And they know that Democrats are the ones who wanted to go after our attackers with a vengeance from the very beginning, and Bush was the one who diverted our country from this mission at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers' lives, and strategic losses in the fight against Islamic extremism.
On September 14, 2001, it was Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle who sponsored S.J.RES.23:
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
S.J.Res.23
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The vote? 98-0. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted enthusiastically to "prepare for war."
Democrats continued to advocate the real War on Terrorism while Bush was scheming how to get rid of Saddam. Senator Feingold's comments on October 11, 2002 prove that it was anti-Iraq-war Democrats, not pro-Iraq-war Republicans, who were right - that it was we who were the ones truly concerned about destroying the people who attacked us, and we who have been vindicated.
Feingold said, in October 2002:
Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.
And Americans say, today:
"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse.
Feingold said, in October 2002:
An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
And Americans say, today:
For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Feingold said, in October 2002:
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
And the CIA says, today:
A new, classified assessment by the CIA says that Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it provides a new laboratory for militants to hone their skills in urban combat.
Feingold said, in October 2002:
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
And Republican Senators say, today:
"
We didn't plan right, we didn't know what we were getting into, and we weren't prepared. It's borne out in what's going on and the mess that we're in today."...
"I don't know where the vice president is getting his information from. It's not where I'm getting mine from. This administration at the top-the civilian leaders-is disconnected from what's going on."
Feingold said, in October 2002:
I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.
And the CIA agrees.
So, Karl:
We were right. You were wrong.
We stood on the side of a forceful response to terrorism, a laser-like focus on keeping our country safe, funding homeland security, preventing further attacks at home.
You stood against a Homeland Security Department, against the 9/11 Commission, and for the Iraq war that has made us less safe.
Democrats are fiercely defending and promoting our National Security.
Republicans are defending incompetence, lies, and failures, and "moderation and restraint" against the true harborers of our enemies.
Maybe it's time for you to seek some therapy. Or maybe just take some drugs. Those "last throes" won't be painless.
Comments are closed on this story.