How has Iraq affected candidates' views on foreign policy and warfare?
Submitted by mad4clark on March 1, 2007 - 3:07pm.
Chris Dodd | Congress | Hillary Clinton | IWR vote | Joe Biden | John Edwards | Iraq
Many of us get into arguments discussions over at dKos and elsewhere when Edwards supporters tout the fact that his apology for his IWR vote absolves him of all sin. In fact they go a step further by slamming Hillary for standing by her vote. Personally I don't care whether she apologizes or not. To me it was the original vote that was the sin, and no amount of recanting (when things turned to sh*t) will wipe it away.
Alex Rossmiller at American Prospect takes this argument a step further and hits the nail on the head. imho
snippet
...All of which brings us back to the Democratic candidates. The issue with Clinton is not her refusal to apologize, but whether she still believes it is sometimes proper to invade and occupy countries that pose no imminent danger to the United States or its allies. Edwards, conversely, has unflinchingly repudiated his vote, blaming the Bush administration and the intelligence process for leading him to believe Iraq was a threat that we needed to immediately address. It is not difficult to imagine that his decision, made as a Senator with no substantial foreign policy experience or record, was largely based on the false information peddled by the administration -- or by sheer political expediency -- rather than by a profound desire to remake the Middle East in a democratic image by force of arms. Still, Edwards has not made clear whether he has changed his mind about when war should be waged. Obama largely escapes critique on Iraq, and rightly so, because he opposed the war from the beginning. He recognized even in 2002 that Iraq was a "dumb war" and presciently said that Saddam posed no imminent and direct threat -- but he has not identified what constitutes a "smart war." Does he have a doctrinal outlook on foreign policy strategy or the use of force?
If people want to get a real sense of how Iraq has affected candidates' views on foreign policy and warfare, they might start with some simple, straightforward questions that, in addition to having particular relevance and resonance in light of Iraq, look forward to future issues.
# What (if any) circumstances make appropriate invading a nation in the absence of an imminent threat to U.S. national security?
# Recognizing the danger of unforeseen consequences, under what kind of conditions would you use limited (i.e., non-invasion) force against a nation? How would the presence of nuclear weapons (e.g., North Korea or Pakistan) or the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons (e.g., Iran) affect those conditions?
# Most broadly: What do you believe are the appropriate requirements or rules for the use of military force in general?
Despite the unrelenting focus on Iraq, there remains a remarkable lack of information about what candidates believe are the lessons of our invasion for foreign policy in general and waging war in particular.....
Worth reading the whole thing.
can stop the blame the president and blame the false intelligence for their vote any day now. Hell, even I knew it was all bogus. The did it for pure political expediency and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Hooray!
They chose to ignore Wes Clark's testimony, Robert Byrd's stirring speech, and the Levin amendment. Twenty some senators saw the truth as we NOW KNOW IT. However these two made their own bed; now let them sleep in it. NO SENATORS who voted for this fiasco should, frankly, ever show their faces in public again, much less run for president of this once great nation.
(Made once-great due, in part, to their IWR vote and continuing support of the criminals who fostered it.)
Lincoln Chafee's op-ed blows all their excuses away once and for all. See it at:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/blog/87
Wes 08
...the intelligence. The difference is, he didn't see it as an imminent threat.
Personally, I don't thing H and E did either. They were just thinking of how their vote would play when they ran for President.....which is even worse than bad judgment. imho.
Re Iran....."all options on the table" isn't nearly as bad as their other mantra... "Iran must not be allowed to require nuclear weapons"
Run Wes Run!
put out there by BushCo was not the same as the real intelligence - before it got doctored and cherry-picked by Feith's band of badmen. I think Wes said that Saddam's weapons had pretty much been destroyed some years ago, but that he still would like to get his hands on some.
Wes 08
WESLEY CLARK: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) [See: www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html, www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html]
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375
The Clinton administration also believed they were there....
WASHINGTON (CNN) December 16, 1998
-- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said......
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
BUT Wes did not think this was a reason to rush to war.
Run Wes Run!
but I swear I read somewhere where Wes said that most, if not all, of the so-called WMD, which was pretty much poison gas and restricted missles, had been destroyed by the bombing in the 90's.
Wes 08
...."a snake in a box". He was contained and posed no threat to the U.S. or their neighbors in the region.
