Ever wonder how to deal with Republicans when they try and throw it up in your face that a Democratic senator supported President Bush's decision to go to war? Read on. . .
A Republican friend of mine, in response to several quotes I posted from conservative commentators back in 2003, crowing about how easy the Iraq war was to be, as usual, couldn't resist the temptation to answer fact with "Yeah, but the Democrats sure were anxious to line up behind the president to support the war!", mentioning in particular this quote by Senator Jay Rockefeller:
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
"The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks--and we should not minimize the risks--we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
October 10, 2002
Senate Floor
He continues:
Now Senator Jay did not come to his conclusions based on the fact that Saddam had WMDs, but because of his efforts.
"The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."
February 5, 2003 - Speaking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN regarding the implications of al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war.
Here, the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence committee states that there was an Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I know, I know, he was lied to right. The Vice Chairman was completely duped by the President that those on the left call inept. It that was true, and it is not, then the Vice Chairman should resign since he obviously cannot perform his oversight responsiblity. We obviously cannot have faith for the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committe to do his job. This means he is either inept or is lying.
Well, needless to say, I've pretty much had enough of this nonsense and promptly put THIS issue to rest. I hope my response can help you all:
Since when did a Republican care about oversight? Not since 1998.
The quotes I included had nothing to do with motivation for going to Iraq. They had to do with the erroneous idea that this would be quick, easy, and of minimal casualties. Whoops! One day away from the 3 year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished", things are as bad or worse for the people over there and INFINITELY worse for the 2300 plus dead Americans. Largest airstrike since the war began? That's a sign of a stable country, where everything is going, as General Pace put it, "very, very well"? I think not.
News Flash! ! ! This just in! Senators have no ability to authorize the collection of intelligence! That is authorized by the president and, as the Downing Street Memos have since pointed out, apparently he has the authority to fix the intelligence around his policies, as well.
I may serve on a commitee at my job looking into the impending threat of cancer-causing asbestos in my building. Based on the information given, I may make the difficult decision that the company's savings need to be depleted in order to deal with the imminent threat of lung cancer to all the employees in the building. But ultimately, if it is my EMPLOYER who is giving me the information I base my decision on, I really have no choice but to believe what they tell me and authorize the dealing with the imminent threat.
Rockefeller served on a committee that made a decision to support the President's decision to go to war, based on intelligence provided by the administration and those working within the administration. The people gathering that intelligence were not elected officials and they ultimately all report to the president, NOT the Congress. Try as you may, this was a bait and switch with the reasons for going changing from WMDs, to freeing the Iraqi people, to "al-Qaeda" is there to whatever the president thinks he can get the American public to swallow. This is not a question of Rockefeller or any other Democrat lying or changing positions. . .this is about Congress and the American people being LIED TO. This is not about Senator Rockefeller being inept, this is about President Bush being hell-bent on going to Iraq. Richard Clarke has testified under oath (something Alberto Gonzales was not required to do in HIS last appearance before Congress) that this president from the get-go was more interested in getting into Iraq than he was with dealing with al-Qaeda. It took over 3000 plus dead Americans in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania before he became truly interested.
Spin it any way you like (and you will), but this was not ANYBODY'S war but Bush's and history has already proven that to be true.