunch of boobs that can't think for themselves? The excuses simply don't work. Every single criticism about the intervention being recited NOW were out there THEN.
so why didn't congress just simply declare war if they know that their vote for authorization is a vote for war?
Uh, ok. You've got to be kidding. The view that the infamous neocon cabal and ONLY the neocon cabal has any culpability in the intervention in Iraq, that anyone who suggests otherwise is dumbing down debate, and engaging in demogogery - is itself a prime example of condensing debates to slogans and demogogery. What is the point, I wonder, of authorization to begin with? Doesn't it all come out of the Gulf of Tonkin and War Powers debate? Remember? Where we got involved in a big ol' mess called Vietnam because Congress didn't have the will or authority to verify executive action was the best course to take? That is the whole point. Congress had a duty to actively make a decision about the use of force. If they abdicated that responsibility and just left it up to Bush then they FAILED in their enumerated duty. If they were duped by some shell game of 'will go in, won't go in' then they failed in their enumerated duty. This obsession with blaming only the evil neocon cabal is the antithesis of reasoned debate. IIRC the President didn't ask for a declaration of war. Correct me if I'm wrong. OTOH it is pretty clear that Congress knew authorizing intervention could result in intervention. Contending otherwise is just silly.
so the admin was "forced" to attack iraq even if there were doubts on intelligence whether iraq had wmds or not because congress already authorized them?
BTW: some of the points made above are just false. If you look at the 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' you'll see there was authorization for regime change as well as to act outside the parameters of the UN Security Resolutions. "Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq... (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. -- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