The thing is Hillary and Edwards obviously DON"T think that war should be a last last last resort and someone should ask them about that.
Run Wes Run!
Hi maddy,
Most Dems seem to be settling on three excuses: (1) "We were misled by bad intelligence;" (2) "I voted to give the President negotiating leverage, but I didn't think he'd go to war without U.N. approval;" and (3) "We didn't realize they'd bungle the postwar planning so bady." Myth, myth, and myth.
Was there bad pre-war intelligence? Duh. There is always bad pre-war intelligence. Even if the intel hadn't been stove-piped and cherry-picked, there would have been major mistakes. Intelligence work is always speculation and guesswork woven over a very thin framework of reliable data. It's always subject to political spin. And a look at the history of the Cold War shows that it's always flawed.
As for not thinking Bush & Co would go to war, puh-leeze. The neocon cartel had made it abundantly clear that they wanted a foreign policy based on intimidation and "making an example" of "rogue regimes." They'd published it on the PNAC website back in the late 90s. Senators and Representatives who claim ignorance on this are either lying or so woefully uninformed as to render themselves unworthy of office.
And as for the postwar planning, they do sell history books in D.C., don't they? The religious factions within Iraq were not secrets; we'd asked the Kurds and the Shi'a to revolt against Saddam back in 1991, and then abandoned them when they tried. That Iran sought greater influence in Iraq, and had provided asylum for Shi'a exiles, was public knowledge. Nothing that's happened since March, 2003 should have come as a surprise to anyone who has read about the region.
As maddy said, Wes thought Saddam had WMDs. Wes also thought invading Iraq was a mistake ... for all of the reasons that history has proved out ... again.
Mere apologies don't cut it. Show me that you've learned from your mistake, that you'd do your homework next time, and that you've come to recognize that decisions about war are way too important to be worried about looking "weak" in the next election.
Alternatively, step aside and let the grownups govern.
Crissie
"Invasion and occupation of another country entails so many unknowns, so many permutations and possibilities, that such an effort should be undertaken only in the face of imminent danger to the United States or its allies. Which candidates believe this notion?"
I would suggest none of them, because they just didn't/won't anticipate the unknowns. They can't look beyond their vote(s). That scares me. Wes knew, and not only knew there were unknowns, but calculated what those unknowns would be.
We want these people to "lead" this nation after Bush? I think not.
I want someone that can mentally walk through the scenarios of the foreseeable future with any decision made as Commander in Chief. Not someone who has the "audacity of hope" that things will turn out all right in a learn-as-you-go, fly-by-the-pants president, nor any "apologizers" who believe that their past votes regarding one of the most important decisions ever to be made in Congress is not a tell-tale about their lack of judgment.
I want Wes Clark.
forget it!
nevermind
can't format a post anymore
here's the link I tried to refer to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
good night, and good luck
Edwards sat on the intel committee and had to have
been privy to the same information that Senator Graham
saw in the link above, "What I Knew Before..."
Altho his supporters will claim that he didn't
see the same intel as the Republicans which may
or not be true...but he damned well saw the same
intel as Graham
(next they'll be saying Senator Graham witheld
intel from somw...poor poor somw)
Still tho, they always STFU when I mention this article...
oh yea....and I reject the apologies too, Maddy
....let them apologize to the widows and orphans.
...couldn't be bothered to read more than the summary.
But even if he had, I doubt it would have changed his vote because it was purely a political move....as is his change of heart.
In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.
But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.
The lack of congressional attention to the nitty-gritty details of Iraq's weapons programs is symptomatic of Congress's approach to a range of intelligence matters, according to current and former intelligence committee members and a broad swath of intelligence experts.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44837-2004Apr26
Run Wes Run!
yeabut I think Dana Priest missed the mark......
What I Knew Before the Invasion
Bob Graham Nov 20, 2005
snip>Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.>
(That was in Sept. 2002 Edwards was on the intel committee
What's the rationale for him presenting himself to the electorate
now?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
whatever Intel Edwards had was certainly more then I had and I was against it from the get go. When a person allows politics to enter into their decision to back a war effort they are doing so for all the wrong reasons. JRE can apologize from now until doomsday.....I'm not buying it and never will.
