What The Democrats Said

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."

Dean, on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Yet, in his now familiar flip-flop style, candidate Dean later declared, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States."...



...Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

". . . I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. . . . This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this. . . . There's no question that . . . there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al Qaeda). It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 2002, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." (end excerpt)

by Larry Elder

Full Text of Article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040122.shtml

[Taxman]

Hallelujia! The mystery is solved! Despite the presence of any actual physical evidence, because they expressed their opinion on the matter (which they obviously try to hide now), it must be true!

Try this on for size: the US congress admitted I believe under Bush Sr., that US companies had sold many biological agents, including Anthrax (and others that I can really drusge up the details on if you care) to Iraq, back when they were our buddies (hmm, now who was in office then?). So maybe those Democrats did know what they were talking about. At the least, if they did have those weapons (which I will believe once they find a single shred of evidence), it's because we gave them to Saddam.

Now to preemptively protect myself, I do think the recanting of their previous statements combined with too vicious attacks on Buch was a mistake for some of the Democratic candidates, but lets not read too much into something like this, especiallyl coming from an obviously partisan source. I'd also like to read the parts of those quotes that were left out. At times such things can be more relevant than the author may indicate.

[MMMMMM]

Just showing their duplicity in the current climate.

[adios]

Another showing how Dean has been pandering. Anyway I think Howard Dean's campaign is already over and he's out. Polls in New Hampshire show Kerry in the lead now. Can't see how Dean will do well in the south for instance. Dean's shot himself in the foot too many times.

Poll: Kerry Sails Past Dean for New Hampshire Lead (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20040122/pl_nm/campaign_poll_dc)

Poll: Kerry Sails Past Dean for New Hampshire Lead
Thu Jan 22, 7:01 AM ET Add Politics - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), riding a wave of momentum from his Iowa caucus victory, grabbed a three-point lead over Howard Dean (news - web sites) in New Hampshire five days before the state's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator whose come-from-behind win in Iowa reshaped the Democratic presidential race, led Dean 27 percent to 24 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, which began the day of Iowa's caucuses.


Kerry stretched his lead over Dean, who limped to a distant third-place finish in Iowa, to 11 points in the most recent day of polling on Wednesday.


"Kerry not only jumps into the lead, but today his lead was commanding," pollster John Zogby said. "Remember, we still have one-third of the sample taken before the Iowa caucus."


A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.


The poll found voters were still changing their minds about Tuesday's primary in New Hampshire, with Kerry gaining four percentage points and Dean dropping one percentage point. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (news - web sites), in third place, continued to slip slightly each day, dropping one percentage point to 15 percent.


North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), fresh from his surprise second place finish in Iowa, held fourth place with 8 percent, a gain of one point. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman was at 7 percent, down one point.


Zogby said Edwards did not seem to have gotten a big bounce from Iowa yet, although "it normally takes two full days before we see a major impact from any event."


A total of 17 percent of New Hampshire voters are still undecided about the primary, up one percentage point.


Zogby said Dean's fevered, arm-pumping speech after the caucuses on Monday "had no negative impact on young voters at all in New Hampshire," although Kerry had moved even with or ahead of Dean among most other voter categories.


The switch at the top represents a dramatic turnaround for both Kerry and Dean. The former Vermont governor soared to a more than 20-point lead in New Hampshire polls late last year, but Kerry roared back in Iowa's final two weeks as voters began to re-evaluate which Democrat was best suited to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) in November.


The poll of 601 likely primary voters was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points. It will continue through Tuesday, the day of the New Hampshire primary.


Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites) received 1 percent in the poll, with civil rights activist Al Sharpton (news - web sites) getting less than 1 percent.

[andyfox]

In the current climate? Politicians running for office are duplicitous. Period. The politicians you quoted are liars and they were wrong. Which is why the polls show them doing so poorly agaisnt Bush. Our intelligence was bad and the worst of it was used because it suited what we wanted to hear.

[Taxman]

Speaking of duplicity, I wonder why the Bush administration consistantly refused to offer up crucial evidence to determine how much they actually knew before the 9/11 attack and has dodged question after question about what kind of intelligence we actually had on Iraq before our invasion.

[adios]

"Our intelligence was bad and the worst of it was used because it suited what we wanted to hear. "

First of all did those who relied on our intelligence data know it was bad or did they believe it was accurate? That seems to be a worthwhile question that deserves an answer from the power brokers in Washingtion. If the intelligence is known to be unreliable then relying on such intelligence is far different than relying on it if you think the intelligence data is accurate.

If we assume that those who relied on our intelligence thought it was reliable (no need to discuss the case of using known to be unreliable intelligence data), are you stating that the intelligence used was known to be worse i.e. more unreliable by those who used it?

[andyfox]

"did those who relied on our intelligence data know it was bad or did they believe it was accurate?"

I'd say a little bit of both. They had made up their miinds already and grabbed onto evidence to support it. This is not terribly unusual. James Fallows, in his Atlantic article, claims the powers-that-be put themselves into the intelligence agencies to make sure they got what they wanted, even though the agencies themselves said the data was not reliable, and then reported this information at Cabinet meetings as if it was gospel.

So yes, it appears that the intelligence used was known to be worse i.e. more unreliable by those who used it.

