How soon we forget, when we practice the art of selective memory and exploit the war and our troops in battle for political gain.
On October 11, 2002, one year and one month to the day after September 11, 2001, the U.S. Senate voted on whether or not to authorize use of military force to affect the official U.S. policy regarding Iraq. That policy was established by the Clinton administration in 1998, after being rejected along with UN inspectors and 16 broken resolutions, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, 77 Senators voted to authorize use of force to depose the Hussein regime in Iraq and liberate the Iraqi people. They did so believing that the Hussein regime was continuing to develop and pursue bio, chemical and nuclear war technologies that could be shared with a vast international network of terror organizations, making the next attack on U.S. soil potentially much worse than that of 9/11.
In modern politics, 77% agreement is a firm consensus
In the Senate, only 66% is required to over-rule a Presidential veto. This means that 77% solidly believed that they had enough valid intelligence to commit American soldiers to battle, the most important decision any senator can ever make. They would never have committed troops to battle on any less, would they?
Did they make this decision strictly on Bush’s word - Without doing any of their own homework? I sincerely hope not…
Among those 77 Senators were none other than Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Edwards (D-NC), Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Biden (D-DE), all of whom are asking for your vote for President of the United States in 2008, all of whom have denounced their vote since and worked to undermine the mission they approved. (Barack Obama was not a Senator until 2005 and had no access to intelligence reports at the time. But he claims 20/20 hindsight.)
Over in the People’s House on October 10, 2002 – with 136 sponsors
The vote was affirmative, 296-133. 68.5% of House members were also convinced that they had enough valid intelligence to commit troops to battle in Iraq, again a consensus of more than 2/3. Was their vote cast on Bush’s word alone?In 2002, they were following expert advice
Democrats believed that Bush was an “invalid President” who stole the election in 2000, with the help of a then liberal Supreme Court. They trusted his word or opinion on nothing.
But before Bush took office in January 2001, all of them had made their own assessments of Hussein and Iraq for years. All of them are on record with those “expert” assessments - all of them! All of these assessments were based on the same intelligence reports Bush would soon see as the incoming President in January of ’01.
The pre-war Intelligence
The international intelligence community among trusted allies had reached a consensus regarding Iraq as well. The vast majority believed the same thing 77% of the Senate and 68.5% of the House believed, along with the Bush administration. Hussein was simply a risk not worth taking after 9/11. Opinion was not unanimous. But it was as close as it ever gets.
In 2007, campaigning for 2008, they claim expertise, but no responsibility
Many Democrats have changed their minds since 2002. They claim their 2002 vote was an error and blame that vote on Bush, claiming to have been misled into those votes by faulty intelligence, specifically Bush intelligence reports.
If it’s true, that they were misled by faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq, then they were misled by the same intelligence reports Bush used to make the same decision. Bush was misled as well, by intelligence gathered, assembled and assessed by agencies still under the direction of Clinton appointed heads. Or, was anyone “misled?”
FBI director Louis Freeh was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and remained at the helm of that agency until five days before 9/11.
Bush’s early NSA Director Michael Hayden, was also adopted from the Clinton administration, who appointed him in 1999.
Democrats trusted the pre-war intelligence because it was all but unanimous and it was collected, assembled, assessed and reported by Clinton appointees, not Bush.
Looking ahead in 2007
House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi, left for Thanksgiving break without passing a resolution funding the troops in combat. They passed a base budget for the Pentagon which does not include funding for troops in harm’s way.
The House passed a bill tying combat funding to troop withdrawal, retreat, or surrender, depending upon if you are a partisan politician exploiting the war for political gain or a soldier in combat waiting for funding. It was rejected by the Senate.
As the members of congress who voted to send troops to Iraq head home for turkey and dressing with loved ones, the troops in Iraq await their unfunded fate and the Pentagon scrambles to look for state-side cuts to shift temporary funding to the troops in battle. It should be a crime. It used to be…treason.
The difference between 2002 and 2007 is this…
In 2002, after the events of 9/11, most Washington politicians were more concerned with the next 9/11 than the next election. As a result, they trusted the experts who told them Hussein was a risk not worth taking. How soon we forget…
In 2007, hungry for a return to power in the oval office, the people telling you that they did no homework of their own before committing troops to battle in 2002, now tell you that they are the experts you can trust on intelligence, war planning and national security strategies.
Do you believe them? How could you?
This Thanksgiving, I want to Thank God for each and every soldier willing to stand a post to keep America safe and free for the rest of us, without or without the support they so deserve.
I also want to remind my fellow Americans that it is these young men and women who are the heroes that keep us safe and free, not self-aggrandizing politicians more concerned with their political futures than the lives of our troops.
“We’ll fund you, if you agree to surrender?”
No thanks!
©2007 - JB Williams / USA
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.