Yes, let him apoligize to the parents, widows & orphans who lost a loved one or will have to spend the remainder of their lives with the results of the damage that was inflicted on their body or their mind. An apology rings kind of hollow in the face of a situation like that.
The issue with Clinton is not her refusal to apologize, but whether she still believes it is sometimes proper to invade and occupy countries that pose no imminent danger to the United States or its allies.
Hillary could still have voted for the war, because maybe she thought Iraq DID pose an imminent threat to the United States.
The issue ought to be, who is most qualified to be president of the United States in a time of two wars. The answer is, not any candidate who knows as little about foreign policy and our national security as Hillary, Obama, and most of the other Democrats running for president today.
Whether someone listened to and researched the facts then made the correct judgement regardless of how this may/may not be politically correct.
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
...the likely long-term consequences of an action.
Most of the Dems who voted for the resolution couldn't see beyond the polls and the 2004 election. Wes Clark nailed it: "supercharging" terrorism, civil war, and a protracted quagmire.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
Wes received accolades for this skill, and got a new job to do it. Do you recall where it is written about?
Heck the &%$#! triangulating Clintons have always been politically correct. I'd rather have someone who was impolitically correct. She's very qualified on medical insurance as an issue, but doesn't know diddly about foreign affairs and national security. That's why I don't support her, and won't unless and until she gets the nomination.
...the full intelligence report, she (and the rest who voted) must have KNOWN that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat.
Plus they voted Nay to the Levin amendment. They gave boyking a blank check.
Wes didn't have access to all of that and he STILL didn't think we should "rush off to war"
Because he is smarter, has better judgment and would NEVER send young men and women to their death for domestic political reasons.
Run Wes Run!
The frustration of writers here is palpable.
The issue WKC faces as he contemplates running for president is framed with his own words: How does he achieve celebrity status?
After all, what is the Hillary/Obama media mania all about, leaving Edwards in the dust? What is the Rudy surge all about, leaving McCain in his rear view mirror? What was Arnold of California all about back in 2003? And how did Generals Washington, Grant, Jackson, and Eisenhower make it to the top: Celebrity status.
In 2003/2004, WKC succumb to his handlers who thought his military pedigree wouldn't sell with left-leaning Democratic Primary voters.
WKC wants to become a candidate. And he wants to do it soon. Of this I am convinced.
If he feels he has a formula to achieve celebrity status, he will run. If not, he won't.
but the media buzz is becoming a feedback loop. The press covers the horse race, helping create it in the process. The dominance of Hillary and Obama stems from this media horse race aspect of the campaign. Issues and competence have falling in the dust.
Television still rules, despite what TV says about the Obama campaign's Internet savvy, and real Internet campaigns are being left in the dust, just as Dean and Clark were eventually sidelined in 2004. Will the Internet eventually catch up?
Stay tuned, for the next American election cycle, here, on the Internet.
(We'll be right back after a brief word from our sponsor, Wes Clark for President.)
STAGE SET FOR "EXTRAORDINARY POLITICAL SHOWDOWN" IN SELMA: Bill Clinton will join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at a
commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala., on Sunday, bringing his star power and popularity among
African Americans to a weekend of events that had been shaping up as a showcase for the candidacy of Sen. Barack
Obama.It will be the former president's first major public appearance with his wife since she launched her campaign for
the Democratic presidential nomination last month. Obama (D-Ill.) announced several weeks ago that he would deliver the
keynote speech at a service honoring the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, joining Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and
other veterans of the civil rights movement in marking the historic event... The convergence of the Clintons and Obama
in the small Alabama town... sets the stage for an extraordinary political showdown -- and media circus. Washington
Post: At Site of '65 March, an '08 Collision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101877.html
And obvious. How stupid do they think people are? It's almost a slap in the face. I can't stand it - but stand it I must I guess... :-P
THANK YOU MADDY!!!
I've been talking about this "driving by the rear-view mirror" problem and I'm glad to see that others are talking about it also. As Rossmiller points out, both Hillary and Edwards agree that we need to get out of Iraq in some organized fashion.
But, as he fails to mention, both Hillary and Edwards agree with Cheney that "we must keep all options on the table" in Iran.
Albert Einstein defined neurosis as "doing the same thing again and again, while expecting a different outcome." Can we please stop electing neurotics (at best)?
Crissie