[adios]

Ok but those in Congress who did their own due dilligence so to speak must also have known that the intelligence data was weak. Perhaps not many in Congress did a sufficient amount of analysis but I doubt if that's the case. Also relying on intelligence data that is known to be unreliable would have to be thought to be highly risky in political terms since the eventual outcome is much more likely to yield unpleasant surprises.

Now what Fallows is apparently claiming (I haven't read the article) is far more insidious than using unreliable intelligence data. What Fallows seems to be claiming is that the administration manipulated the system by:

"powers-that-be put themselves into the intelligence agencies to make sure they got what they wanted."

By doing this those in Congress that thought the intelligence data was reliable were duped by the administrations actions to manipulate the information flow. Haven't heard any Democrats claiming this. I'd like to see the evidence that Fallows bases his case on. Did you post a link to this article or did he write this in a book that you posted about?

[andyfox]

Those in Congress didn't due their due diligence. They saw which way the wind was blowing and got on board. The war was coming and Hussein was a bad guy and there was 9/11. Case closed.

I didn't post a link to the article. I tried the Atlantic web site, but the article isn't available (for free). However, the other article I cited, about how our intelligence was wrong is available:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

All administrations manipulate the information flow. Especially when they're going to war. If none of the Dems running for President are jumping on this, again it's because it's probably not too smart with out troops still there. I haven't been paying all that much attention, but I imagine Senator Kennedy and perhaps some others have harped on this; easy for him to do so since he doesn't have anything to worry about politically. [And he might be feeling his oats a bit since he campaigned extensively for Senator Kerry, who has, apparently, risen from the dead.]

[MMMMMM]

"...for Senator Kerry, who has, apparently, risen from the dead.]"

Indeed, and how apt.

[andyfox]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Bill Maher said Kerry looks like he just got finished throwing apples at Dorothy and Toto.

[Chris Alger]

Exactly. There was no serious alternative to the "war" party and the war would probably have occurred regardless of who was in White House. Worldwide and domestically, the conquest of Iraq was among the most bitterly opposed wars ever. Yet Americans were bombarded with so much propaganda about Iraq from bipartisan, "respectable" sources that all but the most informed succumbed to a mass hysteria that indoctrinated them with a cartoonish version of reality. Americans believed they had no choice, and for different reasons they didn't.

[Zeno]

Mother Jones Magazine also has an article on this subject in their current issue. Here is the link but the entire article is not available unless you subscribe [Mother Jones is a capitalist] The Lie Factory (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html)

All good liberals read Mother Jones. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[adios]

"Those in Congress didn't due their due diligence. They saw which way the wind was blowing and got on board. The war was coming and Hussein was a bad guy and there was 9/11. Case closed."

What evidence do you have to back this up? This is just your opinion presented as fact. BTW for Messrs Kerry and Edwards who voted for the resolution that apparently are part of the group that didn't due their due dilligence (if they did due their due dilligence then they have indeed flip flopped) in Congress, methinks it doesn't speak very highly of their credentials for President. I think Dennis Kucinich is horrid but at least the guy can say he's consistent in his opposition to US actions in Iraq. Somehow I have more respect for someone like that than someone who either didn't do their research or is flip flopping. Does follow to me that politicians that you're accusing of bending to what ever way the political wind blows so to speak would risk a vote on an unknown, highly risky outcome.

"All administrations manipulate the information flow."

Allow me to make my points a little clearer. What you wrote about in your previous post was tantamount to accusing the Bush administration of fabricating intelligence information. If the information is fabricated why not fabricate WMD evidence?

"If none of the Dems running for President are jumping on this, again it's because it's probably not too smart with out troops still there."

Huh? They would withhold knowledge that the administration fabricated intelligence information to protect the troops? Don't follow that logic.

"I haven't been paying all that much attention, but I imagine Senator Kennedy and perhaps some others have harped on this;"

Not to my knowledge. Kennedy used the word "fraud" when discussing Bush's Iraqi actions which many thought was way over the top so to speak. Kennedy to my knowledge has backed way away from that stance.

[adios]

Thanks for the article link. Long on supposition, real short on facts /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I see the Democrats are now changing their story after it appears that Kerry is the favorite. That story is we were duped by fabricated intelligence by the Bush administration.

[andyfox]

"What evidence do you have to back this up? This is just your opinion presented as fact."

-Fifty years of watching congresspeople in action. The most consistent thing they do is try to get reeelected.

"If the information is fabricated why not fabricate WMD evidence?"

-I always aid either the WMDs would be found or they would be "found." Yesterday Cheney insisted they were indeed found.

And yes, I'm accusing the Bush administration of fabricating evidence. They took highly suspect inteelligence, which they knew to bve highly suspect, and gave it the inprimatur of gospel. Cheney spent a helluva lot of time hinself at the CIA making sure those softies didn't present the administration with evidence that contradicted what he, Cheney, already knew, namely, that we were going to war and the reasons for that was were that Hussein had contacts with al Qaeda, that he had responsibility for 9/11, and that he was a danger to us because he had and/or was developing WMDs.

"They would withhold knowledge that the administration fabricated intelligence information"

-Uh, yes. They do it all the time. You can't be too anti-war until the polls show that it's correct to be so.

You're giving these guys way too much credit. They're politicians. Some of them want to be president. It's about saying and doing the right things to get votes. Always has been, always will. You find a man or woman of principle whose political views match yours, and you got something special. Such animals are an endangered species, if they ever thrived at all.